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

It's a fair point. At some stage, adults have to explain to children that yes, there are bad people in the world who will want to do them harm. It's a sad fact of life.

Eventually we also need to educate them to ask why some people are invested in presenting anyone raising safety/safeguarding concerns are to be attacked and maligned.

Fairly sure I'd bay an eyelid at a child wearing a mask that's intended for sexual use. The muzzles have poppers so you can take it off and put a penis in your mouth.

@ArabellaScott

anyone raising safety/safeguarding concerns

Sticking with this specific incident, can you say exactly what your safety concerns are?

a) Why would it make any difference to your life.

b) Mind your own business!

I think all the discussion is quite pointless anyway. How you could legislate or enforce Mumsnet standards of "appropriateness" is a mystery.

Or an IKEA hotdog

Because it’s hard to understand your point if you can’t define its most important term.

And, as others have pointed out, what is “fetish” wear and “regular” clothing have blurred. For instance, those PVC-like black tight leggings that have been around for a few years.

Plus, I’m not into the scene myself, so can’t say I am familiar with the full range of what you guys might define as “fetish wear”.

A "ban" and a definition used for it presupposes the only possible limiting force on people is an external one.

You know what fetishes (if any) you have. You know what sexual arousal is. You know what belongings you have that are sexual in purpose.

Surely you can police yourself, and leave them at home when you go to buy a Ikea Billy bookcase? The only purpose you want a definition is so that you can say "but I am aroused by [obscure item] and no-one would know if they saw me with it in the cafe! And if you'd let me, you should let the gimp mask people in. "

Well, you know. It's your sexuality. Take responsibility for keeping your own sexual arousal completely unconnected with the presence of children.

Non-consensual sex is not okay.

Behaviour that involves public displays of fetishes should not be accepted or acceptable.

Wearing fetish gear in public erodes boundaries and normalises paraphilias.

Do what you like in the privacy of your own home with consenting adults.

except you can’t explain what fetish wear is.

Take responsibility for keeping your own sexual arousal completely unconnected with the presence of children.

Hear fucking hear. Stop complaining that we can't legislate for what is really a fairly straightforward moral issue.

Stop perving on non-consent.

But people obviously can’t police themselves, that’s the crux of the issue here. Is it not?

So it’s down to fine people such as yourself to decide what’s appropriate, so tell us wise one, what counts as fetish wear?

As surely you know some people get off on very obscure shit, such as wearing tight clothes.

Again with consent, you’ve had it explained multiple times by multiple posters it simply doesn’t work the way you’re wanting it to.

There is no consent to seeing things in public, I don’t need your consent as to what I wear to IKEA, I also don’t need your consent to get off on thinking about you looking at me when I get home either.

Gross.

But true, your idealistic world view is not only just that, idealistic, it’s also a bit silly.

No one is condoning non consensual sex, and the fact you’re even trying to compare the two is ridiculous, if not slightly offensive

Surely you can police yourself

Most people can, yes. Some people can't or won't. That is a fact. It doesn't make it right, it makes it expected. It means that we have to factor in these people as we go about our daily business. Which leads me on to

@ArabellaScott point about straightforward morality, which I think doesn't exist. There is objective morality, which is more straightforward but requires a set of rules under which to live. We don't have that here, which is great, for loads of reason, but it does leave little gaps for deviants to pop through and that's the price we pay for subjective morality. Preferable but not bulletproof.

So, let’s say you were shopping at IKEA and your saw a (insert your preferred gender) you found very sexually attractive. There are also some children in the shop. Would this be an example that would fall foul of your call for sexual arousal/feelings to be avoided in a place where children are?

Given this is a rather common occurrence, what would the solution be? To never go out?

No, the crux of the issue is that because some fetishes are less publicly-known than others, those people will find it easier to push the boundaries without being spotted.

Because some people can get away with it, you think we should look away from the obvious incidents, to be fair or something.

The answer is no. Edge cases do not mean we should ignore it when it is overt.

And you're VERY keen to exult about that, aren't you.

@NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision

Edge cases do not mean we should ignore it when it is overt.

Ok, so, what should we DO about it? The people that can't police themselves, don't have a black and white moral code to follow, and go out in their leather mask to IKEA. What do we do about those ones? In this specific instance?

I think there's a stark difference between going to ikea in normal clothes with the purpose of conducting some retail based business, such as buying a shelf and seeing someone you find attractive and finding that arousing and going to ikea in fetish wear with the purpose of being seen by people in this stuff in order to become aroused.

The very nature of boundaries and morals, unless you're operating in a highly religious or totalitarian society, is that they are individual and vary wildly from individual to individual, society to society. No one person can be in charge of The Boundaries, or The Morals, can they?

Firstly, tell them that their clothing is inappropriate to enter Ikea.

Secondly, stop making excuses for them on the internet and contributing to a social atmosphere which leads people to think it's appropriate. You can personally enact point 2 yourself.

So what does not ignoring it mean to you? Banning the dog masks? Making them illegal?

How do we stop men from exhibiting their fetishes and involving non-consenting parties in their sexual activities?

Good question, worth considering.

But the outcome is the same, so where is the line?

someone was still aroused in an IKEA by someone who didn’t consent to being used as ‘material’