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

LOL, you've been on here all day calling women prudes and the like for calling out these dog people and you see nothing wrong with a man wearing prosthetic breasts with erect nipples whilst teaching children because he claims to be trans.

At least own what you stand for.

These threads are great though because they expose very clearly that some people want the boundaries blurred in favour of men's sexual rights.

That has been your game all along. Sophistry and wordplay, to defend people who find it exciting to wear fetishgear around children.

But sure, let's destroy all social expectations whatsoever, then. Be right back, just going to dress up in a faux-fur mini-dress, with a fox tail clearly trailing from beneath the hem (buttplug style attachment, naturally), and clip-on fox ears. Then I'll go to the Lidl next door to the primary school, at 4pm on a weekday, and waggle my rump in the air a lot while perusing the meat counter.

It would be "unrealistic and nonsensical" to expect me to only wear that outfit around the house, right?

In fact, why stop there? Perhaps I could get a boyfriend to accompany me and we could have sex in the car park too. I mean, small biological foxes do in the car park, so why ban humans from doing it if you're not going ban (Look, elf's favourite word!) non-human animals from doing it?!

Out of interest is this the same as when posters imply or state outright that other posters are old, trolls, men, or paedophiles?

No, I think wearing outsized fetish breasts sourced from a fetish website with protruding nipples is a fetish. I don't know whether being trans is a fetish and I'm certainly not qualified to speculate on that matter, but I do know that being a man is positively correlated with fetishism and I expect that trans women are as likely to have a fetish as any other man.

Yep, it’s handy when they outright say it like @StephanieSuperpowers has just done, but others are trying to be coy, or maybe they don’t realise themselves this is rooted far deeper than just being upset about being involved in someone else’s fetish.

There is definitely overlap with the anti trans, anti anal, anti ‘kink’ (but can’t define kink of course) anti porn posters on here.

Most can be explained by age, but some are quite simply bigots, and it’s better if we can all just be open about that and not pretend it’s a moral high ground issue but a fear based hatred.

'Moral panic' - Bingo!

Absolutely. This has disgusted me. But oh no we can't complain we have to be kind to any minority whatever their likes are. Disgusting perverts getting off taking their kinks to a store they knew would be families. Getting kicks seeing others reactions or even just being in the setting with ordinary people. It's absolutely grim. Our kids childhood is being ripped away from them day by day. Even as a middle age woman who used to regretfully work in a dodgy section of society many many years ago it still makes me feel sick. So what you want at home or in your specialists clubs! Ikea isn't that place.

Well the sex would be exposure which is already illegal.

And the people in the video aren’t wearing butt plugs.

So you could do that, but unlike the people on IKEA, you would be crossing a legal line.

*do what you want

But what about intent, you were so insistent that intent was the key here. Yet a teacher who is trans, with no clear intent to do anything sexual at all is also a fetishist in your opinion?

Also how do you know where this teacher purchased his breast plate from?

The dog people yes, 99% sure it’s a fetish thing, but a trans woman with large breasts is definitely not the same.

If women who don't think men should get kicks out of wearing fetish gear in front of Children are bigots then I'll wear that badge with pride.

Ridiculous.

I expect some people are scared of groups of men engaging in sexual behaviour in a cafe, despite the presence of children.

Is there a reason why they shouldn't be intimidated?

YADNBU

For those who missed the link earlier, these are the 'breasts' that this poster thinks are completely fine to be worn in a school, around children:

Maybe you can read the comment again and try to understand it.

Clearly many of those opposing here are just bigots, not all, but many since they don’t have a coherent argument as to why this is an issue.

They can’t define fetish wear, they can’t define what they’d do to stop it, they can’t define what they consider intent, they can’t define what consent would be necessary to look at people. Really they just hate people that are different to themselves.

The dog people yes, 99% sure it’s a fetish thing, but a trans woman with large breasts is definitely not the same.

Why? Because they said the magic words, I am trans?

Women don't go around displaying their erect nipples.

I think this person knows fully that the breastplate is completely inappropriate in the classroom but that nobody will challenge him on it and I think that points to the reason for doing it. I think that it is fully intentional and fully using the status as a teacher with a captive audience who cannot escape.

Clearly many of those opposing here are just bigots, not all, but many since they don’t have a coherent argument as to why this is an issue.

Oh for the love of god. Enabling men to act out sexual fetishes in front of children by blurring the lines of what is acceptable in public IS a coherent argument.

There are only a couple of posters on here who think that men's sexual rights should come first.

Can I nominate this thread for MN Classics? It's wonderful.

I feel very educated that boundaries are impossible to have because [slippery words boiling down to "sexual thrills are the most important thing and must never be objected to"].

Groups of people can be engaging in sexual behaviour around you all the time, as posters said upthread I could start fantasising about a man who just walked by.

But apparently that’s different, but now it’s not?

The issue here is all those up in arms are simply not able to coherently argue their case, and have flip flopped about what the issue is.

Some think it’s intent, some think it’s consent, some think it’s sexual behaviour, some think it’s kink. But then when those views are challenged flip flop.

Not one person on here claiming this is a kink can define kink.

Not one person on here claiming consent is the issue can understand you don’t need to consent to being in someone’s thoughts

People posting about intent, but also then bringing in examples of people who are seemingly not intending to sexualise anything. E.g. the trans teacher. If intent is the key, then why bring them into this? As it’s very different to pup play and doubtful to be sexually motivated.

The public do not consent, it's totally inappropriate.

It’s not blurring the lines of what is acceptable.

As peoples view on that line is different, and when asked to define the line posters against the pup play can’t seem to answer that.

What a load of tosh. I have absolutely no issue with anything that occurs between consenting adults.

Trying to identify women who want to stand up to defend their rights against men with prudish behaviour is ridiculous but a predictable way to try and undermine women. It’s basically a very boring bullying techniquue of trying to define a woman by her role in the concept of sex. Now that is outdated, pathetic and misogynistic. Typical way for men (and their enablers) to say a woman’s worth is tied up with her availability for sex. Theres a correlation between TRAs and seeing women purely as sexual objects.

Blanchards taxonomy (which reflects concepts in psychology which are nearly as old as psychology itself which in turn have been recorded for centuries)is not outdated. It’s just men of this persuasion have been fed ways to hide this fetish from recording if they wish. Autogynophillia is still present as a paraphillia (the most common paraphillia amongst sex offenders) in DSM5.

Of course it is blurring the lines of what is acceptable.

This is the whole point of identity politics and queer theory.

It's why people have started to refer to pedophiles as MAPS.

It's how drag queen story time and the rainbow butt dildo monkey for pre-schoolers in a library was deemed appropriate.

Or this person was fired and is wearing these comedically large breasts as a fuck you to the school board.

See this is the issue with basing all this nonsense on intent, you don’t know what their intent is, neither do I. And assumptions are often made based on our prejudices, you seem a bit anti trans based on comments on here so of course you will assume the intent is sexual, or negative.

Someone not as anti trans will maybe look at the whole picture and the case itself, this teacher was fired and came back with the extra large chest, it’s much more likely this is a petty middle finger for the school board than intended to sexually involve children in anything.

Same with the dog people, I’m 99% sure it’s for sexual purposes, but no one can be sure, they haven’t broken any laws so really unless we start sliding into thought policing this debate is pointless.