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

I'm actually so fucking sick of this shit. Men forcing their perversions on society, getting sexually aroused by parading around in front of women and children in a flipping shop. Same as that dirty bastard pervert with the enormous fetish knockers teaching in the Canadian school. We are supposed to shut up and put up with shit? Nah, I'm not having it.

Your trauma is the issue here.

Someone wearing a bright yellow suit to IKEA would by definition be an exhibitionist.

When looking at the legal definition those in IKEA don’t meet the threshold.

so would you also have a panic attack at the man in a yellow suit, as that’s an exhibitionist? Or an actual furry?

Thankfully the laws of the land aren’t based off one persons trauma response

It wasn't a cosplay event that people opt to attend. It was ikea

What I’ve posted is a fact, one many on here won’t like, and some don’t seem to understand, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Can I just reiterate that I'm loving the cool posters on this thread? So very educational.

The take-home message, everyone, is that it is completely fine for men to get sexual thrills from non-consenting members of the public.

I mean, you don't want to be called a prude, do you? That would be so uncool.

Of course it's a fetish, it's equivalent to a person walking around chained at the neck with someone holding the leash.
It's a domsub fetishism just involving animal costumes.. That's all.
So yes I would NOT want to see this out and about it would make me feel really uncomfortable, should be kept in private.
Yanbu

Absolutely.
Women are never expected to cover up because their clothes are inappropriate. And men wearing fetish gear in ikea are just nipping in for a candle.

My trauma is not the issue, i'd argue perhaps the type of men who cause such trauma and always wanting to push the boundaries and societies general complacency to this which emboldens them and dismisses objections are the issue, sweet

Of course it is, you seem to think peoples civil liberties should be based on what makes you scared.

The world doesn’t work like that, you are responsible for your own reactions, no one else is responsible for making you feel safe or less scared.

The men in IKEA have objectively done nothing wrong, you getting upset seeing it isn’t their problem, nor anyone else’s.

That might be a hard pill to swallow but it’s a basic fact.

I have worn what would easily be classed as cos-play to non cosplay events. And on public transport and in shops on way to events.

I do not think it should be allowed for people to be in IKEA dressed like this. It's inappropriate, end of. These people can do what they like in their own homes, and fetish clubs. There's a time and a place to dress up, and IKEA is not it.

They're getting off on being out in public like this. I think it's disgusting.

Ok, I get it. We all love freedom of thought. 1984 world sucks. But there is room to say both 'you can think what you want as far as the law is concerned' and 'you should try to curtail rather than indulge peadophelic thoughts'. Noticing that it would be unhelpful to criminalise certain speech and thinking doesn't absolve us of interrogating why we think and say things, and is compatible with thinking that we should try to change our thinking. Not in some Orwellian government mandated programme, but from the type of consciousness raising that feminism is so very good at inducing.

To be clear: I don't think these guys should go to prison, or that we should legislate against them bringing sex masks into IKEA. I do think that it is morally wrong of them to subejct the public to their sexual fetish.

The law argument is too easy. Loads of shitty behaviour is legal, and rightly so. The real question is: why are they doing this? They are doing it because they are sexually gratified by bystanders seeing them engaged in a sexual kink. That is the reason. So now the follow-up questions are, is that the type of reason we want to be motivating behaviour? Why do they feel that is a good reason? The answer will be complicated, and for sure involve male sexual entiltement to female attention. The action is designed to not be liked, that's part of the motivation for it.

Parading around in fetish gear may be a civil liberty it certainly isnt a human right. and those 'liberties' can be removed if deemed acceptable by society. Yes, you do sound like an MRA.

I agree that intent is important. But, as far as I can see, we don't know the intent in this situation?

You are a bit confused. 'Exhibitionism' as a personality trait is not the same as a sexual exhibitionism.

Data suggests 18-20% of “furries” are zoophiles who enjoy beastiality. That’s 1 in 5. (Easy to Google if you want to see the stats)

But sure, it’s not a fetish….

You being asked for consent when in public is also not a human right, yet you keep prattling on about it. Heck it’s not even a concept that exists outside of MN.

Your trauma is yours to own, manage and hopefully try to work through.

There was a period in my life seeing pregnant women out and about would make me want to go home and kill myself, because I was suffering through unexplained infertility, that doesn’t mean they’re in the wrong for being out and about pregnant, or wearing t-shirts saying ‘only assholes can’t have kids’

Does the latter make them a bit of a prick? Yeah

Does it mean I get to argue they shouldn’t be allowed outside wearing that T-shirt? No.

It is useful if slightly depressing to see it play out, time and time again.

Women complain men are using unconsenting members of the public/children for sexual gratification.

Women are insulted, sneered at, minimised. 'prudes, pearl clutchers, snowflakes'. And always with the deflection. It's our fault for being oversensitive, for being hysterical, for being easily offended. Other people's kinks, paraphilias and fetishes are none of our business and we should shut up and go home.

The tactics are so predictable. At least we are learning how to spot them.

Nope, the poster I was replying to is though, hence the reply.

The only fact that I can see you are posting on here is that YOU believe that men parading fetishes in public are unproblematic and benign.

You don't seem to understand that it is NOT OK, it is a slippery slope that normalises paraphilias for children.

What kind of human being thinks that involving children in Kink, and enabling nonces is fine?

Do you think you could converse with someone without resorting to insulting terms like 'prattling'? It's not hard.

I'm sorry to hear about your infertility. I hope you're healing.

Tbh I agree the intent here is probably to get satisfaction from being in public dressed as a dog, I don’t however agree it makes one ounce of difference in a practical sense between those dressing up for sexual gratification vs those dressing up for a stag do.

Objectively it is ok, if it wasn’t laws would be in place to prevent it happening.

Involving non consenting strangers in your exhibitionist sexual fetish is indecent at the very least. So sad for the people of Scotland and Canada whose leaders have decided male sexual freedom is more important than the consent of those around them, even children.