A New 3D-Printed Device Is On The Way
As Mrs. Lion wrote yesterday in her post, she gave me a nice orgasm after waiting eight days. I’m not sure why but the time I spent locked in the Jail Bird made peeing more difficult for me than it has been in a very long time. For some reason, my urethra wandered out of the opening intended for it. Mrs. Lion was sanguine about my difficulties, pointing out that it’s what I should expect if I want to be caged. I suppose so.
I found a new 3D-printed chastity device. Of course, I ordered it. It’s very reasonably priced and competes favorably with many of the other off-the-shelf products out there. Once I get it, I’ll publish your review. There seems to be very little new in the chastity device world. What attracted me to this particular one (called the Cherry Keeper) is that it’s available with a feature called the “headlock”. This is a lip on the inside, bottom of the cage itself. You can order this lip in several sizes. The idea is that the head of the penis has to be forced through this smaller opening into the larger, correctly-sized cage above. The maker claims this lip makes pullout much more difficult. I’m not so sure about that, but I do believe it will hold the head in place inside the cage. This will make things neater and easier for the wearer.
What’s also significant is that the cage itself is just a little over 1 inch long. It’s designed to hold just the head of the penis. I believe longer versions of the cage are also available with this feature. However, my current thinking is that anything over an inch is probably a problem. I’m not getting too excited yet about this device because being 3D-printed, it may have a rough finish needing smoothing. Unlike other similar devices, it’s available in a “premium” finish. It more than doubles the cost of each component but it promises to be much smoother. We’ll see.
Because it’s made out of stainless steel, the Jail Bird can’t have the sort of anatomical accuracy printed devices can have. The cherrykeeper can be fully customized. The only extra cost, beyond the charges for printing the components, is a $75 design fee. The maker suggested that I might be very happy with the standard small cage including the headlock. It’s worth a try.
I’m previewing this product before I receive it so that if you want to try one yourself before I get mine, you can. Here’s a link to the site. Based on the few small reviews I’ve read of this product, is very promising. If you do decide to try it, I strongly urge you to order the premium finish. I also suggest that you buy it in white. That’s the natural color of the plastic. The other colors are just painted on the outside and will wear off. Since the device is buried in your underwear anyway, is color really necessary?
I would love to learn how to do 3D design. I think it would be fun to try my hand at designing a chastity device. By the way, the other plastic, 3D-printed device that I have is much more expensive and not nearly as innovative. It too is printed by Shapeways, one of the oldest and largest 3D printing companies.
Thanks to the ever-growing array of Chinese devices, offered at bargain prices, enforced male chastity is becoming very affordable. Also, it seems that the various manufacturers are recognizing the real-life size of most Western penises. I know that early versions of the smaller cages offered by the Chinese companies, were either way too long, or when shorter, very narrow. If there is such a thing as a standard size, the base ring would be one and three-quarter inches (45 mm) and the cage diameter about 1.3 inches (33 mm). Based on my experience, the optimum length for a cage is about 1 inch (26 mm). It would be very unusual to need one larger or smaller.
Since I’m on that subject, there are guys who have much wider penises. There are also men who need larger or smaller base rings. So far, nobody seems to need a longer cage. I spent a lot of time writing about how important properly fitting a base ring is. I bought into the idea that a tighter base ring made the device more secure. I suppose it adds a little more security if that ring really squeezes down. The loss of comfort and risk of injury, more than offsets any improvement in preventing escape.
All of these devices can be escaped. That’s even true of the ones that make use of a piercing. You can always cut the ring or pin that goes through the piercing. I think most of us of stop worrying very much about escape. None of us are locked in against our will. So the idea of escape doesn’t make any sense. The base ring itself needs to be big enough so that you can wear it with no discomfort. You should never need to use any sort of lubricant on it. It has to be small enough so that one of your balls can’t slip out. The ring has to be quite a bit larger than necessary for that to happen. Based on what I’ve read, that 45 mm ring is a perfect starting point.
So far, despite all the Chinese stainless steel devices and various plastic devices I’ve acquired, Mrs. Lion’s go-two choice is the Jail Bird. I tend to favor it as well. However, I keep hoping that one of these new devices will be more comfortable (hard to believe!) and neater to use than the Jail Bird. If the Cherry Keeper lives up to my expectations, it may be our next first choice. I expect that unless by some miracle, the off-the-shelf fits perfectly, I’ll probably order a custom device designed to my exact size.
In my mind, the ideal chastity device is a second skin made of a rigid material that keeps me completely flaccid and unable to be sexually stimulated. I believe that the only possible way I could attain this chastity Nirvana is by getting a 3D-printed chastity device made to my exact specifications. The only reason I would have to go to this extreme is that even the Cherry Keeper’s smallest cage is still about 5 to 10 mm too long. We’ll see. Stay tuned.