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

Clown's are different. I can't imagine a school Mum saying "We've decided to change the kids party this year. We're bored with clowns so we are thinking of getting a gimp in, he's got some great dog masks".

I don’t actually, as I regard it as a rather old fashioned term I haven’t heard used a great deal for the past 25 years.

Why am I playing devil's advocate? Because I don't want to live in a world where clothing is policed by morality. If you want to see where that has the potential to end up you can look to places like Afghanistan, but there's a long slippery slope between here and then and it's usually women who end up being policed and controlled in these instances. That bikini is too revealing, you're showing too much cleavage and it's inappropriate, cover your legs up, that dress is too tight, you can see your body and it's too sexual etc etc.

With the dog masks specifically, I don't think they're appropriate for IKEA but I don't think they're indecent or obscene either.

The subject is pup play gear. It is not fishnets. So why are you so invested in mining plausible deniability for men wearing pup-play gear in public?

No one should be entering shops in masks in any case.

Customers are routinely asked to remove crash helmets and balaclavas as standard practice. The reasons for this are obvious and it is well-accepted convention.

* Oh for an edit button! PEARL clutchers, not pear clutchers.... given my stance on this thread I can't really defend clutching your pears in public, can I.

No one should be entering shops in masks in any case.
Perhaps they're just really concerned about the covid numbers?

No, the subject has moved on and posters are saying fetishwear should be banned in public.

I and others are responding to those, merely asking what do they class as fetish wear.

do keep up

Gosh so many breaking the rules over the past couple of years then.

How sweet that you've been engaged in such good clean fun for 25 years.

I didn't know what "kink" was 25 years ago myself, as I was in primary school and my focus was the weekly spelling list. Clearly you are much older than me.

Not based on the arguments some are using on here

Reasons some posters are against the dog men:

They’re getting their kicks out of people looking at them in public - as do some clowns

They’re getting off at or around children - again, some clowns do, in fact there are more clowns interested in kids than dog men

They scare me - clowns can also scare people

You can’t see their faces - again, same with the clowns

It’s a fetish - again, clown play is also a fetish.

So clowns really aren’t different, if anything they’re worse (since the likelihood of a clown being a pedophile is a lot higher than a man dressed as a dog)

Pretty sure there is no age limit on having opinions about sex, and no time limit after which you need to hang your kink gear up. I am no fan of @EastLondonObserver 's lax attitude to kink around kids, but this kind of comment is uncalled for in my opinion.

I read all this thread before I posted, and my perception is different from yours. To me, it seems that anyone who tries to say these men were inappropriate, is then accused of wanting to ban things.

Then they are asked to draft legislation that would ban this but allow [insert edge case]. It's tiresome. We shouldn't need legislation to explain clearly, and simply, that you do not wear your fetish gear to the shops.

I have a very strong feeling these are ex employees and this is a stunt.

You’ve said it yourself, do not wear fetish gear to the shops

What do you consider fetish gear?

Surely it’s a simple answer.

It's totally called for.

What he is at here, is the same as the whole bunch has been at the whole thread through. He's implying that anyone who disagrees with him is old-fashioned dates from the 50s/has cultural attitudes from the 50s, and should be ignored because they're old.

However, the daftie is so busy attending to his usual script of being disparaging towards older women that he didn't notice he was confessing to being older than me himself.

Ageism is a double-edged sword, and he only has himself to blame if he cut himself.

you can have old fashioned views and not be old, you’re an example of that.

No one called anyone old except you, being accused of having attitudes straight from the 50’s isn’t the same as saying you’re straight from the 50’s!

They could be.

Or they could be ElfandSafety101 and EastLondonObserver on their yearly shopping trip to Ikea.

It’s interesting that all those suggesting fresh wear and/or kink have no place in IKEA have so far failed to provide a definition of either.

“Fetish” not “fresh”.

Fresh gear - well that’s a whole other Dan of worms :)

You're still doing the exact same thing.

Do I have to go into exact descriptions of sexual arousal? Should I then explain that you shouldn't want to experience the presence of children when you are using or wearing the sextoys and clothes you customarily use to reach a state of sexual arousal?

Seems creepy to me.

No, you don’t have to go into detail on that.

But simply saying what you’d ban, with your ‘don’t wear fetish gear’ would be helpful, you must know what you’d ban right?

I don’t think they can define it, and are now trying to save face.

Its always confusing when people are anti something they can’t define

You don't need any definitions, you are clearly in the know. Why are you asking? What does the definition provide as a rationalisation for wearing clothing used for sexual thrills in a homewares shop?

Would still fit in my size 8 jeans if it was yearly, alas there is an IKEA 10 mins away and I’m partial to a chocolate doughnut