Holy Trainer v3 Nano review

Processed with VSCO with av4 preset

Previously, I’ve been pretty vocal in my position that the Holy Trainer male chastity device is the best option on the market for those looking to dip their…er, toe into the “chastity lifestyle.” So when a new version of the device is introduced, it’s a big fucking deal. Can the third version of probably the best starter device on the market improve on its impressive predecessor?

HTv2 vs. HTv3

The third version of the Holy Trainer, like the second, comes in four colors, but instead of the HTv2’s clear, black, white, and pink the HTv3 comes in clear, black, pink, and purple. I, for one, don’t mind seeing the white one go away. To me, it always looked like an orthopedic device. Medical play in the most unsexy way. Purple is the new guy on the block and for those Minnesota Viking and University of Washington fans, presumably. I opted for black as my review unit, but note that their site shows a solid black like the HTv2 and what I got was a translucent, smoky black. My preference in chastity devices is to not have the penis visible, so I would have liked the solid color. Note they are able to make the device in a number of custom colors (as seen on this page) for an extra $20.

Another superficial change between the second and third generation devices is the lock mechanism. It still uses what Holy Trainer calls the “MagicLocker” (a perverted cabinetry lock and the same one used by companies like Steelworxx and Rigid Chastity), but the way the tube and ring fit together has been changed.

The Holy Trainer website says the new version is “more discreet” and it does present a modestly lower bump, but honestly, I think in practice they’re a horse apiece. Oddly, their site also says the HTv3 is the “first padlock free chastity device” but the HTv2 used the exact same lock as the HTv3 (in fact, Belle locks me up with a lock we originally got from Steelworxx back in day — they’re all interchangeable).

The A-ring (Holy Trainer calls it “the ring” but A-ring is what the CB-X people call it on their devices and it’s the term I just keep using for some reason) is pretty much exactly the same as before except for the changes in how it attaches to the tube. It still comes in the same four sizes as before: 36mm, 40mm, 45mm, and 50mm. The HTv2 tubes and rings are not compatible with the HTv3.

The big difference found on the HTv3 is the tube. The HTv2 tube came in two sizes: Standard and small. The HTv3 comes in standard and small like before but they’ve added maxi and nano to the lineup. The maxi tube is obviously for maxi penises, but isn’t all that much longer than the standard tube (which is fine because shorter is always better). To me, maxi looks like it’s for men with more girth than average. The nano is small. Half an inch shorter than the standard tube and the one I tested.

Now it’s time to cover the six criteria upon which I judge devices: Cost, aesthetic, fit/comfort, security, hygiene, and stealth.


I ordered the HTv3 from the Holy Trainer website. All sizes and colors cost $165 with two shipping options to the United States ($14 for 4-5 day delivery or $28 for two day delivery). This is more than the CB-6000 by about $15 (the other mass market plastic chastity device) but since the Holy Trainer is better than the CB-6000 in every way, I think it’s a reasonable price. I can’t recall what the HTv2 cost, but they’re still being sold on the Holy Trainer website and they’re going for the same price as the HTv3. If the HTv2 was being sold at a discount and you were looking for either the standard or small sizes, I’d say buy it instead of the v3, but they’re the same.


Processed with VSCO with fr4 preset

I think the Holy Trainer design since v2 is classic and hard to beat (AHAHA see what I did there!?). It’s got clean, simple lines and looks great. The HTv3 is just the same. Maybe, with the sleeker lock bump, slightly better. High marks, as before.

The nano tube is noticeably smaller and more compact than even the short tube which, if you’re into the minimizing aspect of enforced chastity, is a definite plus. But it’s not so small as to make the penis appear to have disappeared like the micro device I recently reviewed.

Fit and comfort

Say it with me: Shorter is better. And the nano is both. So from the aspect of what one would reasonably expect in comfort from a device meant to constrict and stifle one’s erections, it’s great. As good if not better than the HTv2.

Processed with VSCO with av4 presetHowever, on the device I received, there was a small piece of plastic that appears to be a protruding remnant of the molding process and, after several days, it began to irritate. It doesn’t look like much in the photo, but it’s right in a spot where the tube is pushed against my scrotum during periods of maximum pressurization. And it doesn’t take much of an imperfection to cause a worrisome sore against tender skin when one’s active. It’s a disappointing quality issue and one I would expect not to be on every device shipped.


Processed with VSCO with fr4 presetFor reasons I can’t quite figure out, Holy Trainer has decided to make the nano sized tube a much less secure device than any other size they make. This is specific to the v3 since it’s the only that comes in the nano size. As you can see in the comparison images above, the nano tube is designed with a massive gap between the tube and the A-ring. Much larger than there was on the small v2 tube or, according to the images on their site, any of the other tube sizes. I guess this is for comfort during erections, but the end result is a tube that leaves the very spot of the penis that’s necessary to stimulate to achieve orgasm unprotected.

Of course, no trapped-ball device without some kind fixing through a piercing is “secure” in that penises can be pulled out and put back in of nearly all devices, but in this case, one could stimulate themselves to orgasm without withdrawing at all. Turns out, the Halfshell has the same design flaw (though the PA fixing does get in the way a bit), so the HTv3 nano isn’t alone with this issue, but there’s no reason for the gap to be that big. This issue alone would prevent me from wholeheartedly recommending the nano size.

I’ve said before that devices without real security (and even some of those) are really no more than deterrents that keep wandering hands off the fun bits in moments of weakness. If that’s the most basic test of a device, then the nano size of the HTv3 fails since eager fingers can still get to a spot a lot of men might be able to get off from. But if you’re the kind of guy who doesn’t need much more than simple barrier (like me), then the nano HTv3 will be enough. If not, get the small tube since it lacks the puzzling gap.


The nano HTv3 size squishes the penis up more than the small HTv2 did and therefore makes peeing more of a “pray and spray” kind of endeavor. Which, in turn, makes stand-up peeing a bit of a gamble (I don’t bother trying). That complicates hygiene, but the device is no more difficult to keep clean otherwise. I prefer stainless steel to plastic in general as it can feel cleaner, but the HTv3 scores pretty well in this regard.


Since it’s so small, the nano HTv3 is really stealthy. The Holy Trainer design has always tended to push the penis back into the scrotum which contributes to its stealthiness and that’s only accentuated with the smaller tube. The two pieces of the device fit together very snugly and the lock is totally integrated which means it’s also perfectly silent.


The ridiculous gap between the tube and the ring in the nano size is an unfortunate design choice. The other sizes don’t have this issue, so in those versions (and assuming the issue my unit had with finish is a fluke), the Holy Trainer v3 is every bit as good as the HTv2 and remains my top recommendation for those looking for a plastic device or are just starting out with male chastity.

22 thoughts on “Holy Trainer v3 Nano review

  1. Thank you for the review. A quick question I have is would you say the “tab” on the upper rear section of the cage and protrudes through the back of the ring reaches just as far back as it does on the V2? Being “high and tight” shifts the angle the device sits at and I had a lot of trouble with that on both the HTv2 and the Strict Gate. I was curious if v3 would help with that at all.


    1. Relative to the ring, it protrudes a little further back than before. It doesn’t feel that different to me, but I’ve got scrotum skin for days.

  2. Many thanks for a comprehensive (as usual) review. The gap on the nano version would seem to be an issue maybe they thought it would be so tight against the testes that access would be prevented. As to pullout does not the tongue protuding back from the ‘ring’ contribute to preventing this.

    1. They probably did think the shorter tube needed more space, but they were wrong (and I wonder how they didn’t realize that after prototyping the tube). No, I didn’t find the tab behind the ring to do anything to prevent pull out.

  3. Thank you. We are going to use this option until we airway adequately budget for a 100% titanium device from Steelwerks.

  4. I have a question or two:
    How are night hard-ons pain wise in comparison to the v2? Sometimes I have to take an Advil PM before bed I order to sleep straight through. It looks really easy to slip the penis out of the nano by pulling on the underside. Is this more of an issue? Lastly, I work stocking shelves and find the v2 hard to bend down in when wearing Jeans. I’m constantly up and down, and it’s really bulky and somewhat uncomfortable. Does v3 eliminate this better? Tks!

    1. I just bought the updated Nano with the sides more enclosed. I previously used a MM Jailbird and had experimented with a variety of amazon knock-offs.

      I slept in the Nano for the first time last night, and it is the FIRST TIME I have ever slept through the night while wearing a chastity device. And I woke up in the morning without any discomfort. This is quite an accomplishment for several reasons:

      1) I’m a stomach sleeper.
      2) Balls are high and tight.
      3) I’m an extreme grower, like 2″ to over 7″
      4) My TRT protocol gives me superhuman raging hard-ons on injection days, and my first night in Nano was at peak levels.

      In short, I have a lot of factors in play that make it hard for me to find a livable device, and the Nano is checking all the essential boxes.

      It’s also noticeably more comfortable to sit while wearing. In fitted jeans, my Jailbird would have to be shifted to one side of the fly, which led to pulling the skin on one side. That is not an issue here at all. Here I would mention that the bulge from the Nano is actually pretty pronounced because of the lock shape. It’s sort of a high profile cup-shaped bulge, whereas my Jailbird had a smaller but more obviously dick-shaped bulge.

      The enclosed design has upsides and downsides. The major downside is trapped moisture, which turns out to be very high maintenance and overall kinda gross. The downside of the open Jailbird design was that I could very easily orgasm by rubbing the underside tip of the penis through a small gap in the bars. Sadly, fixing one problem creates the other.

      The last complaint about the Nano is the aesthetic, which is entirely personal. I tend to associate holy trainer with genderplay outside my kink wheelhouse, and I feel that steel has a more masculine (and ironic?) D/s flavor.

      Overall, it’s the most comfortable device I have ever worn, and I can tolerate the hygiene requirements and aesthetic if it means not waking up at 4am every night.

  5. Hi Thumper,

    How are you finding the V3 now after owning it almost half a year? (Maybe you could post a longer term review?)

    1. I don’t think my feelings have changed at all. I’ve worn it quite a bit traveling and think it’s the perfect size, but that gap still bothers me. I have zero compunction recommending the small one. Only drawback of the nano is that gap.

      1. I saw an ad for v3 saying that it virtually eliminates behind-the-ring erections. This is my biggest problem with every device I have ever tried, so that marketing hook appealed to me.

        True or hype?

      2. Hmm. I guess that all depends on the size of the election and the size of the device, but I would say yes, it’s a feature of the v3.

      3. I’m confused about the mechanics of that “feature” and what causes or prevents a behind-the-ring boner in the first place. Any info or resources on that?

        (P.S. [RANT] I try to google chastity-related questions like this, and 90% of the results are goddam catholics telling gays to be celibate until they die. Ulg.)

      4. I don’t know if you noticed, but it looks like with the recent release of the new “Nub” size, they also redesigned the Nano tube to significantly reduce the gap, addressing your biggest criticism.

  6. I have been locked in both size small and nano. The gap on nano did not bother me at all. My foreskin does come out at the tip in the nano. But both are comfortable. As for hygiene, I do have to take it off every 24 hours to pull back foreskin and wash my dicklet head. And apply some oil on my scrotum for reliëf.

  7. This is the most comfortable, effective and secure commercial chastity device I have and worn. It is also very easy to and fast to put on. On the one I bought the slot to urinate though is too high so that my urethra is at the very bottom of the slot. It should have been around quarter of an inch high so my penis tip would be centered. The same way as I fit in my HT v2. The slot looks lower on photos I found on Internet of others for sale. Paul

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 )

Connecting to %s