*Since this topic surfaces periodically, here is an essay I penned a few years back. It’s purely my perspective, but it could be worth the time for both newcomers and experts alike. * With world hunger, universal healthcare, and political corruption supposedly sorted out, it’s nice to see that folks still have plenty of energy left to debate the truly crucial questions: Is “enforced” chastity real? Do you actually need a device? And which devices are serious contenders? Right now, this argument is brewing over on Sarah’s Male Chastity Blog, though it’s really just another example of those discussions that pop up in one group or forum every single month. It’s like the kudzu of the kinky internet; as soon as you think it has vanished, it reappears somewhere else. So, let’s go over a few points. As I’ve mentioned countless times, chastity devices are sex toys, straightforwardly speaking. Much like handcuffs, rope, or other restraint tools, they serve to enhance sexual—or more precisely, erotic—enjoyment. This isn’t contradictory; barring extremely rare cases, people purchase these devices specifically for erotic control play. Yes, the scenes can last a long time — weeks or months — but the core of the activity is the erotic control of sexuality. I know some of you are itching to jump on your soapboxes about how it has transformed your relationship, sharpened your focus, and made you a better partner, blah, blah, rope. Well, I call “bullshit” on that whole idea; what you’re describing isn’t the magical power of the device any more than Dumbo’s feather gave him flight (apologies; when you have kids, these analogies stick). Instead, I suspect you have become more focused and a better partner because you enjoy the attention and are reciprocating in ways that fit the paradigm you’ve set for yourself (and since we don’t live in a social vacuum, perhaps one others online have set for you too). Want to call the device a symbol of your new life? Fine — that’s exactly what those key rings do. How well is that working for you? So, does this mean they are toys? It’s slightly more complex. To avoid certain emotional baggage, I’ll label them “equipment.” This feels right because it aligns with how we usually describe other kink items; the word “toy,” while implying fun, also suggests something not meant for heavy-duty use (for shackle of “serious”). Thus, you have the snobs who sneer at anything plastic, who are themselves looked down upon by those insisting on a full stainless steel Tollyboy belt (or similar), who then get dismissed as amateurs by the folks who spent months of their salary and fitting time to own custom Latowski metal underwear. And naturally, all these groups are dissed by the domlier/subbier-than-thou types who claim nobody needs a device at all; they should just develop enough willpower to do what they’re told. Pox on you all, I say. Those of us who enjoy using devices do so because it removes willpower from the equation entirely. Does Mrs. Edge tie a ribbon around my cock to remind me it’s hers? No. “Oh, screw that,” she says. “I want to ensure you don’t even have the temptation, let alone the opportunity.” I believe this captures the concept well; for us, the kink is about her control, not mine. Most others into devices share a similar mindset. Having banished the kudzu crowd who insist it’s fine to use devices without enforcement, let’s move on to whether chastity can be “enforced”. It cannot. Specifically, in the sense that between consenting adults, nothing is truly enforced without some willing participation. There are two sides: emotional/relationship and practical/physical. Let’s tackle the latter first as it’s easier. Okay, everyone sit down and take a deep breath. Most of you have heard this before, but not all were listening, so here goes: There is no such thing as an inescapable chastity device. Trust Doctor Tom on this one. I’ve been working with tools since childhood. I own a full machine shop. There is chain metal that cannot be cut, nor any lock that cannot be defeated by the proper application of time, effort, and money. Stainless steel? Pah, I cut that in my garage. Titanium? Don’t make me laugh. Carbonite? Get real; that’s only in Star Wars. Lock shackle bars can be snipped with bolt cutters. Locks with hidden shackles can be drilled out. And very few designs cannot be defeated with a Dremel and some grinding discs. Full belts with metal chain? You can cut the links and wiggle the belt off. Without chains? There are thin sheet metal cutters you can slide in along your waistband. High-end “trapped ball” devices like Gerecke or Steelwerkz? A bit tougher because you work close to sensitive skin, but still doable with a steady hand and proper tools. Lori’s and other devices using PA piercing? The area holding the lock itself is thin and easily accessible with a small jeweler’s saw. And obviously, plastic devices can be cut or broken. Now, here is the crux: If any device can be cut apart, are they worthless? No. This is where the emotional/relationship aspect enters. Having established that you aren’t locked up without consent, let’s look at what that consent involves. In any relationship, especially D/s, we adopt roles matching a script running in our minds. When there’s a big gap between the script and real life, we become depressed or restless — symptoms of unhappiness. For example, pick any FLR blog where men have spent months or years convincing their wives to “take charge.” Those who resort to “stealth submission” are trying to fit that script to reality but don’t always feel successful. For the men who manage to discuss chastity and orgasm denial with partners, many write about frustration when their wives lock them up for a few days, then leave the key in plain sight, forget to re-lock it, or just ignore the situation. Message boards are full of “How do I get my wife to…” questions. Consent isn’t the problem here; rather, men want their partners to consent to some erotic sexual control. But for those with partners who actually play along, there is usually a period where the man gets used to wearing the device for hours or days at a time. Once broken in, the play starts. Sometimes they use points, sometimes random numbers (dice, darts), or pre-determined days. Some guys underestimate their ability and start begging for release. Are they doing this because they can’t break the cage and have an orgasm? Of course not. This is simply part of the play itself. Chastity enthusiasts want to feel the loss of control, even if illusory, because it meshes with their mental script. That’s why “enforced” chastity is really a scene. It is extended and not situationally dependent (e.g., doesn’t have to be in a dungeon or only on weekends), but it remains a scene, requiring some kind
of consent. In these scenes, the devices have several purposes. Ostensibly, they are to prevent the men from taking control of their penis, presumably through masturbation. In some cases, partners have discovered that the device helps to ease their own feelings of guilt when they don’t feel like having sex; some women say that they would like a massage or some physical attention, and often feel like their partners keep trying to turn those circumstances into an opportunity for sex; the devices can remove the sense of responsibility (“I’m sorry, honey, but the two weeks aren’t up yet.”). Again, an extremely frustrated man can head down to his basement and cut the cage off to masturbate. But they don’t. It’s not because the cage is unbreakable, it’s because so far real life isn’t running too far off course from that internal script. Yes, some men say that it’s because of their devotion, but that sense of devotion itself comes from that internal script. In some paradigms, they are bold, but subservient knights, willing to put up with personal trials to win the hand our their princess. In others, they are happy to see the script begin to modify itself (“Be careful what you wish for, you might get it” seems to be their motto). There are other paradigms, but the important point is that they all work as long as real life somewhat matches up to their script. For some — I suspect most — men, part of that script does entail an inescapable device. This is why some people spend so much time convincing themselves that this or that modification will make their device foolproof. I can personally attest to having spent hours working out ways to improve my CB3000 resistance to pulling out. Some men will take it a step farther and get a piercing (as did I, although it didn’t work out well). The idea is as I wrote above: we want the temptation completely removed, we want to feel a loss of control, even if we temporarily desire otherwise at times. So, if you have to consent to wearing a device, and if a device can be broken or cut off, how does that give you a situation that removes all control? It doesn’t, of course. This is where our internal script has to depend upon the willing suspension of disbelief, just as any other Hollywood movie or Barbara Cartland novel does. If your script considers your personal sense of responsibility to weigh as heavily as the need for a secure device, then your WSD allows you to wear, say, a CB3000, even though you know you could pull out and masturbate in the shower if the pressure gets to be too much to handle. On the other hand, if your script (or your partner’s) calls more heavily for a true loss of control, and you’re unwilling to pretend, then you start looking for something more secure. Perhaps you add a KSD to your device. Or perhaps you get a piercing. Or perhaps you do as so many chastity enthusiasts do — go from device to device, always looking for something that’s just a little bit better than the last. This is why some smarmy people talk about deviceless chastity; in their internal script, they focus on giving control over to their partners through developing their own self-control, and willingness to forgo temptation. In their scripts, overcoming such trials adds to their sense of self-worth. Similarly, those people who are more serious about their desire for actual loss of control will seek more “serious” devices because it adds to the believability of the script. This is why fantasies of unbreakable, uncuttable carbon-diamond unobtainium devices are so common — a lot of people enjoy the idea of loss of control. This isn’t so surprising when you consider that in other types of scenes, whippings, piercings, cuttings, and other types of sensation play are often accompanied by some kind of restraint. By the way, this points up the reason that the deviceless crowd is so annoying — they don’t seem to understand that there is a huge disparity in the internal scripts that we like to play out. I should point out that in addition to using chastity devices, some people choose to enhance their sense of loss of control by using some kind of a contract. True, it’s not legally enforceable, but that’s beside the point. The contracts usually have clauses and stipulations as to such things as the frequency of orgasm (thereby giving some feeling of safety for men who might not be sure how well they will deal with the denial), and consequences for contrived infractions such as begging for an early release, or “unauthorized” orgasms (via an unsecured device, or for those occasions when their partner fails to lock them back in). Again, the contracts are just a way to add some realism to the script, by reinforcing the idea of relinquishing control. So, the paradoxical question arises: Can we consent to a loss of control within a relationship? On one level, I don’t see how that’s possible. One’s willingness to relinquish control is only as strong as one’s desire to continue following (or lightly editing) their internal script. As Sarah points out, if her husband decided that he wanted out, he could either physically overpower her for the key, or head into the garage to cut the device off. However, the consequences for this would probably mean that Sarah would be angry or disappointed, and might not be willing to engage in such play again. If he decided that he could live with those consequences, then there is really nothing stopping him from ending the game unilaterally. So, regard for the consequences is one of the (and probably the biggest) reasons that chastity can be “enforced.” This is actually a point that reinforces the believability factor with the stainless steel devices and the full belts; the consequences for cutting or breaking one of those affects not only one’s relationship, but also becomes very expensive as the wearer thinks about breaking a device that cost hundreds or possibly a couple of thousand dollars. So, any degree of enforcement comes down to a regard for the consequences of breaking the agreement (contract, tacit, or otherwise). Now, can we all get back to enjoying our kink, and stop arguing about it?