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

Out of interest, would it be different for you if it had been a woman leading the ‘pups’?

There are loads of women in BDSM community. And who bought all those copies of 50 Shades of Grey?

Oh. Now we are reframing on cosplay!

This is sexual fetish gear. Being worn to IKEA and during the hours when children are there.

There is no equivalence here with wearing a non-sexual fetish cosplay outfit in public.

It isn’t hard to understand.

Confused? Not at all. We are not just talking bout innocently going in public doing innocent things.

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

Ha ha NO.

I do think that new laws need to be enacted to prevent men from eroding boundaries this way.

This is what identity politics has enabled. Men are emboldened to behave as they wish. See the house of frazer trans woman flashing his penis in public parts of the shops.

But rather than people like you advocating for tighening laws and stopping these men you are calling women prudes.

Great comment.

As all good mrs do well. Also my abusive ex - it was one of his favourite words!

Objectively there is no difference, it’s people dressing up to get attention from others. And let’s not lie that people cosplay for attention.

What they do internally with that attention might be very different, but there are no rules, or laws that punish people from getting off on people looking at them.

People can think this is weird, they can think it’s inappropriate but at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what some people on MN think.

Yes, the intent probably is there. But probably isn't definitely.

I get pleasure from going out in costume. I love being stopped and asked about what I am wearing. I have discovered I even get a thrill from being asked if someone can take a photo. I can assure everyone that there is nothing sexual in it at all. But I do get enjoyment - I can be someone other than me

You were the one who responded to Kucinghitam’s question: Do you think it is silly, hysterical, prudish, etc, to object to men getting sexual thrills from non-consenting people? with the answer, Yes, incredibly so.

You quite happily went with that wording in the first place, when you wanted to show how cool you are compared to those of us who do have a problem with it, and say how silly, hysterical and prudish it is to object - but now you’re cavilling about it.

Why is that?

Amazing comment. So abortion in many parts of the world is 'objectively not ok' and homosexuality up until 1980 was also 'obejctively not ok'? The law's purpose is not to reflect back to us a blueprint for moral behaviour. And also, as the countless injust laws around the world and at home show, the law is often fucked.

The difference between what is legal and what we should do is vast. I actually think your example slightly embellishged, say deliberately turning up to infertile relative's house with a t shirt saying 'only arseholes can't have kids' or whatever is (and should) be legal, but you also should not do it.

My son has a non binary ( female) colleague who identifies as a bat.She doesn't dress as a bat at work but has a bat outfit ( I have seen the photos she happily shared with my son) and a bar to hang upside down from at home. She is also autistic.

People like me?

Who women with a different opinion to yours?

If you want to campaign for laws to be tightened and this concept of consent when in public to be made reality, then go for it. Nothing is stopping you.

I personally have better things to do with my time and more important things to be concerned about.

I'd just love to ask the question that several posters have asked but none of the IT'S ALL FINE YOU STUPID BIGOT WOMEN posters have even attempted to answer: what, if it isn't sexual, is the point in dressing in that manner to go to a certain place on a certain day where you will find women and children? I don't believe it's because they don't have any other clothes but really needed some flatpack furniture and literally had no other way of obtaining it.

There are pricks in all walks of life, not many on here are arguing that those dressing as dogs are pillars of society.

Merely that in reality, it’s not really doing any harm outside of those with serious trauma around exhibitionists. Who make up a tiny fraction of the population.

You can go about your life offending people for a whole host of reasons unknown to you, the mere act of offending others isn’t something people can stop unless it crosses a line legally.

So for many of us, this just doesn’t cause that much angst.

Soon it will be perfectly acceptable for men to self-identify as dogs and change their name to Rover, Lassie, Rin Tin Tin. . Preferred address at work "Here boy".

MN will become a kennel of bitches trying to deny self-ID dogs the right to piss on lamp-posts and poo in the park.

I am not sure that the idea of consent really applies to what people wear in public, assuming they're not wearing anything illegal.

The topless man wandering down the street in summer doesn't need my consent, even though I'd rather not see his exposed chest (and I do find that can be very intimidating and off-putting).

The woman in the see-through leggings on the bus doesn't need my consent, even though I'd rather not see her underwear.

The man with his trousers slung low around his thighs doesn't need my consent, even though I don't want to see his boxers.

You might find it distressing to see others wearing leather or fur, but that doesn't mean they need your consent to do so.

If someone has worn something out and about specifically to get sexual thrills then you might be able to do something because of that intent but in most cases that would be difficult to prove and quite vague. Unless you can prove that someone has worn something specifically to cause distress or alarm (for example, wearing overtly racist symbols or something that's clearly obscene) then I'm not sure there's anything to do.

I personally have better things to do with my time and more important things to be concerned about

And yet, you've posted here multiple times in support of men going around in fetish gear to gain some kind of sexual response from members of the public noticing them. Since you're so busy, why is this so important to you that it is taking you from your very very important concerns?

but people with kinks are normal.

And people wonder why the word prudish is being brought up in this chain.

so does this individual cross a line?

nypost.com/2022/09/21/canadian-school-backs-trans-teacher-with-giant-fake-boobs/

Of course, but what is not normal and as a society we should not normalise, is acting those kinks out in public. Especially in front of children.

Legally it could cross a line. Laws change all the time. We can all debate whether we think it shoud or not, in a democracy.

It’s people involving others - unconsenting adults and children - in their kinks that’s not normal. Why do you want so much to make it normal?

Not in my opinion no.

Unless you’re triggered by big breasts that is.

Kinks that are consensual are fine.

Kinks that depend on non-consent are not fine.