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

Teens who identify as furries

Oh ffs, can you just say what you want to get from this.

As the original comment was to someone claiming they need consent to be in someone’s fantasy, which is not true.

If you could just skip to the point you want to make that would be fab

But despite you wishing it was so, pup play gimp masks have not.

Your attempt at more fuckwittery on this thread doesn’t make pup play gimp masks any more acceptable.

Totally agree.

I'm not bothered if my children come across as non PC for some things either.

I’ve no doubt that many people are like a sack of potatoes when they’re having sex. It may still be sex but it’s very boring, crappy sex.

Each to their own and all that 😏

Why does he find that uncomfortable?

He’s clearly not their type (species).

(FYI - the title of this thread is misleading. The people in the video are engaged in pup play - a type of BDSM. They aren’t furries).

So you agree that it is totally fine to engage in sexual activity outside Lidl if people can't tell.

Thank you for sharing!

So if two of my colleagues decided to turn up to work dressed as a cat and a dog everyday we should just treat them seriously and not take the piss out of them?

Who on earth has mentioned being "anti anal, anti ‘kink’ (but can’t define kink of course) anti porn"?

I don't think a single person has mentioned anal or porn. You should not do anal or get off to porn in public. You shouldn't secretly be getting off to those things in public where part of you getting off to it is knowing that you are so doing in public.

I'll bite and define kink for you. From Wikipedia, no less: non-conventional sexual practices, concepts or fantasies.

Just like conventional sexual practices, they have no place involving children. This is what you just don't seem to understand (well you obviously do understand but are pretending not to): part of the kink (sorry sorry sorry part of the "non-conventional sexual practice") is that it involves bystanders. That is what makes is wrong*.

*No, it's not illegal; no it's not illegal to think it; no parliament won't take a vote on the basis of a MN thread. I mean wrong in the sense of much immoral. Much like other widespread male sexual attitudes it's selfish, entitled, non-consensual.

The Taliban know how to stop it. Is that what people want?

You misunderstand.

He commenter was becoming a supposed attempt to take fetish gear into the mainstream. Whether pup play gear has or hasn’t (although it’s quite common to see Emos wearing a studded collar), isn’t the point. The point is this stuff has crossed over many times already, so perhaps posters should stop being so horrified and outraged.

That is in addition to the other excellent arguments made against the prudes’ flawed concepts of consent, intent and kink.

“the commenter was bemoaning”

that should read.

That’s not what’s written in my quote though is it? Reading not your strong point along with intercourse? 😆

Well I'm not pro- porn given that so many women are treated badly even when allegedly consenting to participating in it and that so many women and girls are treated badly by male partners who think that treating their sexual partners badly is acceptable due to what they are watching online.

But this is not the point of this thread.

This thread is about involving children in male sexual fetishes. Most women object to this. A few posters on here seem to think that men's sexual rights are more important that the rights of children not to be subjected to their actions.

You doubt the sexual skills of people who want to dress up as foxes to have sex?

You may say so; I couldn't possibly comment.

And what exactly does your son fear these teens who identify as furries are going to do to him?

God, if he wants to know what it's really like to be violated at school he should try being a girl sat next to a boy.

If you can’t possibly comment then why are you commenting? 😉 😏

I genuinely do want to know how you define ‘consent’ and ‘non consent’, together with which areas of sexual activity you feel need ‘consent’ and which do not.

For example, you don’t feel someone needs to consent to being in someone else’s sexual fantasy.

Now, how are you defining ‘cues’?

As to getting your getting exasperated because I’d like you to define your terms, may I quote your words back to you:
”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.”

I have no idea why he fears them
his friendship group thinks they are freaks
but I guess there is a sense of injustice too it’s a strict catholic school where they get a detention if their hair is too short
but the furries are allowed to wear accessories ears etc

Actually, I think it's simple. Ikea and business can pick and choose who they enter their store and who works for them. Most places have a dress codes. All they would need to do is state no fetish gear, please leave the store. The more customers complain, the quicker it can happen. It doesn't affect a protected characteristic therefore is well within the stores right.

Never mind the men on here getting their knickers in a twist about the wording around consent, intent etc. You know when your gut instinct just tells you that something is really fucking wrong? Inappropriate and wrong? This is it. That instinct has been inbuilt to protect us from danger, from predators - the predators in this modern day tale being the (men) who want to expose us to their fetishes, break down safeguarding barriers and tell our children that men wearing ridiculous comedic breasts in public is ok. Blur our boundaries, do an absolute number on people so that they become confused as to what is and isn’t acceptable. Laugh at us, sneer, ridicule, make us think we’re mad. Bigoted and mad. Go back and listen to your gut. If it’s telling you it’s wrong, it’s because it is. And we don’t need to explain that to Elf man, East London man or anyone else that wants to mansplain or be a handmaiden to this nonsense. It’s wrong, it’s absolutely fucking wrong and no one else will tell me otherwise.

I think the timing of this is not a coincidence, given the Westminster overruling of Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill.

Given that the blokes in question were only half-arsedly dressed in the pup-play gear I’d put money on it being some kind of vaguely pro-GC political stunt.

😂 Because she’s sexually frustrated and gunning for an argument 😆

Exactly. It's a novel thing, and now theyre pushing it into the open. This is only because they feel they can not because its their god given right that only now can the dog people finally be liberated from some imagined oppressive force.

Spot on. Shame this thread has been derailed but predictable.