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

Paraphilia is not normal, by definition.

You don’t need consent to wear things in public that aren’t indecent.

You can keep talking about consent all you like, but it’s not a real concept in public.

FWIW exhibitionism, indecency and voyeurism are unsurprisingly very difficult crimes to prosecute. They still are acknowledged to be damaging to victims, dangerous to society, and illegal. At least in theory.

Just as rape is hard to prosecute, doesn't mean we legalise it, or make it acceptable, or pretend it doesn't happen or that we shouldn't talk about it and condemn it if we choose to do so.

So Kink is fine at school?

Wow. You think it’s ok for teenage boys and girls to have to put up with their teacher turning up to teach them while wearing overtly sexualised fetish gear?

Wow.

Because it can simply be FUN! A group of us went bowling in full costume because it was ridiculous and funny.

OK, so our costumes are far from being furry, and really couldn't be sexualised (though I expect someone would try). But sometimes things can be done just for the, as the kids say, lols

But consent from strangers over what people wear in public, certainly in this case, isn’t required.

Out of interest, how would you define the clothing you believe should be prohibited in public.

Actually we do hence why they exist.

Educational take-home message for MNers:

If you don't support non-consenting victims being used for sexual thrills, you're a prude and a kink-shamer, and possibly a hysterical pearl-clutcher too. Because clearly, there's nothing worse than being a prude. So uncool.

All the cool people know that unfettered access of sexual thrills is the pre-eminent goal in proper people's lives.

This 😂

if someone finds a guy in a furry dog costume "sexual" I can recommend a good therapist. Unless of course said guy in dog costume is showing lots of flesh, wearing a leather g-string and being walked around with a chain by a guy wearing leather chaps. Then yeah... unleash your fury.

It doesn’t have to be sexual for young children to become frightened by adults dressing up in costumes that obscure their faces.

But it doesn’t cross a line.

It really is as simple as that

people aren’t required to get consent for their outfits when in public

people dressing as dogs aren’t committing a crime

people getting off sexually because someone has laughed at them in a dog outfit is also not committing a crime

So really, what these posts always boil down to is some people on MN don’t like something and think it’s abhorrent, which is fine, but it doesn’t mean much. You not liking something doesn’t really make a difference irl.

Large breasts aren’t sexualised fetish gear.

I thought loads on here were harping on about intent a minute ago, now that seems to have gone out the window when it’s a trans woman involved.

Legally it may not cross a line now but as I said that can change, laws change.

But it doesn’t cross a line.

In your reality where kink at school is fine it might not.

For most people it is clear that the intention is to blur the line and to enable men to act out their sexual fetish in public.

You don't get to decide where the line in.

Ah, so we've moved from "it probably wasn't sexual, how can you even tell" to "it's fine that it was sexual".

Someone upthread said something about how a person wearing a bright yellow suit would be an exhibitionist. That was a particularly obtuse comment. Exhibitionism as being discussed here is clearly in the sense of the sexual offence: traditionally a man exposing his penis to women and/or children, but in this case men exhibiting their sexual fetish to the world at large, in a completely inappropriate setting.

There are no sexual connotations to wearing a bright yellow suit, as we all know: there is no sexual element in the attention desired.

Very different things.

As I said before, the crux of the issue is the non-consent. It's not about the specific clothing involved.

A trans woman wearing a breast plate isn’t a kink.

I thought intent was the issue with the dog people in IKEA, but now intent goes out the window when it’s a trans woman involved it seems.

Weird.

Large breasts aren’t sexualised fetish gear.

Large fake breast with erect nipples are sexualised fetish gear.

Especially when worn by men in schools.

But you don’t get the right to consent to what other people wear.

It’s not a real thing.

We're still at 'it's not illegal'. Or even 'it's illegal but you can't prove it'.

Transwomen are men. It is literally fetish gear paraded arounds kids, and a concious decision was made to do that, at the kids expense for a mans right to wear his prosthetic breasts. Lord almighty.

Enormous fake breasts with permanently protruding nipples are most definitely sexualised fetish gear.

You seem very naive.

Reread my comment, please.