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

And this?

Oh, is it ok done in private then?

Quite odd that you have to point that out, really.

Isn't it, Roaring. I'm slightly stunned that people are willing to argue in favour of paedophilia. But sadly no longer surprised.

These pup players aren’t getting their bits out. I would add nudity to the list.

“actively being a bystander”

is that even possible?

This is all so very educational to the MN public, although I suspect it's not the kind of education that the cool crowd necessarily are hoping.

You were responding to this question by BadNomad:

So are you fine with paedophiles getting off to the presence of children as long as no one is physically getting hurt?

'The presence of children' entails that children are there. So this scenario invovles at least 1 peadophile and at least 2 children. I assumed in public. Getting off in the presence of children in private is obviously way worse, not sure how that is the detail you're fighting me over.

Because all deflection from actually answering the question DarkShade

“The law has clear lines that shouldn't/can't be crossed - there was no sexual contact, sexual activity, coercion or exposure taking place in the situation in the OP - it was literally some people dressed up as animals.”

This is the most sensible comment on this thread. All the consent talk is irrelevant because the action being discussed, while being a little unusual, doesn’t transgress any problematic boundaries.

An activist?

Why do you have to be an activist to not get twisted over something so benign?

Putting it as ‘getting kicks from non consenting people’ is also a real stretch, no kids were harmed, nothing overly sexual was seen in public.

If my kids were in IKEA and some people in pup play outfits came in as long as they were fully clothed and not displaying anything overtly sexual (thus illegal) then why would I mind, I’d probably have a chuckle under my breath and walk on by to get some of their chocolate doughnuts!

These men haven’t committed any crimes, their tails aren’t bum plugs (as some have claimed on this thread) unless they’re both afflicted by having anuses half way up their backs.

Some people walk around with remote controlled vibrators inside them, they get off on being stimulated around others without them knowing, I’d also have no issue with that. Is it my cup of tea? Nope, do I give a shit what other people do as long as it’s legal and doesn’t impact me? Also nope.

It doesn’t impact anyone in the slightest, except those who enjoy being offended that is,

Yes and the key word here is 'consent'.

As for the guys getting cosy in an otherkin suit, all I can say is without the MDMA it would likely have looked less hilarious and more akin to pathetic.

Readers get live demonstrations on MN threads like this. This one is all about the permissiveness of some people and how others dismissing the actions are complicit. It must get very uncomfortable when you start seeing the live demonstrations that happen here if you have told yourself that people who have issues are just exaggerating the risks.

Readers also notice the questions that are ignored.

Another one believing is okay to give up consent on behalf of others because simply because they personally arent affected by it

So why are they in ikea?

They are clearly there to be seen, not to buy a bookshelf.

Do you think exhibitionism is non problematic?

Totally.

There are posters on here who think it is normal and OK for children to be part of another person's (mostly male) sexual fetishes in public.

This is, yet another example, of what this normalisation leads to. It is NOT OK.

twitter.com/troonytoons/status/1612155825795268608

Where are these robust laws that stops things like this happening?

NB. A few years ago I wouldn't have turned a hair at this. It's only since the fetishists have demolished small boundaries at first, then larger ones, then continued pushing and pushing and pushing until their activities were bleached by sunlight for all to see, that they've begun to get such strong pushback. People are becoming increasingly aware of what their shenanigans really mean, and what the implications truly are of an incremental, insidious drive to 'normalize' aberrant behaviour, making kids less likely to question it.

Now, people who wouldn't otherwise have been particularly bothered are wised up, and more and more of the fetishists are experiencing issues when continuing down this tack. Just as women are saying 'no' to having our boundaries eroded.

Serve the fuckers right, I say.

Of course you can.

People on here really seem to struggle with the fact their opinions don’t correlate with the law, or even the norm at times (not claiming this is the norm, but it’s seen on other threads re more ‘normal’ acts such as watching porn)

You finding something offensive is your issue, no one else’s. If something is perfectly legal and within the rules of any private businesses you’re frequenting it doesn’t really matter if some people on MN are offended, you being offended, upset, or even traumatised is your issue, no one else’s.

Very disingenuous comment.

The law doesn’t penalise internal thoughts, no matter how troubling, and nor should it. “Getting off” might simply have meant that. Which is why any good argument must define its terms.

It is problematic as a someone having sexual fantasies about children, might then move onto direct contact.

If by “getting off” you mean an action that involves, exposure, harassment, direct interaction and other actions that are already prohibited by law, then obvs that is not acceptable.

Exhibitionim is terrifying. It would give me a panic attack. If someone did that to me again. Because the exhibitionist then proceeded to force himself on me. But was preceded by that act. Anyone trying to minimise this has a screw loose afaic.

You finding something offensive is your issue, no one else’s. If something is perfectly legal and within the rules of any private businesses you’re frequenting it doesn’t really matter if some people on MN are offended, you being offended, upset, or even traumatised is your issue, no one else’s

Hiding in plain site.

You don’t need to consent to be in public, you also don’t need consent to dress a little weirdly when on a trip to IKEA.

Therefore it really doesn’t matter or make sense when you and others bang on about it. Only makes you look a bit silly.

So you would have been “terrified” if you’d been in that IKEA?

I’m sorry if you have had some past personal trauma that triggers such a reaction. But the vast majority of people would likely just be a bit bemused.

Yes i would I really would. As long as you are okay with it that is all that matters though of course.

As a devils advocate type question.

How does this differ from cosplay?!