Editorial Policy

Editorial Standards

Chastity Cage Guide exists because most of what is written about male chastity is written by people who never held the device. Everything published here is one of three things: something I experienced, something I measured, or something published elsewhere and cited by name. There is no fourth category, and nothing is invented to fill a gap.

The register is harm reduction. I describe what people actually do, I describe how to do it with less risk, and I do not moralise about the practice or dramatise its dangers. Safety information is held to a higher standard than anything else on the site because it is the part a reader might act on tonight.

How I Cite Safety Literature

Real medical literature exists that is relevant to chastity practice, and almost nobody in this niche cites it. I do, but only in ways the literature actually supports. These rules are binding on every page:

• The strangulation literature is about rings, not cages. The published case reports concern constriction devices including chastity base rings — that is the phrasing I use. I never write "studies show cages cause X", because no such study exists. Misrepresenting the source to make a safety point sound stronger is a failure, not a shortcut.
• Time-to-removal is the finding, so it is what I report. In that literature the dominant variable in outcomes is how long a constriction stays on. My editorial line follows directly from it: a device you cannot remove is an emergency waiting to happen, keep a key accessible, and go to an emergency department early rather than late.
• Numbness is a stop signal, and that is all I claim. I tell readers to remove the device immediately if sensation is lost. I do not invent a chastity-specific nerve-damage literature to justify it, because there is not one.
• Sources are named, linked and dated. PubMed case reports, Cleveland Clinic hygiene guidance, radiology guidance on metal and MRI, and published TSA screening policy are cited by name so a reader can check them rather than trust me.
• Manufacturer claims are labelled as manufacturer claims. A specification I did not measure is never presented as one I did. In the spec tables and data files, every row is marked as measured by me or sourced from the manufacturer.

Fact-Checking & Review

All safety-related content is checked against named sources before publication. My review process includes:

• Cross-referencing every safety claim against peer-reviewed literature or published guidance from a recognised health body, and checking that my wording matches what the source actually establishes.
• Verifying device specifications by measuring the unit myself, and flagging any figure I could not verify as a manufacturer claim.
• Re-reading safety pages when new research or guidance appears, and correcting anything the new evidence contradicts.

Honest Timestamps and Changelogs

Date integrity is broken across this sector. Pages routinely carry a fresh date with years-old content behind it, which makes every date on every site worth less. I do the opposite, and I would rather look stale than look dishonest:

• Published and updated dates are both real. The update date changes only when the content genuinely changed. It is never bumped to game a ranking or to look current.
• Substantive edits are logged. Reviews and safety pages carry a dated changelog at the bottom recording what changed and why. A re-measurement, a reversed recommendation, or a corrected figure all appear there.
• Old measurements are corrected, not quietly overwritten. If a figure was wrong, the changelog says it was wrong.

Correction Policy

I aim for accuracy in everything I publish, and I get things wrong sometimes. When that happens I correct it promptly and say that I did.

• Report an error — email contact@chastitycageguide.com. If you make or sell a device reviewed here and believe a measurement is wrong, say so and it gets re-measured.
• Timely corrections — verified errors are corrected within 48 hours of confirmation, and safety errors immediately.
• Transparency — corrections are noted on the affected page with the date, in the changelog, and the update date is moved to match.

What I Do Not Publish

• No explicit imagery. Photography on this site is of devices on neutral backgrounds and of measurement setups. There is no anatomical or explicit imagery anywhere, including in reviews.
• Devices, sizing and practice only. This is an information resource for people using or considering these devices, and for the partners who hold the keys. I do not publish fantasy, roleplay or arousal-oriented content, and I do not chase the search traffic attached to it, regardless of how large it is.
• No content aimed at minors, ever. This site is 18+ and is labelled as such for filtering software.

Sources & References

Where the content rests on something other than my own experience, it cites:

• Peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals.
• Established health organisations and their published guidelines.
• Published safety, radiology and security-screening guidance from the responsible authority.
• Manufacturer documentation, clearly labelled as the manufacturer's claim rather than a verified fact.

Sources are named and linked within articles so readers can check them independently. Community reports and forum experience are described as exactly that — useful, unverified, and never presented as evidence.

Contact

Feedback, corrections, and questions about the content are welcome at:

Email: contact@chastitycageguide.com

I aim to respond to editorial enquiries within 3 business days.