(A fantasy story about how the use of chastity belts on errant males had profound changes.)
Looking back, historians note that the major shift in the sexual power struggle between men and women began in California in the late 1990's. First there was the AIDS panic of 1997-98 when AIDS spread rapidly in the heterosexual community. This was followed by increasing media coverage of the plight of innocent wives who contracted AIDS from their philandering husbands. A storm of protest erupted in which militant feminists joined with mothers' groups, the moral majority, public health officials and politicians of every political stripe to "bring a halt" to this "modern plague" which was said to threaten the stability of the modern family.
The California Legislature responded to the hue and cry by passing the so-called "Anti-AIDS Transmission Laws" -- the most prominent of which was the California Spousal Protection Act. Although nominally this law applied equally to husbands and wives, the law was written and administered in such a way that, much like the divorce laws, wives were the chief beneficiaries of the law.
Under the California Spousal Protection Act, all a married woman had to do was to apply to the court and show that she had reasonable grounds to be concerned about her husband's sexual fidelity. The courts liberally construed this requirement so that over time it became relatively easy to get a lawyer to draw the necessary papers and get the court to issue a "protective order" that would protect the health of the wife and the welfare of the family.
Thus the CSPA provided that because of a wife's reasonable fear that she may contract a deadly AIDS infection from her husband and in order to protect her and her family from this dread disease, the court would issue an order that gave a husband three choices: (1) a medically supervised chemical treatment that would keep him from having any further sexual desires, (2) installation of a foolproof chastity device which would be under his wife's exclusive control, or (3) a divorce under which, of course, his wife got most of the assets as well as lifetime spousal support. The court documents were sealed so that no one would ever know whether or not a particular husband had been subjected to a "protective order" or, if so, what choice he had made.
At first relatively few women took advantage of the new law. And since these early cases were the most egregious cases of husband infidelity and danger to the philanderer's wife, the law received general public support. As time went by, the news spread by word of mouth of all the advantages a woman would enjoy by having her husband "locked up for her alone." What many women came to realize was that the simple installation of a modern, foolproof chastity device on their husbands resulted in a dramatic shift of sexual and economic power in their favor. By the turn of the century, this was a power that many women were ready and anxious to exercise. Best of all, this power could be exercised by a woman whenever and as much, or as little, as she chose.
Most husbands subject to a "protective order" chose the chastity device, assuming that one way or another they could get around it. Some husbands, however, chose the chastity device because in their heart of hearts they were sexual submissives who openly or secretly craved sexual domination by a FemDom who, perhaps unexpectedly, was now his own wife. To the surprise of many wives, it turned out that almost one in eleven California husbands were in this category.
Among themselves, California wives would often brag about how much they enjoyed having their husbands locked up, and how much their sex lives had improved. In certain circles, it became the "in" thing -- even a status symbol of the "new woman." Some wives even displayed their husband's locked up genitals to their woman friends on the excuse that their friends were considering having the same thing done to their husbands. When a wife didn't disclose to her friends whether or not her husband was locked up, other wives would invariably guess by his behavior, and give each other knowing winks and nods.
Part Two: How the Chastity Device Option Worked
A husband under a court "protective order" was required to report to a medical laboratory that operated under court supervision. here two stainless steel rings were permanently attached to his genitals: one ring was placed against his pubic bone and went around the top of his penis and under his balls -- much like a cock ring; the second ring went around the head of his penis just under the glans of the penis. The second ring required a piercing where his foreskin is (or was) attached. Both rings were permanently marked with his wife's name so that anyone viewing them would know his status under the law and to whom he belonged. By themselves, these two steel rings did not interfere with sexual drive or performance, and indeed many men reported that both improved with them on.
To transform the two steel rings into a chastity device required a locked link between the two rings. There were a variety of devices on sale for linking the two steel rings. The most popular mode was a miniature padlock that tightly connected both rings under the man's balls so that the glans of his penis was locked pointing down and nicely separating his balls. When a man's penis was locked down in this position he was still able to urinate freely (but only if he sat on the toilet like a woman), but it made erections difficult and painful, intercourse impossible, and masturbation painful at best. Most men did not even try to masturbate, but did seem to enjoy holding their genitals in a flaccid state in their cupped hands. If a couple got divorced, the husband returned to the laboratory to have the device removed. Or, if his wife changed her mind (which very few did).
The law prohibited a man from unlocking or removing the chastity device without his wife's written consent, upon pain of forfeiture of his share of community property or, in aggravated cases, imprisonment for one year -- during which he was required to wear the chastity device at all times. This made him a marked man in prison and "fresh pussy" for the predatory homosexuals in the prison. As a result, few husbands were willing to risk this fate.
Part Three: Common Patterns of Changing Marital Sexual Behavior
Most wives with "protective orders" started out by requiring their husbands to be "locked up" only when they went out of town on business trips or similar outings which offered temptations for extramarital sex. However, stories rapidly spread among the wives about their husbands visiting prostitutes or mistresses after work, so most wives shifted to requiring a "lockup" whenever their husbands left the house. When he returned home in the evening, his wife usually unlocked his device, particularly when he complained about how uncomfortable it was when he was locked up. After a while, the wives came to realize that this complaint was a variation of the old "blue balls" complaint that men had conned women with for years.
Little by little, as both husbands and wives got used to the chastity devices, they were used more frequently. A few men just couldn't handle it, and most of these got a divorce. And a few wives abused their new power and turned their husbands into virtual sex slaves and, in some cases, economic slaves as well. These, however, were the exceptions.
After a few years under the new law, most married couples living under a "protective order" which required the husband to wear a chastity device under the control of his wife fell into one of two common patterns:
1. The first, or "traditional," group continued their sex life much as before, with the man initiating sex whenever he wanted it, and his wife accommodating his desires as best she could. These wives were happy because they knew their husbands were no longer fooling around with other women, and their husbands were willing to accommodate to the chastity device when they were away from their wives.
2. The second, or "modern," group consisted of wives who used the chastity device to control their husband's sexual behavior to improve their own sexual pleasure. This was the group that steadily grew larger. Typically, these wives kept their husbands locked up until she desired sexual activity with her husband, and would unlock him only for the duration of the sex act (and periodically for sanitary purposes.)
The horny husbands of these wives quickly learned that it was in their own self-interest to get their wives in a romantic, sexual mood as often as possible, and "courting" behavior rapidly reappeared among these husbands -- much to the delight of their wives.
Many of these wives learned the pleasures that flowed from denying their husbands an orgasm by keeping him locked up during their sex play or forbidding him to cum. Many husbands who previously had been only half-hearted about giving their wife oral sex became ardent cunnilinguists, and many became sexually addicted to it. Other husbands were taught how a dildo could be used, especially when combined with oral sex, to satisfy a woman. (If nothing else, this teaches a husband that he is not indispensable to his wife's sexual pleasure, and it often resulted in a reappraisal of his sexual role.)
Many wives reported that the husbands who were denied their regular sexual orgasms, although sexually frustrated, were more sexually ardent than ever. And those husbands who were naturally sexually submissive reveled in being used to give sexual orgasms to their wives while being denied their own orgasms.
A small minority of these liberated women totally denied their husbands normal intercourse and orgasms. The great majority, however, reserved such "treats" for special occasions, and only when their husbands had been "nice" to them by being courteous and respectful and indulging their various wishes. Their husbands always looked forward to being "rewarded" with such "treats" and would do almost anything to "deserve" it.
Many, if not most, of these wives came to realize that their husbands, although previously resistant, were now willing to share household chores with their wives. As a result, most of the locked husbands took on new duties as grocery shopper, cook, dishwasher, etc. This had some interesting results:
Many wives reported that from time to time they experienced a delicious twinge in their pussy when they watched their husband performing these household chores for them, when they both knew that it was because of her new-found sexual power.
Some wives resented it when their husband's performance of his household chores was inept or careless. Instead of letting it slide, these wives insisted on proper performance of these tasks and took active steps to correct the situation, e.g., scolding, ridicule, making him re-do the chores, and threatening him with unpleasant consequences. Uniformly, these wives reported that they enjoyed the feeling of power this gave them, and the fact that their husbands now took them more seriously.
A survey of the "modern" wives of locked husbands reported that the great majority felt no loss of femininity, but rather felt more like they believed a woman with power should feel, i.e., more self-assured, confident and sexy. They also reported that they now shared an intimacy with their husbands which previously had been lacking, and liked their husbands much better.
Part Four: The Shift in the Male/Female Power Relationship
Largely unanticipated, the principal change that resulted from the California Spousal Protection Act was the shift in power from the husband to the wife in marriages in which the wife had obtained a "protective order." Essentially what happened was that as both parties got used to the wife being "in charge" of their sex life, it was only natural that, over time, this would carry over to the rest of their relationship. This was particularly true where the wife, currently or in recent past, held a responsible position in the business or professional world. She knew how to exert leadership and control, where necessary, and was increasingly willing to do so in her marriage.
Similarly, the locked-up husbands were willing to accept leadership and decision-making from their wives -- or at least were reluctant to risk their wive's disfavor for fear of its consequences in the bedroom. Some said that these men were "pussy whipped," and to a certain extent this was true. But many wives pointed out that this term, intended to be pejorative, was just a carryover from the macho, male-dominated period which no longer existed, and besides many wives now considered the term a kind of compliment. Fortunately, most wives in this situation knew how to work collaboratively with their husbands, and how to make him feel like he was a valued part of the marriage partnership.
The biggest change came when many of the wives of the locked-up husbands came to assert themselves more forcefully in the economic decisions of the marriage. Some of this followed naturally from the fact that the husband was being "rationed" sexually by his wife. It didn't seem like too much of a stretch when she decided to take charge of their checkbook and finances, or when she put him on a monetary "allowance," which determined how much he could spend without her express permission. This meant that when he wanted to spend money on an "indulgence" he had to come to her to seek her permission. Some men liked this arrangement; the others got used to it.
Overall, while there were some excesses and abuses, the married couples with locked-up husbands gradually settled into their new relationship amicably, and now the wife could wear either the "skirt" or the "pants" in the family when and how she chose. After a while, this seemed like the only natural way for a California married couple to live.
[ Back to chastity fiction page ]
Page last updated 97-Feb-12 by: Altairboy@aol.com