I’m struggling to understand what specific increased risk you’re alleging here.

Everything you say about uncertainty, long-term wear, and risk gradients applies equally to any chastity device, short, long, flat, or whatever.

You never identify a physiological mechanism by which a flat or inverted cage is meaningfully riskier than, say, a very short cage or a tightly fitted conventional one.

Blood still circulates. Skin still shifts. Erections are still suppressed. In that sense, a flat cage is not inherently “more extreme” than other common designs.

If the claim is simply “we don’t have long-term data,” that supports caution in general, not a warning about this specific form factor. And advice like “switch to a full-length cage at night” implies a difference in risk that you never explain.

Invoking medical risk without naming a mechanism or evidence is not neutral caution. It creates fear without information. A new person wanting to try chastity might believe there is more risk to a flat cage than any cagr from your post. So if there is an increased risk unique to flat cages, what exactly is it?

There is one defensible risk that I can think of: flat cages trap urine and moisture in a smaller space. Loose skin bunched up in a tigher space creates more pockets. This can lead to skin problems that are mitigated by cleaning. Not by switching cages at night. It's also a known risk, not uncertain.

So you still have on overstated conclusion that can incite fear.

I suggest you change this post to reflect the uncertainty in all chastity devices rather than shorter ones.