A Steel Adaptation of the Holy Trainer or Ringers?

Hi everyone. I’m relatively new here and trying to get a feel for the community. So far, I’ve used a CB-6000 and an original Holy Trainer (HT1), but currently have one of those metal Chinese-style cages on.

My wife and I are hoping someone can either make or help us locate a metal adaptation of that first-generation HOLY TRAINER. She loves how the lock sits exposed, especially since it makes a nice clicking sound when she walks around… plus it’s been the most comfortable piece I’ve ever worn. However, she definitely prefers solid metal over the original plastic HT1 material… so here is our challenge.

Any help out there? Six degrees of separation and all that good stuff… hoping we can find or commission a custom solution. We’re ready to pay if someone builds us one specifically for us… whatever it takes.:)

Got 140 views... and still no replies.:( Does anyone know someone who does custom work??

> member_4ac1349648 wrote: > Got 140 views... and still no replies.:( > > Does anyone know someone who does custom work?? There are plenty of names listed right here in the 'Devices' forum section. If you took some time to read through a few threads, you could spot them yourself. Or are you just sitting back expecting us to hand you a ready-made list? Maybe we should measure you up, place an order for one, and cover the cost as well?

Could someone please take my measurements? I mean like fifty to sixty times in a row?

Is that really all it would require?:twisted:

> member_1f353e1d87 wrote: > > Would it have been easier to just type out a name or contact instead of giving such a condescending and sarcastic response? > > Doesn't get much better than making new members feel welcome so they want to keep posting... wow. Wouldn't you say that would have been simpler if you had just typed out the specific name or contact details, rather than writing back with all that attitude?

> member_1f353e1d87 wrote: > > Is that really all it would require?:twisted: If they actually did it correctly;)

> member_4ac1349648 wrote: > > Wouldn't you say that would have been simpler if you had just typed out the specific name or contact details, rather than writing back with all that attitude? I think what TM is reacting to is how some people ask for help without offering much more than a vague description of their needs, or an idea of what they've already tried. There isn't much point in us sending you links you have probably already checked. Let's try this again: You want a solid metal version of the HT. Since the HT is relatively new on the market, there might not be anything exactly identical out there yet. So, tell us what you've looked at so far, and which ones did or didn't work for you?

I'm not looking for a different style... I just need info on who might custom-build me a metal HT.

> member_4ac1349648 wrote: I am not looking for another type...I am looking for info on someone or a company that may custom build me a metal version of the HT. I'm not so sure that is going to happen for you. How about you try contacting some of the custom chastity device companies directly and inquire, and while you are at it, try the people that make the Holy Trainer and see if they are planning on producing one or could they make a suggestion. If you didn't want to check out some of the threads here under 'Devices', as TM suggested, how about you try doing this: ... %20devices There, spoon fed.:roll:

> member_4ac1349648 wrote: > Wouldn't it have been easier just to type out a name or contact instead of writing a condescending and sarcastic answer? > Nothing like making a new member feel welcome and want to post more.... wow I am fairly new to this board (but not to chastity) and in my lurking here, I have already noted that there are a couple of members who tend to display a bit of elitist attitude and prefer to belittle rather than help or just hold their sharp tongue in check. Mind you. that isn't the majority, so there's hope... I have read through a lot of the threads here, and while there are many references to the well-know custom-sized metal device manufacturers, I do not recall a mention of them accepting to manufacture a metal device based on one that is not part of their product line. So suggesting to the OP to look through existing threads is misleading. I also doubt the well-known companies would want to engage in copying the HT design: - They could run into intellectual property issues (although that seems to be no big deal for fly-by-night, no-name, *cough* Chinese *cough operations, but those don't do custom anyway) - Slavishly building a stainless steel replica of a plastic device will typically yield an uncomfortable contraption, if only because of considerable weight, so the design will have to be significantly altered. I can sympathize with the OP's bias towards the Holy Trainer. After my first (CB6000s), I have enjoyed the HT. I even have two of those! But now I have tried a Mature Metal Watchful Mistress and more recently a Male Chastity Now Contender, and there is no going back (except for air travel). If money is not a big issue (considering that a custom build like you originally requested would very likely run close to the price of a Lori, e.g. $600-$800), I would highly recommend trying an MCN Contender. It will run you less than $300 and MCN's turnaround times are just a couple of days (not months like most of the others). Before that though, either order the measuring-ring set from Mature Metal, or get some plain rings in a hardware store, made from 1/4" steel, so you can get the sizing right for both base ring and tube. The thick and very shaped HT ring is not a good basis for sizing a metal one. Regarding the lock clanking: many metal devices don't do that because either the padlock sits sideways, or they use integrated security screws (or Burg Wachter lock cylinders like in the HT2). Note that MCN sells a security-screw-based mini-padlock that is prettier than the regular keyed ones and its hasp is thin enough to allow it to be placed on the axis of the tube.

> member_56a3d51043 wrote: > > member_4ac1349648 wrote: I'm not searching for a different style...I need details on who or which firm might construct a steel version of the HT for me. > I have my doubts that will occur for you. > > Why don't you reach out directly to some custom chastity device makers and ask them? Also, check with the folks behind the Holy Trainer to see if they intend to produce one or can offer a recommendation. > If you didn't want to browse the threads here under 'Devices', as TM suggested, why not do this: ... %20devices > > There, served on a platter.:roll: Good heavens. I already got in touch with HT and they have no intention of creating a steel version. Mature Metal never responded. So I am seeking someone to do custom work for me. Please drop your self-righteous demeanor. Geez. Think this is my first time visiting a forum!? I utilized the widely used search feature and reached out to current manufacturers BEFORE posting here.

Steelwerks Extreme could likely craft a similar enclosed device with an anatomical shape using titanium. However, it will set you back significantly. I haven't come across rings in that distinctive anatomical form made of metal; they've always been standard rings. How do you feel about the Holy Trainer Version 1? Do you like it? The lock aspect is straightforward to address. Is your concern more with the ring itself or the sensation of being enclosed? I assume yours is solid-colored since transparent metal isn't common yet (unless Scotty travels back in time to bring us transparent aluminum tech!). To produce such a ring, they'd either have to machine down a large chunk of metal or use 3D printing. So let's presume cost is the issue here. If you want that specific look, you won't find a "metal" version similar to the CB3k knockoff readily available. The answer is no. But do check out DHgate to see what they've got; new designs pop up occasionally. Unfortunately for U.S.-based custom makers, most are just replicas. A metal device with dimensions matching the HT will weigh more. This extra weight does impact the base ring size slightly since everything pulls down a bit more. I often go to because their cock ring sets are very reasonably priced. You can get them in metal rather than red plastic. I find that both the friction and the heft of metal feel quite different—in a positive way. For fully enclosed designs, the Steelworxx Steelheart is a popular choice, and its standard design includes just a lock for less money. It has a constant diameter inside, which gives it a distinct feel compared to the HT's flare around the head. Personally, I found the HT too narrow at the root of the shaft. Steelworks does offer anatomical rings, so that works as a match. However, an anatomical fit with the ring bending back along the bottom isn't necessary for me; I prefer a smaller ball gap because wider gaps let me slip out. My partner is quite skilled and can escape through wider gaps anyway. I prefer a wider base ring to ensure proper blood flow. I also second the recommendation for a Contender. It features an open design. $250. You don't need lock upgrades since you prefer the padlock style. I really like that elegant high-security setup, so do take a look. Zorglub's experience is just like mine. MaleChastityNow has always been quick and responsive to me. As someone who buys from them again and again, my orders usually arrive in under seven days. Steel open designs are widely used because they weigh less and clean up easily. You won't have solid walls pressing against you either. I own a custom Contender (it's actually a prototype) which features a vertical plate for extra coverage—I wrote about it here on this forum. Best of luck! TLDR: No one has produced an all-metal HT model like the CB series yet, so going custom is your best option right now.

> member_4ac1349648 wrote: > I already used the ever so popular search function and contacted existing manufacturers BEFORE I posted here. Then you should have said that right away. Existing custom makers are definitely your best bet, because it’s very unlikely anyone else can or will do what you want. All most of us could really do is go through the forum threads to compile a list of those makers—which seems to be exactly what you wanted in the first place. Not mentioning that small detail right off the bat shows either poor communication on your part, or maybe not enough respect for the time and effort others put into replying when they’re just repeating something you claim was already done. All we ‘know’ about you is what you’ve told us so far (and with only three posts to your name when you asked), that’s not much at all. We had no way of knowing if or how many efforts you’d made *unless* you explicitly said so. By *not* telling us, we’re left either wasting time duplicating work you claim is done, or assuming you haven’t tried anything yet and expecting others to do what you could easily handle yourself. > think this is my first time on a forum!? Given the communication gap, it certainly looks like that might be true. > member_4ac1349648 wrote: Wouldn't it have been easier just to type out a name or contact instead of writing a condescending and sarcastic answer? No. That would’ve meant searching through the forums and making a list, which you could (and now claim) to have done yourself. > member_4ac1349648 wrote: Nothing like making a new member feel welcome and want to post more.... wow It’s not our ‘job’ to bow down or cater to your need for acceptance or to make you “want to post more.” No one here has that duty. This forum is there as a resource, but it wasn’t set up just to ‘beg’ members to stay and participate. It falls on new members to understand the lay of the land: be polite, respectful, and mindful of the time and effort of established members (who aren’t paid for their contributions), and show sincerity in your requests for help or acceptance into the group. As *experienced* forum users know, this has been the standard polite protocol since usenet days—and indeed, expected behavior in both human society and the animal kingdom since the dawn of time—for outsiders seeking to join an established group. > member_12188d7bd9 wrote: > I am fairly new to this board (but not to chastity) and in my lurking here, I have already noted that there are a couple of members who tend to display a bit of elitist attitude and prefer to belittle rather than help or just hold their sharp tongue in check. Mind you. that isn't the majority, so there's hope... Most of us genuinely want to assist those who show sincerity in their search for knowledge and information. Many of us, myself included, are willing to go out of our way to help those who demonstrate real interest. That should be clear to anyone spending enough time reading through the threads. If some members’ tongues feel a bit ‘sharp,’ it’s mostly because so many posers, fakers, liars, and fantasists have passed through here; we don’t have much patience for that crowd and no desire to pander to them. Judgments are made based on how new participants behave. Individuals get responses according to their initial presentation—which common sense suggests is the way of real life both online and offline—and it’s *their* responsibility to present themselves properly, not ours somehow (psychically?) to view them differently than they show us. I doubt many here have the time or inclination to coddle those who are thin-skinned easily offended like children. This is an adult forum; adult behavior is expected. It’s up to the new member to ingratiate themselves and meet the group’s expectations, not the other way around… As a side note, offering insults with your third post probably isn’t the best strategy. ***(I was going to suggest another site might suit those seeking such coddling or having a predilection for sissification better, but it seems that site is—or will soon be—defunct. Note: I’m not putting down anyone whose kink happens to be sissification; if that’s your ‘thing,’ great! But this isn’t primarily a fantasy/role-play space where such ‘in-character’ participation is encouraged. If that’s what you want, it’ll likely need to be found elsewhere.)

Thanks Twisted. I was planning my response but you have so eloquently nailed it again, as usual. I have lived by a motto of "treat people the way you would want to be treated" but I do not have the time or inclination to help those who are unwilling to help themselves. Providing such 'key' information in the beginning would have been very helpful rather than the 'do you think I'm stupid' response we received back. Snowman, I hope you are able to achieve the chastity device you seek.

> member_12188d7bd9 wrote: > I am fairly new to this board (but not to chastity) and in my lurking here, I have already noted that there are a couple of members who tend to display a bit of elitist attitude and prefer to belittle rather than help or just hold their sharp tongue in check. Mind you. that isn't the majority, so there's hope... As the head mod, I can see this on both sides. I don't think the attitude that you see is elitist, so much as jaded. Most of the regulars have come here because they are tired of the other boards - or never used them in the first place - because we work hard to make sure that the discussions here stay relatively sane and reality-based. What I do see are some members (including me once in a while), becoming frustrated with newer members who think that this board is a continuation of the old Yahoo groups. And on the mod end, we *still* have dozens of people who create an account and immediately do something that we ask you not to do - in requests that are right in the easily found rules posted in both the stickies at the tops of the forums, and in the red links at the top of each page. I can't tell you how often we delete inappropriate pictures and avatars, or links to self-locking time site, or ads, or professional dommes/keyholders, or posts that have nothing to do with chastity. Admittedly, sometimes even the patient and understanding mods start getting a little snippy after a several week run of this. So let's all take a step back from this, take a breath, and let's start over. 8-)