Steelheart 2 Accessories and Fit Considerations

My wife and I have settled on our first steel (wow, that word sends a shiver down my spine) chastity device. Aligning with both of our goals and desires, we’ve chosen the Steelheart 2 from Steelworxx for purchase in two weeks’ time. I’ve reviewed some options available for the Steelheart 2 and would appreciate your feedback on whether they justify their cost.

• Integrated Lock - To those who have this feature: is it as reliable and secure as a traditional padlock?
• Anatomical A Ring - For owners of this option, does it enhance comfort? Also, does it create more looseness by increasing the gap between the lower half of the A ring and the tube?
• Stainless Steel Tube Ring - For those with this add-on: does it improve comfort? Furthermore, does it decrease the distance between the tube and the A ring, or is that already accounted for in the design? I also have a question regarding measurements and fit. My flaccid penis measures approximately 3 inches from body to tip along the top surface. Should I use this measurement for the tube length? The CB-3000 is listed as being 3 inches, and when it was flaccid there was (perhaps too much) room. If I measure underneath my penis instead, it’s about 2.5 inches while flaccid. Thank you in advance…

I’m not certain how Steelheart takes measurements, but MM measures from the junction where the penis and scrotum meet right to the tip.

The integrated lock is absolutely excellent. It’s sleek, quiet, and completely secure. I can’t picture the SH with a regular padlock. I don't own the anatomical ring yet but have considered it. I share your questions regarding it. As for the tube ring, I’ve never worn an SH without one, so while I can't definitively say it makes things better, I do believe it does. It rounds out and thickens the edge of the tube slightly. Clarify with Dietmar directly, but I’m pretty sure he wants you to state the total length first, after which he calculates the rest. The cuff ring, the tube ring, the lock mechanism, and the tube itself should all sum up to 3 inches.

A further note on the integrated lock. Unlike a standard padlock, this mechanism is serious business. I *suspect* it could be broken out using a flathead screwdriver, though since it’s made of brass, my theory might be flawed. If you misplace your keys, Dietmar won’t be able to send replacements.

Definitely go for the integrated lock. It is secure, solid, quiet, and sleek. I suspect that the brass "tab" securing the security insert could be snapped off with a flathead screwdriver. However, it would need to be sheared flush to allow the insert to slide out. This probably wouldn’t be too difficult in a workshop setting but isn't trivial either. It’s certainly more involved than snipping through a lock with bolt cutters. I ordered both anatomical and standard rings for mine. They are identical in size. I’m very glad I got both because, personally, I didn’t care for the anatomical ring. It didn’t seem any more comfortable; due to its bend at the bottom, it actually widened the gap. This resulted in my balls being squeezed (slightly) rather than trapped comfortably. After about three days, I couldn't wear it anymore. I switched back to the standard ring and haven't looked back since. I went 9 days on that one, followed by another 14. Somehow, I missed seeing the stainless steel tube ring option until after my order was finalized. I haven’t noticed any issues going without it. If I were to order a replacement (perhaps for PA fixing purposes), I might pick it up just to test it out. I’m curious why you opted for the Steelheart 2 over the standard Steelheart. To me, urinating in the SH2 seems tricky (maybe even messy) unless you sit down. Cleaning might be slightly easier, perhaps not. Interestingly, with my original steelheart I can use a spray bottle to create a seal around the hole that pushes water out through the top—a trick I couldn’t manage with the Steelheart 2. One more point: I’m wearing a smaller ring on this SH than I did on the CB-3000 or any of my MM devices, and now wish it were even smaller. My current ring is 44mm, so I’ll likely order a 42mm soon. Something allows for that smaller size; Thumper once suggested it might be because the steel has a larger diameter (or perhaps that’s what makes it more comfortable), which seems plausible. If you can, I’d recommend ordering both your probable correct size and one step down. The shipping cost back and forth to get a new ring fitted is only marginally less than buying two rings initially. Plus, you don't have to wait for delivery. -A

> Atone wrote:I ordered both the anatomical and standard rings with mine. They are both the same size. I am really glad I ordered both because I did not like the anatomical ring. It did not seem to be any more comfortable and because of the bend at the bottom it made the gap bigger. This caused my balls to be squeezed (a little) rather than trapped. After about three days I couldn't wear it any more. I switched to the standard ring and haven't had a problem since. Really glad to hear that. It helps me stop worrying about needing a new ring now. > Atone wrote:I would suggest ordering both the size you think you need and the next size down if you can. The cost of shipping (both ways) to get a new ring fitted is only slightly less than the cost of a second ring up front. And you don't have to wait for it. Fantastic advice.

> Atone wrote:Definitely get the integrated lock. It is secure, solid, quiet, sleek. I suspect that the brass "tab" that secures the security insert could be broken off with a flat head screwdriver. It would have to be sheared flush though in order to get the insert out. Probably wouldn't be real difficult to do (in the shop) but isn't trivial either. More difficult than cutting a lock with a pair of bolt cutters for sure. Good to know. My wife REALLY appreciates that extra security and the lack of clanking noise from a loose lock. > Atone wrote: > I ordered both the anatomical and standard rings with mine. They are both the same size. I am really glad I ordered both because I did not like the anatomical ring. It did not seem to be any more comfortable and because of the bend at the bottom it made the gap bigger. This caused my balls to be squeezed (a little) rather than trapped. After about three days I couldn't wear it any more. I switched to the standard ring and haven't had a problem since. I went 9 days after that, and then 14 more after that. This is VERY helpful info. You’ve just saved me some money! Though, I’ll probably spend those savings on an extra A ring instead. > Atone wrote: > Somehow I managed to not see the option for the stainless steel tube ring until it was too late to add it to mine. I haven't noticed any problems not having it. If I were to order another one (like to accommodate a PA fixing) I might get it just to try it. Since this looks like it will be long-term, investing in potential extra comfort seems reasonable. > Atone wrote: > I'm curious why you chose the Steelheart 2 instead of the standard steelheart. It looks to me like the steelheart 2 would be difficult (maybe not possible without making a mess) to urinate with unless you are sitting down. It may be a little bit easier to clean but maybe not. I actually find that I can use the spray bottle in my steelheart and create a seal around the hole that forces water out the top. I couldn't do that with the steelheart 2. From what the pictures show, the main urination opening looks identical, but the SH2 has additional vents for drainage. It just seemed "logical" (is anything logical about strapping a piece of steel to my legs to keep me frustrated?) that more vents would mean better hygiene. However, you’ve made a strong point regarding forcing water up through the tube during cleaning... so perhaps I will reconsider the SH1. > Atone wrote: > One other thing, I am wearing a smaller ring on the steelheart than I did on the CB-3000 or any of the MM devices that I have and I wish I got it a little bit smaller. I have a 44mm ring and will probably be ordering a 42mm soon. I'm not sure what it is that allows for a smaller ring but something is. I think Thumper suggested once that it may be because the steel is a larger diameter (or maybe that is why it is more comfortable) and I think that may have something to do with it. I would suggest ordering both the size you think you need and the next size down if you can. The cost of shipping (both ways) to get a new ring fitted is only slightly less than the cost of a second ring up front. And you don't have to wait for it. > -A When I put on the #2 ring from my CB-3000 (actually it’s a CB-2000 ring), it feels a bit tight... right on that borderline where it could become an issue if I get EXTREMELY excited. I believe this ring is 2 inches in diameter, equivalent to Steelworxx's 50mm offering. Perhaps I’ll get that size and also request something slightly larger (custom) like a 60mm ring, which equals about a 2.36" ring. Using a cloth measuring tape gives me 2.38", but I wonder if the result differs when using string or cord instead of the wider cloth tape due to its thickness. I’ll have to test that tonight. Thanks Thumper and Atone and LRC for ALL the feedback. This is no small purchase (the most I’ve spent on a "sex toy") and I hope to get it right the first time.

> member_17779b11c2 wrote: > From the pictures, it looks like the whole for urination is identical, but the SH2 also has other vents for draining. It just seemed "logical" (is anything logical about having a piece of steel locked on me to keep me constantly frustrated?) that more vents would mean more hygienic. The hole on the standard Steelheart feels more like an option than a guarantee. When I urinate in mine, I hold it so the opening is at the bottom and go slowly, allowing urine to drain out of the device faster than from my body. If possible, I use a bit of tissue to dry everything off afterwards; otherwise, I just let it drip for a while. With those extra vent holes on the SH2, I’d expect the stream direction to become unpredictable, potentially creating more mess. -A

Agreed. Also, I rely on being able to create a vacuum with the single hole when cleaning it. It’s possible—though counterintuitive—that the extra vent might actually make keeping things clean harder. Flushing water through would definitely be trickier.

OK, next question. For those with the integrated lock: can you, or your lady holding the key, provide me with the dimensions of the key? My wife is trying to determine if it will fit into a locket. We’re looking for an elegant way for her to wear it without our kids constantly asking what it’s for.

> member_17779b11c2 wrote:OK, next question. For those that have integrated lock, can you, or the lady holding it your key, provide me with the measurements of the key? My wife is trying to figure out if it will fit into a locket. I don’t have exact measurements, but there’s no chance in hell it’ll fit inside a standard locket. The key is very long—much longer than you’d expect given its function. It also feels somewhat fragile for everyday carrying. -A

Thanks Atone! That leads us to our second idea: a combination key safe. This way she can carry the combination in a locket instead. My wife really likes the concept of having something tangible with her that demonstrates her control (though I thought the steel tube between my legs would serve that purpose??).

The key is just a hair over 2 inches long and not particularly "cute". It looks long and gangly. Wouldn’t look great hanging on a chain.

UPDATE: The order is placed and payment sent! Now begins the long wait for my Steelheart to arrive...

Congrats! Remember what they say: a watched cock is never locked.