I had an auction on ebanned recently to sell my old pink converse shoes. The winner promptly paid $155 followed by this email:
Hello Ceara,
I’m going to do something strange. Even to you this is probably very strange. You don’t need to send the shoes to me. Yesterday I had a weak moment but I regret it now. I sent you the money because we had a deal so I did what I promised.
I want to explain myself. This femdom and foot fetish I have is (was) a small part of life which I only use in a fantasy way. 10-15 years ago I was exploring this fetish and I saw you. For me you are the ultimate Goddess (in a fantasy way of course). You are hot cool, dominant etc. I watched some movies in the past and stuff like that but nothing more, because its just a fantasy or I was just scared.
I want to quit with this thing. (I’m not serving anyone. Never did for real. I don’t visit femdom sites and twitter anymore) But yesterday I had weak moment looked at twitter (#femdom) and saw you had an auction. Even thought I want to stop and just be normal 100% of the time, I felt in love. Like I said you are the ultimate Goddess, so I had to register and made an offer. Because it was something from you. But afterwards (not even after jerking off) it felt wrong. I’m not single at the moment. I’m living just a normal life and in some strange way it feels like cheating if i jerk off to femdom stuff with your shoe to my nose.
Sorry if this is strange. I sent you the money. But you can still sell them to someone else.
-Anon
As strange as he might think this is, its not really. Auction winners often pay me to relist items for more profit and I’ve certainly had my share of guys experience feelings of regret for transgressing.
As far as fetishes go, sniffing shoes and jerking off to femdom clips seem pretty benign to me. Do people really see it as cheating? How is it any different than jerking off to normal porn? I suppose some weirdos consider that cheating as well. Then again I don’t even practice monogamy, so I have a bias there.
But hey, by all means, I encourage all my followers to fight what can’t be fought. Keep telling yourself you’re normal (whatever that means) like it matters. It only serves to increase my profits. Thank you very much.
2nd chance to win my converse here.
My first reation:
(cue the Twilight Zone music)
“You’re about the enter a new dimension. A dimension of sight, sound, and mind. A place located at the intersection of Pleasure and Regret. It’s a ambiguous place. Where Id confronts Ego. Where morality and nature seek dominance and original sin battles everlasting salvation. Buckle up your seat belts. Your about to be taken on a psychic ride of unsubstantiated guilt and awkward decisions. Into the Twilight Zone.”
But then I thought:
His wife would probably be more pissed about him sending you $155 than about him masturbating to your shoe. So in that case, it’s not cheating. Just not good for his marriage.
(Cue the sound of wife inserting old pink converse shoe up his ass.)
One of the aspects I enjoyed of your awful Joe Rogan podcast (not your fault, he didn’t do a good job conducting the interview) was the understanding, empathy, and defense you offered the guys you engage with as his bias was indicating they were all freaks. You refused to allow him to label them that way because they didn’t conform to his ideal. Congratulations, on your last paragraph you just became Joe Rogan. Don’t dismiss something because you don’t understand or agree with it.
What did I dismiss?
This is entirely dismissive! “But hey, by all means, I encourage all my followers to fight what can’t be fought. Keep telling yourself you’re normal (whatever that means) like it matters. It only serves to increase my profits. Thank you very much.”
It’s sarcasm you dum dum. I’m saying it’s impossible to fight your fetish and you shouldn’t waste your time stressing about being “normal.”
I’m aware of the sarcasm, perhaps I’ve done a poor job conveying my point. In your sarcasm and even in your response above you have dismissed a segment of men who engage in a struggle as though their experience isn’t a worthwhile endeavor. Now from your business standpoint I can’t disagree. From a humanistic standpoint this is an incredibly narrow viewpoint. The men who struggle deserve the same validation as those of us who do not. In the same way there is the validation you demanded be given to the guys you interact with that Joe Rogan wanted to dismiss. To those who really want to beat the habit you should be good with that on a karma level as there are still plenty of guys who will pay you. Perhaps I’m being sensitive and this approach isn’t good for the persona, but I found your approach to Joe to be refreshing and I’ve found some of your proclaimed “boner killer” posts to be incredibly insightful on a humanistic level and felt this time your response fell short.
You’re right, I don’t think that experience is a worthwhile endeavor because I think it’s a waste of time to try and fight a harmless fetish when you could just accept it and enjoy your life. So actually, I am validating that person, he’s not validating himself.
But if they’re not at peace as a result of their fetish hopefully they’ll recondition themselves. I understand your thinking more and appreciate the dialogue and your perspective but I think anytime someone thinks they know what’s better for another person than they know for themselves it’s a dangerous precedent. We all have things in our lives we fight and we all could find someone who would validate those things. At the end of the day we need to discover our peace and determine what brings us comfort.
A dangerous precedent? It’s just an opinion. He’s free to live his life however he wants.
A dangerous precedent in where it can lead not where it is on the surface of this circumstance. For instance nearly 100 years ago our government made alcohol illegal in prohibition. The main thought process behind it? We know what’s better for people than they donforbthenselves. Obviously this is just one example, and an extreme one, but that’s the mindset behind the danger I see when any of us tries to dictate the feelings of another. I’ve probably made way too big a deal of a single paragraph of one journal entry, but with your upcoming film and increased exposure from your podcast interviews (with the exception of Joe Rogan have all been phenomenal in my opinion), I’m hoping the genuine (won’t use real name) that allows Ceara to exist and operate shines through, in ways she did in the Rogan interview and your fascinating pull back the curtain entries.
Okay you win. I will now refrain from expressing my opinion that people should accept themselves and enjoy their kinks….. because it might lead to prohibition.
I read the above exchange with interest. I’m a huge Ceara Lynch fan, but not a Ceara Lynch apologist. (She has no problem at all arguing her points herself.)
As to Zack’s point that her last paragraph is dismissive. If it were meant to be sarcastic, as Ceara Lynch states, then by definition, it is derisive and meant to convey contempt. So I take Zack’s point. Personally, though, I read those sentences as more tongue-in-cheek than sarcasm.
That said, I think Zack is being unfair. Ceara Lynch has from the very beginning advocated a philosophy akin to sensualism whereby people embrace their sensual desires as an integral part of who they are … integral in that those desires most often reside apart from the rational world we mentally confine ourselves to. Zack himself alludes not only to her historically unequivocal acceptance of other people’s sexual desires, but also her unabashed argument for that philosophy against those with a more narrow view (i.e., Joe Rogan.)
So taking Ceara Lynch’s words en total over the course of her public career, I think to hold that last paragraph up as a failure to meet some arbitrary standard of philosophical consistency is regrettable and uncalled for.
Finally, I would refer anyone reading this comment to Ceara Lynch’s aftercare video for further insight into her appreciation and empathy for her customers’ often time ambiguous and conflicting feelings regarding their sexual proclivities.