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

What the heck?

Welcome.

And thank you.

I can’t tell whether this is a parody post or not - the last line made me chuckle.

Same here, I’d actively be left a mess if I saw a clown, some clowns also get off on being dressed as a clown around children no less.

But I don’t see many of those against the dog men campaigning for clowns to be banned in public.

This is a moral line being crossed. I do not care if the audience (including children) present had no idea what was going on. Are we to wait until the quest for excitement progresses to the next stage after this one? That would be the stage where they make it clear to at least some of the people present that this is a sexual fetish.

This has made me think of Sarah Everard's murderer for some reason. A blind eye was turned to HIS previous misdemeanours.

I'm not saying that these people are potential murderers but we ignore red flags at our peril.

I can’t tell whether this is a parody post or not - the last line made me chuckle.

It doesn't surprise any of us that you can't tell.

Regarding the construction of associations between particular stimuli (presence of other unconsenting people, including children) and sexual pleasure, this is relevant. Those operating at higher levels will be able to make the connection.

So you see this as a “red flag” that could indicate a future murderer?

Tragic.

That is not what I said.

You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

I wouldn’t say posting an online comment with loads of unreferenced claims in it is “operating at a higher level”.

Just Say No to people in fetishwear in public.

Playing devil's advocate though, define fetishwear?

It's not all gimp masks and latex knickers. Fetishwear has made it into mainstream fashion. Think of all the shoes covered in spiked studs which have been very popular in recent years. Fishnet tights. Corsets. Armbands, wriststraps, choker necklaces. All of these can be fetishwear or not. What do we ban?

Just explain to your kids that there are an awful lot of weirdos in the world. They need to learn this anyway.

Do you see people dressed as clowns to do the shopping?
In my experience, people only don the make-up in exchange for money. That's a boundary in itself.

It's also, as far as I'm aware, socially understood that many people dislike clowns and do not want to see one. Again, social boundary that is respected.

And finally, no-one would call a supermarket security guard or the shop manager a prude, if either said, "you can't come in here like that" to someone in clown gear. That's a lack of deliberate destruction of social boundaries.

If we do develop such issues, and people lose the ability to treat others with respect whenever clown make-up is involved, then we will need laws. We shouldn't get to that point.

We shouldn't get to that point with fetish gear either, but people making pointless excuses for it in public spaces seem to be trying to build the case for legislation.

Did anyone watch the video? These men were normally dressed except for a face mask and a tail. There was nothing overtly sexual in how they appeared. If this was a child dressed like that, nobody would bay an eye so to suggest it's inappropriate for children to see 😂

The article even states that most people didn't notice. I see people more offensively dressed in a Saturday night in town than these men were!

I see clowns walking around local shopping centres, yes they take money for a balloon animal.

And give over that a shop security guard would tell a clown they can’t come in to do their shop on the way back from a kids party.

We tend to do this but then are at risk of being told we are not politically correct. Not that I care.

Why are you playing devil's advocate though?

This isn't a theoretical situation. People are actually wandering around public places, it fetishwear, and people already don't feel entitled to ask them to leave.

So why attempt to muddy the waters?
We should all know when we are wearing clothing that is sexual to us, and we should all be policing ourselves.

All this talk of "bans" is an attempt to escape personal responsibility for our own behaviour. It's shifting the responsibility on to other people to identify what we're doing and catch us at it.

You don't take your kink around children. No, not even if you think you can get away with it.

How do you define “kink”?

Yes. I watched it. It's fetishwear.

It's very laudable that you are pure and innocent enough not to recognise it, but it really actually is.

I'm not sure many people would let their children wear dog gimp masks. They aren't cute play masks and they look quite hot and irritating. So no, a child would not be dressed in them.

People don’t feel entitled to ask them to leave as they’re not entitled to ask them to leave.

Yes people should police themselves and be more self aware, but newsflash there have always been those who aren’t self aware for a multitude of reasons.

Fetishwear is a wide spectrum, some posters are just asking those wanting an all out ban where they’d draw the line, fishnets, short skirts, tight jeans that show an outline of your penis, trousers that are baggy and expose a few pubes when you reach for the top shelf?

The only way you'd be genuinely asking this question is if you were a child on the internet. I don't talk to minors about sex.

Otherwise, you know perfectly well what "kink" is.

Wow, this conversation has run away a bit in the last few hours! @Sandra1984 you can't always tell if furries are in it for sexual reasons, but fursonas tend to look like mascots and are fully clothed, it's not part of the kink to be seen and humiliated in public. Those dog masks are specifically sex masks, it's a sub/dom thing, like the gimp master/slave sex kink. Ok maybe those guys are just playing and having a laugh, but they must realise that part of the laugh is that people think they're engaged in a kink act, on account of them wearing their kink gear. This IKEA is in the middle of a scenic lot of hills, who knows, maybe they really were just out on a dog walk and fancied a meatball dinner.... doubt it though.

Have to say, I don't think it's helpful to imply that the pro-sex-dogs-in-IKEA posters are men, perverts, drug addled, living in their mum's box room, just trying to be cool. Anyone than it's helpful to say that women who are against it are pear clutchers stuck in the 1950s and who don't really enjoy their sex lives. That women can in good faith disagree with each other on moral and sexual questions really is an insight that should make us glad of having left the 1950s behind.

As above: whether or not it's legal isn't the issue. It is legal, and should be legal. Whether it's right to invovle others in your sexual kink is the real question. ELO and @ElfandSafety101 think that it's fine to leave the house in legal sex gear with the intention to get sexual gratification from being seen in it. I think it's fine to object and resent to being made to unwittingly participate in someone's arousal.

If you know the definition why not share it.

How do you define kink, since this really underpins the entire argument here.

As shucks, I don’t get a cookie?!