So many devices, just the one penis

New shiny pretty thingWhilst perusing the Tumblr, I saw a new (for me) stainless device.

Turns out the BON4 guys of silicone device fame have a new metal option, the BON4M. Looks nice. I like the cage design. Very sleek. Also a big fan of the brushed metal look. Aren’t too many using that finish out there that I’m aware of. Also like that the gaps between the bars seem too narrow to do much more than get the tips of your pinky in there but are ample enough to allow for easy cleaning.

Not sure about those hinged rings, though. It seems to me that the gaps down there would be a place where irritation would form, especially when the hydraulics are active. I’m a fan of solid rings, myself. And the brass lock sitting on top of that metal cage might end up being a lot like tieing a little cowbell on your penis. Also, though it’s very hard to know from the images, I wonder how smooth the BON4M is. Little bits and burrs are just more opportunities for discomfort and hot spots. Finally, that A-ring has the dreaded sharp corners like the CB-6000. Bah!

Anyone out there have any experience with the BON4M?

V2_small_blackIn other new device news, the Holy Trainer’s been redesigned. Their great A-ring appears to be the same and the tube looks largely unchanged, as well, but it’s sporting an all new and simplified lock design.

In my Holy Trainer review, I was concerned about how durable the hole through which the padlock was locked would prove to be over time. This new design appears to totally resolve that by eliminating the padlock all together (along with the little cap that held the ring and tube together). It’s the only plastic device I know of that uses the same type of integrated lock Steelworxx offers. Looks bulky, but not any bulkier than the old design which, in practice, wasn’t all that big a deal. It’s still made of the controversial “biosourced resin” so the caveats regarding the clear version and heat-related breakage remains, I assume.

While I haven’t worn it, this new design looks even better than the old one. Still waiting to see what CB-X’s response will be. The Holy Trainer is a very competitive product and the CB-6000 is looking older and less innovative by the day.

Finally, I’m noodling a revised Looker 02. The one I’m wearing right now is, truth be told, my favorite of Belle’s steel devices, but it could be improved. The urethral insert would be better if it were bigger. It’s 6mm in diameter and it tends to retain fluid after urinating. I think that, if it were bigger (maybe 9 or 10mm), the urine would be more likely to drain. The extra girth wouldn’t be a problem as that’s still much smaller than the largest sound I’ve used.

In addition, the cap at the end of the cage could be improved if it were just about 10mm longer. The edge of the penis’ glans occasionally gets pinched between my pants/underwear and the lip of the cap. If it were just a tad longer, that’d resolve the issue. Additionally, the overall length of the device could be about 5mm or so shorter and the diameter of the cage could even be a little smaller.

2014-03-19 19.36.49Lastly, I’d like the urethral insert to be positioned lower in the cage than it is now. That’d make it a closer fit to the penis’ anatomy.

I’ve sketched up what I’m thinking. We might order this, though with the cap modification and at current exchange rates, it’d be pushing $500. Not cheap, though tons cheaper than a Steelwerks device. Not sure Belle’ll ever spring the three grand (or more) needed to get one of those. Alas.

 

 

17 thoughts on “So many devices, just the one penis

  1. Hi Thumper.

    Just wanted to check in on your Looker 2.2 specifications. As I mentioned a while, back Ms. Fanny was planning on acquiring some version of the Looker family to provide some variety to the Mature Metal Queen’s Keep (QK) she had already acquired in mid-2013. What was finally ordered (after the Steelworxx end-of-year hiatus) was the Looker 3 with a removable urethral insert that allows the device to be used as a Looker 2.

    There are two comments I’d make since we’re a number of months into practical wear on both devices. The first point is that it seems there will always be a desire (for anyone) to tweak certain details of their initial device sizings. For me, it was most notably the A-ring size of the QK. I have already had the QK A-ring sized down from 1 7/8 to 1 11/16. This may be a bit small, however, as we’re looking to take your advice on the double ring option for MM products – due to the narrower gauge of their A-rings (when compared to Steelworxx A-rings). We just wanted to leverage the very affordable $10 resizing cost before sinking the additional $$ into the double ring. Looks like it may turn out to be 1 ¾ in the end as I’ve experience some edema between the A-ring and the cage after a prolonged teasing session. Another tweak I’d make to the QK is going a little longer on the cage as, while I agree that shorter is better in terms of non-aroused wear, there should also be enough ‘head-room’ for some meaningful percentage (above 50%) of ‘unfoldment’ in an excited state since that pressure needs to go somewhere. Somewhere often means the space between the A-ring and the cage, and too much pressure for too long leads to swelling, and swelling leads to ease of irritation – even with gentle caressing and especially when throbbing and straining is involved J.

    We were able to leverage some lessons-learning from the QK to the Steelworxx product in that she ordered a custom 44 MM – A-ring which seems ‘just right’ in Goldilocks-speak. Dietmar also supplied the average length ‘range’ of what people have ordered for the Looker devices and we targeted the high side of the mean between those two extremes. This resulted in the Looker being about a half inch longer than the QK. This works out well in balancing the hard/soft dynamic and any ‘spill-over’ in an excited state as a significant percentage of the erection is used in filling the cage completely. As an aside I can say when the cage is *very* filled the spacing between the bars is generous enough to allow some of shaft to protrude slightly through bars and when in this ‘over-stuffed’ state and the length of the device is encircled by Ms. Fanny’s loving hand the sensation is quite … exquisite… in the generation of intensity of desire and corresponding sense of devotion it creates for Ms. Fanny for being as generous as she is with her attentions.

    It is also worth comparing the two manufacturers. No question that the Steelworxx device was pricey – but so is the Mature Metal (MM) device. Ms. Fanny did order an extra or two which drove the Steelworxx price up – like the keychain . What I can say is I now have a good appreciation for German engineering. The Looker 3+2 device is just a wonderful combination of strength and lightness – whereas the MM is a study (and heavier) affair throughout – though not uncomfortably so. The weight of the Looker in comparison might give one a false sense ‘cheapness’ for lack of a better word but the design and precision of construction is anything but cheap. Having been a machinist at what now seems to me another and quite separate life from the one I now lead I could not help myself in following up with Dietmar with praise on the execution and design of all the components. ‘Balance’ in terms of form, function and mass is the best word I can come up with.

    Another observation is that Dietmar has solved 98-99 percent of the lock-through-the PA pinching problem with his design when wearing this as a Looker 3. It is a little tricky figuring out how to get it on to wear as a Looker 3. The ‘intuitive’ way of approaching it by inserting the penis into the cage and then inserting the end of the lock hasp from the outside through the center hole into the cap, then into the urethra and then out of the bottom of the PA is wholly a trial and error, hit-and-miss exercise. The easiest way we’ve found is to insert the penis a third of the way into the cage and then holding (pressing) it to the bottom of the cage with a finger on top of the penis while rotating both cage and penis 180 degrees (so that you can now see both the underside of the cage and penis). You then align the exit of the PA piercing with the narrow channel that runs along the bottom of the device and insert the (lubricated) hasp through the exit of the PA and then out the end of the urethra. Once this is accomplished the penis is pulled the rest of the way up into the cage using the hasp as a ‘leash’ and out the center hole (and locked). It bears pointing out that the main ‘exit’ for the lock hasp also appears to be lower-than-center of the end cap which also facilitates more comfortable wear when the device is configured as a Looker 2.

    Secure? Haven’t even contemplated how one could begin to exit in Looker 3 mode short of cutting a very expensive titanium padlock. Looker 2 mode suffers the same security issues – but again, I’m in agreement with you Thumper that if Ms. Fanny is kind enough to grant me the consideration of securing her possession from the thoughtless and selfish waste of what are after all, her resources, then I’m mindful enough to honor her intent with intergrity.

    Best,

    Desert Owl

    1. Another observation is that Dietmar has solved 98-99 percent of the lock-through-the PA pinching problem with his design when wearing this as a Looker 3.

      Interesting. That’s the main thing that’s kept me from considering a L03. How is it when urinating? I presume you can’t stand. Is that true?

      1. Very true. But that’s less of an issue for me after 30-some years with a PA. I’ve sort of de-coupled my sense of sexual identity from the position in which I urinate. Granted that those I work with might sometimes wonder why we have never stood side-by-side at a urinal staring blankly, straight ahead at the tiles in front of us while self-consciously avoiding looking at one another or – god forbid – down.

        Anyway, how Dietmar has managed it is by using two close-set lighter gage (narrower) bars that are set about 1.5-2x the diameter of the padlock hasp apart. That is, padlock hasp = 4mm then gap between thinner bars = 6-8 mm. The hole in the crown of the device seems be even a closer ratio. What this does is eliminate twisting of the hasp itself – it pretty much stays in one direction and even if your clothes apply torque to the lock the hasp can’ t develop enough of an acute angle to pinch your skin between itself and the rest of device. I’m not saying it’s 100% pinch-proof but the 2 or 3 times I have been pinched over close to a month of wear have been so slight as to not bear mentioning.

        I would move it into my “‘Candidate” category if you’re considering a new device. Especially since it can be tricked out as a Looker 2. Note that the Looker 2 mod limits the diameter of the lock hasp to 3 or 4 mm. Which is fine since, as you’ve also learned, bigger is not necessarily better when it comes to PAs.

        All this said, I imagine I’m getting somewhere near your sense of the finality of confinement that the Steelheart provides you with the Looker 3. It’s just not coming off. While I still sort of lust after the totality of the Steelheart I’m kind of thankful Ms. Fanny nixed it since she likes to keep an eye on her property. Lusting after something is one thing – decent ventilation usually isn’t something one thinks about often unless one is exposed to some of the very practical insights from wearing a device long-term.

        Enjoy the weekend everyone.

        Best,
        Desert Owl.

      2. The standing while peeing thing is more of a convenience thing than anything else. I could forgo that for the right device, but it’s not a simple trade off for me.

        Another Q for you. Does it make any noise? Any clanking? Also, any experience being athletic in it? Jogging, etc?

      3. Very good question. ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. Yes, if not supported. No, if it is supported.

        The ‘Yes’ portion plays into Ms. Fanny seeming to get a bit of a kick out of me rattling around the house. As I mentioned before Ms. Fanny likes to keep an eye on her property, so on the weekends I’m in her preferred weekend attire; a Träume aus Edelstahl massive locking collar, a sweater and a chastity device. The collar is 12 mm solid stainless – it’s got substance – you definitely know you’re wearing a collar ALL the time it’s on. The sweater will soon more than likely soon exit when it warms up here in AZ. For non-locals warm is +90 F minimum for Sun-belt thin-bloods. So, when wearing the Looker 3 she knows when I’m up and about as I’m not quite unlike a cat with a bell around its neck as the hasp knocks against the two close set rails on the underside of the device. It’s not loud but it is noticeable. At night placing a finger against the lock hasp stops any noise as I don’t want to disturb her sleep.

        The ‘No’ part comes in as I typically wear a Calvin Klein compression-ish boxer brief they were selling at Costco a while back (or maybe they still do). In this configuration there is no noise at all – quiet as a mouse – no issues at work or out and about. The briefs serve the same function as the finger – holding the hasp against one of the rails on the underside of the device.

        Keep up your great work. Your emotional openness, honesty and keen skill in conveying what’s going on inside you is greatly appreciated by me as well as a much wider audience. It seems most of us with similar inclinations resonate near the same internal frequencies and it’s great to hear someone articulate what we all might be feeling and are too reluctant to share with our significant others.

        Best,

        Desert Owl

  2. I saw the bon4n on the net as well. I like it. I don’t have one but I like how it looks. I found it in use on the net too and what scares me is this guy was bulging out of it. I know the bulging is only temporary while you’re aroused but may have some discomfort. But that’s the point I guess. Something to look out for.

  3. Hi Thumper,

    My custom Looker 2 has many of the features you are contemplating. The solid SS cap on the end was made longer / extended (got that idea from one of your posts) and had the urethral tube (removable) made longer and larger at 105 mm length and 8 mm diameter with 10 mm bulb on the end. I really do like the changes and don’t leak urine as much as with the 6mm tube (which I also have but don’t use) and the head and corona are better shielded inside the extended cap. I do think you could go larger on the diameter and that 10 mm would be fine if you are using sounds larger than that. I am getting ready to order another device from Dietmar and am going to get a 10 mm plug as I use sounds of 12-14 mm so will not have a problem with a 10 mm diameter permanent plug on the device.

  4. I’d be all over this BON4small if it came with solid rings. No way I’m getting into something with hinges. This is a good looking device, maybe the best looking one out there.

      1. Since the BON4 is a good looking device and is offered in a smaller size, I decided to investigate a little bit more. I sent an inquiry to BON4 asking about solid rings. Here’s the response I received

        “Well I can tell you that closed rings (if that is what you mean) not goes together with the top quality we always try to offer.
        A closed ring will make the product a lot cheaper and also a lot easier to escape from.”

        A simple NO would have left me with a little more respect for the company. This response has backwards logic.

      2. A solid ring would be no harder to escape from than a hinged ring. That’s nonsense. Maybe they’re suggesting you could get a tighter ring on if it had a hinge and you didn’t have to pop your nuts through, but any such ring would undoubtedly be far too tight during erections to be worn. And maybe it’s being lost in the translation, but a cheaper to produce solid ring would be welcome by their consumers, I assume. Who wants to pay more for something that’s needlessly complicated when a cheaper, simpler alternative would work as well or better?

  5. The Bon4m hinged ring has some very sharp edges. After 6 days, wearing it 24 hrs a day, it began to feel like it was cutting me. I have some sore spots still after 2 days. I took a Dremel tool and shaved down the sharp edges on both sides of the ring. I have to heal up before I try it again. I hope this fixes the issue.

  6. I’ve added heat shrink tubing to the A-ring (40mm) of the Bon4M Small to remove the discomfort of the square-edged A-ring. I do think the tightness of the hinged ring makes a difference in how well it holds me ‘securely’. Normally I would take a 1.75 ring.

    Having recently bought and received the Holy Trainer 2 (small, with the 40mm a-ring) with high hopes however, I have to say I’m really disappointed.

    For me, at least, it practically falls off. I’m about 1-2″ when flaccid, 5+” when hard. With the HT2 I can barely keep my cock IN the tube when flaccid. It just slips right up and out practically on its own. When hard, the device pulls my scrotum forward and ends up only covering about half of the shaft. I realize willpower is the ultimate chastity device, but the HT2 makes it seem silly to bother.

    Am I doing it wrong? Do the symptoms sound like I ordered the wrong size? Am I somehow shaped that differently from all those doing the reviews who claim to be almost unable to remove themselves from the device? Any advice would be very helpful.

    I’m tempted by the possibilities of a piercing for a device that is truly unremovable without the keyholder, but I’m not quite ready to pull the trigger on getting my cock pierced. (We’ll see what my wife thinks about it.)

    The Looker series looks fascinating to me, and the urethral plugs certainly intrigue me, but I don’t want to keep buying device after device based on recommendations that clearly don’t match my… needs.

    Any advice on any of the above would be greatly appreciated.

    1. “Am I somehow shaped that differently from all those doing the reviews who claim to be almost unable to remove themselves from the device?”

      No. I don’t believe guys who say these things. They want to think they’re in an inescapable sex prison because that’s really hot and, of course, it’s totally their right to psych themselves up that way (and probably a good idea) but no trapped-ball device is inescapable without a PA fixing. Period.

      You’re struggling with the basic fact that these devices can be defeated. All of them. You *can’t* psych yourself into thinking otherwise. I’ve struggled with that, too, from time to time. I’d be thinking a little harder on that PA if I were in your shoes (and I was which is why the penis has a hole in it now).

      The Trainer doesn’t seem to fit you very well, but it doesn’t sound all that different than how it fits me. The “covering half the shaft” comment sounds familiar. I think the amount of shaft any of these things contains is at least partly driven by how much play there is in the anchor. Namely, your balls. After several years of doing this, my scrotum is bigger than it used to be so that erections can push out further. The scrotum is bigger *because* the erections are always pulling against it. Is there such a thing as a ballsack lift?

      The Steelheart is the only truly inescapable device I wear but even that now will, when I’m hard, show a bit of shaft out the back. That’s normal. Being inescapable trumps a little shaft hanging out any day. Makes it a non-issue.

Say your piece

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s