Furries in IKEA

[user19888891]

www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-ikea-shoppers-confused-after-25983306?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

Am I the only one who thinks this isn’t appropriate? Surely it’s no more appropriate to be naked in public than to walk around dresses up for a sex game? Do IKEA have a responsibility to safeguard their young guests?

I was particularly taken aback by this paragraph ;
‘Although many think it is a sexual fetish more often than not dressing up like animals is a fun escape for a community of people who enjoy expressing themselves in this way.’
is this true? I’ve never heard of this being done in a non sexual manner

It is hilarious isn’t it?

when you see it, you cannot unsee it .

There is something about transgressing boundaries that is so very attractive to some people that even getting women to explain things they feel uncomfortable explaining can be the motivation .

I know! It’s a cool story.

Yes, incredibly so, but most know the deal with AIBU and that it swings prudish and ott.

No worries. Keep on posting it.

My point is how it was completely ignored. Like it isn’t part of the same issue of normalising sexual fetishes to children.

Wouldn't that go for low cut tops or men in tight jeans etc?

Those are not furries.

Yes, to most people the sexual element is not understood.

If you wanted to find one of these masks, do you know where you would look or how you would find one?

Have you ever googled 'pup play'?

(Just a caution that doing so will throw up some NSFW links.)

Hear, hear.

If anyone on here is completely happy to be used as an unconsenting participant in the sexual behaviour and fetishes of others, then of course it’s your perfect right to feel that way on your own account. Although it does suggest very poor boundaries - which may be the result of having your own boundaries repeatedly violated, or potentially an interest in violating the boundaries of others.

But even if neither a history of abuse nor an intent to exploit others is present, and your views are simply your deeply held and cherished beliefs, the only person you can consent for is you.

Why do some of you demonstrate this urge to do away with the right of others to feel differently from you?

Why do some of you want to control how others respond?

Why do you feel entitled to impose your way of feeling about things on others who feel differently?

Why this attack on the right of others to withhold consent, this suggestion that there is something morally inferior about people who do want to maintain solid boundaries in these situations, this attempt to denigrate the concept of safeguarding and acceptable standards of public behaviour?

I wonder what could be the motivation behind that?

I'm left wondering what will they do next.
We all know it's the kick that they want, so when going out publicly dressed like this no longer gives them the thrill as it won't (as we know) how will they get the next thrill? Sex in public? And when that no longer is thrilling?
Dont get me wrong I'm against all paraphillias being played out in public, my granddaughter's dont need to see this, but yeah, where do they go from this.

@EastLondonObserver that's nice. I assume no children were present? So really not the same thing.

Why are so many people so keen to expose children to men's sexual kinks? Just why is this boundary blurring acceptable / a good thing? Who gains?

You mean, would someone wearing for example tight jeans be involving an onlooker in non-consensual sexual activity? It depends on their intent. The specific trousers/clothing aren't the issue, the intent and the response/activity are the issue.

Just as with a flasher, the macintosh used isn't the issue, but the desire to shock/confuse/upset/anger/garner a response from the onlooker.

No pun intended, I'm sure!

I don't need to define the term more precisely, because any interpretation of the sentence "getting off to children in public" is unacceptable. Actively masturbating, merely imagining it, videoing the children for later, wearing your sex gear and feeling sexually gratified that children are seeing you in it. You name the least offensive way of spelling out that sentence, and it's wrong. The fact that this needs saying is precisley the 'eroding of boundries' that people on here are protesting against, in addition to the non-consensual act done to the individuals present.

If anyone on here is completely happy to be used as an unconsenting participant in the sexual behaviour and fetishes of others, then of course it’s your perfect right to feel that way on your own account.

That's granting consent, which would negate the 'unconsenting' part.

The entirety of these issues rests on the non-consent of onlookers. That's what makes it attractive to paraphiliacs; that's what makes it offensive and wrong.

You know I almost had to laugh at the poster who made the 'you're just prudish' comment. Cause it is the exact choice of phrase my abusive ex used whenever i objected to being involved in things i didn't want to do. It is like they all read from the same playbook. And of course neither have nothing to do with prudishness in any sense when you know what the term means in reality.

So you’re a men’s sexual rights activist, ElfandSafety101?

You're literally happy to go on record saying you think it’s silly, hysterical and prudish to object to men getting sexual thrills from non-consenting people?

You seem to be saying that men getting their sexual thrills as and when they choose is the most important thing for society to prioritise. More important than safeguarding children, than respecting the right of others not to be unconsenting fodder for these men’s sexual thrills.

Is that your position?

Yes, of course you’re right.

Of course. 'Prude' used as an insult. Often followed by accusations that only those with minds preoccupied with sex would suspect a sexual motivation.

Feminists have the power to be both prudish and prurient at the same time. Amazing.

So in the run up to Christmas can I go to Ikea wearing this?

It was nice! Some cracking MDMA.

It’s weird everyone is exclusively associating BDSM with men. There’s loads of women in that community.

If you can't fulfil your sexual urges without involving the non-consent of others, seek help.

Yes you can.

Paraphilias are almost exclusively confined to males.

BDSM doesn't necessarily involve paraphilias, although there is overlap.

BDSM when practised sensibly is absolutely firm on practises being 'safe, sane and consensual'.

You didn’t mention “in public” before - you’ve just added that. Nice try.

ELO, 'getting off to children' is not acceptable. Public or not.

The men. Though always boggles my mind the amount of women thinking they will ever gain anything from it by nodding along.