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

Their intention was to derail. It always is. ‘Don’t look over there! Look over here at all these nasty women wanting to stop us acting out our perversions in public! How dare they! We are men! (Except when we are dogs/cats/adult babies/women - delete as appropriate) We are entitled! Entitled I tell you!’ Except, we see you. And more people are seeing you. And will continue to see you. In twenty years time this will be another ‘God I can’t believe that was allowed to carry on for a very brief moment in time!’

i don’t think they know what the issue (intent? consent?) is or the solution is.

but if you follow their logic it easily drifts into some autocratic policing of dress.

Inappropriate I agree.

I think part of the problem is that many store managers are not supportive enough of their staff, and will bend too much on the side of unreasonable customer behaviour. Maybe for a quiet life, maybe because in many cases they bow to threats to go to the press/social media etc.

So staff may have felt unwilling to challenge them.

Is the school this teen is in allowing that? He’s 15 - I suspect they are all wearing a school uniform.

I think - a store policy would suffice but even in the case suddenly it was illegal to wear your fetish gear in public, guess what -it would affect no one except the fetishists who choose to disregard long establihed boumdaries and break the law their life goes on and they would still be the same as anyone else, just wearing it in private with consenting beings. No need to be dramatic.

if you are a MN regular you might recognise that there is an overlap between the posters attacking the pup players and those who hold these other views.

this comment was an attempt to understand the common thread across these attitudes.

Probably but they aee obviously wearing accessories.

OK, so if colleagues turned up everyday with a cat ears headband on and whiskers drawn on their faces they would get the piss took out of them.

Because it is weird.

Already clarified that they are wearing personalisations that indicate their hobby.

As observed by other posters , furries are sexually frustrated, and signalling this to schoolmates is inappropriate.

Or is it?

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

I mean, it doesn't suggest your sexual skills are mind blowing if that's the extent you have to go to, to make it exciting.

Where sexual harassment in schools is already a huge and growing social issue? Absolfuckenlutely

Is there a link between MNetters concerned about:

kink and fetish in public places
pup players involving kids in their play in public
inappropriate behaviour from males involved in men in drag want to spend an hour with your children time
males who wish to enter female spaces against female consent and with the knowledge that this destroys female privacy, dignity and safety
organisations who wish to normalise sexual content being used with children

?

Why yes.

Yes there is.

Because all those things are linked, and are about breaking down safeguarding boundaries that protect women and children and establishing that it is fully acceptable to involve non consenting others in personal sexual gratification by using them and their bodies.

The desire to do these things are not normal or acceptable. And to do these things are open gateways to offending, whether or not the person chooses at the time to walk through the gateway.

Women and children are not props in the lives of more important others. This would be a highly important topic of conversation on a women's rights board. (What is less normal is people spending a lot of time and energy on a women's rights board telling women that to want such rights is inappropriate/old/saggy titted/rightwingchristianbigotedheteronormativeclownfishburble/yada yada. Unless of course this is also about using women to provide desired experiences).

Why “obviously”?

You're saying you can orgasm without needing a buttplug, two kilos of orange faux fur, and an unwilling audience?

You must be a bunch of vanilla prudes then.

the pup players don’t need your consent though to wear that gear in a public place.

if you disagree, how would you define consent and how could it be secured in that instance?

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.*

This is what tips it over from 'kink' to 'paraphilic disorder'.

ICD-11: Paraphilic disorders are characterised by persistent and intense patterns of atypical sexual arousal, manifested by sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviours, the focus of which involves others whose age or status renders them unwilling or unable to consent and on which the person has acted or by which he or she is markedly distressed. Paraphilic disorders may include arousal patterns involving solitary behaviours or consenting individuals only when these are associated with marked distress that is not simply a result of rejection or feared rejection of the arousal pattern by others or with significant risk of injury or death.

icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f2110604642

In this case, 6D35 Other Paraphilic Disorder Involving Non-Consenting Individuals

(In the UK we use ICD not DSM)

Incidentally, people with paraphilic disorders are excluded from being given a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (called gender incongruence in ICD)

icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f411470068

Therefore if the need for a diagnosis before changing legal sex was removed, we would lose an important safeguard that screens out men with paraphilic disorders from becoming legal women.

Why would tw want to share spaces with a bunch of abusive perverts? But that is what TRAs are campaigning for.

I've no doubt that it's ineffective as a sreening tool, especially now affirmation is the only acceptable form of therapy, but to get rid of the need for this screening even on paper spells out clearly that nobody gives a shit, women and children don't matter, all hail the mighty penis and all it desires.

No thank you.

1. Because the poster clarified this.
2. Because otherwise, how would he know. Either they're wearing items or they're discussing their extra-curricular hobbies with him. Given the overlap between the furry community and people whose interest has a sexual facet, this is an unfortunate topic to broach in school.

What are they doing / wearing then to be a Furrie?

An old school one for the bingo card! Difficult woman with her difficult opinion just needs a good fucking! Ah she loves it really eh fellas? Fellas?

Barking? Purring?

But why should there be one unifying issue? People are allowed to have different views on why this is wrong. What matters is this is wrong. The fact people have different views actually shows this is wrong on many levels.

it’s only you trying to detract away from the issue by arguing that a diversity of reasoning invalidates all the reasons.

let’s just say people walking around with families with two grown adults dressed in what is clearly fetish gear wearing dog collars is not acceptable by the vast majority of people for a variety of reasons and therefore should not happen

Yiffing?

If you don't already know, don't look it up on urban dictionary. Absolutely do not follow this link: www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yiffing

Well said.

Weird hobby going on a parenting forum and championing men's sex rights.

Of course we can't know their motives ...

How do you define ‘consent’ and ‘non consent’?

Thank you for sharing this, now that you've provided a definition of what the IKEA guys are up to, complete with reputable source, let's see ELO come out from behind their "define your terms" bunker. Will they defend the public enactment of a paraphilic disorder? Probably will just ask us to define "disorder" but one can always hope...

The common thread is caring about women and girls, and safeguarding children.

YW.