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

I want a moratorium on the word "ban".

You are obsessed with accusing people of wanting to ban something.

Keen to what?

state a basic fact?

People harping on about consent seem to have 0 idea how the world works unfortunately.

I’m not accusing you of anything,

you said this shouldn’t be ignored, what do you mean by that?

But I was responding to the commenter who suggested we need to self police not getting aroused for any reason in a space children are in.

That example was intended to demonstrate this is an unrealistic and nonsensical demand.

Demanding passive involvement from a stranger isn't acceptable either. Especially if it involves other people's reactions.

It;'s not "prudish" to not want your children - or yourself, for that matter - exposed to other people's fetishes.

stop making excuses for them on the internet and contributing to a social atmosphere which leads people to think it's appropriate

I don't feel like I'm making excuses for the dog mask duo. Again, I don't think it's appropriate.

I'm just trying to get a bit of a clearer picture about how we get it stopped. Who tells them? IKEA staff? Members of the public?

I'm not leading anyone to think anything, I'm presuming everyone can think for themselves, but I'll give that some thought, thankyou.

By definition that is prudish.

I think intention matters here as with most things. Everyone is human and that has some lines but if you are going to a place which is designated as somewhere something specific happens (such as buying furniture in a furniture shop) and you go there intending to buy furniture in a furniture shop in the manner and attire considered typical and normal, and you see someone attractive, that's just one of those things.

But if you're thinking "well, wearing this fetish gear around the house and the fetish club isn't doing it for me any more, it would be so terribly exciting if some unsuspecting women and children were to see me and feel a bit upset/disturbed/confused, that would really get me off. Where can I find such people? The furniture shop...Off I go!", I think that's quite different.

I can't believe there are still 2 people on this thread advocating the right for men to act out their sexual fetishes in a furniture store in the presence of children.

Yes exactly. Followed by: why do men gravitate towards fetishes that involve non-consenting partners? How do we change an inherently patriarchal system according to which the sexual desire of men is safeguarded ahead of the safety of women and children?

It;'s not "prudish" to not want your children - or yourself, for that matter - exposed to other people's fetishes.

By definition that is prudish.

Oh my word.

Ah but intent doesn’t matter to some posters, as they also are against a trans woman wearing large breasts when teaching at a school.

See this is the issue here, people aren’t consistent with what they’re against, well they are, but it’s not what they’re saying they’re against, it’s something much deeper than that.

It doesn’t bother me

I am extremely proud to be extremely prudish. Badge of honour.

Are you arguing against the definition of the term prudish now?

How many times are you going to make yourself look silly on this thread I wonder.

Who is advocating for anything of the sort.

Not being upset or that concerned isn’t the same as advocating for something

Some real numpties on here today

'silly' 'prudish'

Oh, add 'numpties' to the list.

It does matter, because that trans woman was doing exactly the same thing, putting on fetish gear and using the fact that they have a captive audience of young people to exhibit their fetish to.

Luckily, that individual works in a school with boundary free leadership who are apparently fine with this abuse of young people.

If you can't win an argument, insult, insult, insult.

Smear, sneer, undermine, impugn.

Not knowing the definition of a word, when you’re trying to use it is a bit silly.

By definition what that poster is against is prudish.

Except they’re not, as the intent isn’t there surely?

Unless you think being trans is a fetish, in which case as expected this isn’t about intent or anything of the sort, it’s about being a bigot generally.

I'm still interested in the only answer to the age old issue of people not being able to police themselves, which I think was blunt instrument gatekeeping from @nilsmousehammer , what that might look like on a Saturday afternoon in IKEA, and who the gatekeepers should be.

And we have bigot on the bingo card!

I’ve noticed there’s an overlap between posters here concerned with “being involved with someone’s fetish” and those that accuse transgender people of simply being sexual fetishists (via Blanchard’s outdated taxonomy).

There’s some sort of fetish moral panic rooted in a fear of an erosion of women’s rights. It’s the old ‘make your opponents out to be sexual predators’ strategy. Also used against black people and homosexuals in the past.