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 just a mask. There’s no exposure, nudity, harassment or physical interaction.

It’s not my thing, to wear it in IKEA is a little unusual, but there’s no harm being done to anyone, consent isn’t required.

If my DC asked me why someone was wearing it, I would just tell her.

No - I’ll let you do the work.

If my DC asked me why someone was wearing it, I would just tell her.

What would you tell her?

That some men have fetishes and like to act them out in public?

Or would you lie and cover up the sexual nature of this?

How do you think she will feel when she grows up and knows that you didn't see fit to protect her from the sexual fetishes of men?

Tell them what?

I'd just say they are weird and they probably have issues. So we can either judge or feel sorry for them. Feel sorry for them because they are fucking weird. The children would get the message and laugh.

fine.

Here's your previous definition of consent and non-consent, as posted by you on this thread:

Walking about on a leash is sexual play, dominance

its not just a mask

what would you tell your dd that people are into sexual play in public and exhibitionism ?

And yet, despite your extensive discussion … you still can’t define it.

Incidentally, I’d recommend Section 11 and Section 78 of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 as your bedtime reading.

I said on the definition I agreed with the other poster.

just look up consent in any mainstream dictionary. I agree with that.

where we disagree is that it’s not required in this instance. That’s a more interesting point of discussion.

I'm involved in my local BDSM and kink scene. (I've taken MDMA a few times too, so definitely not a prude/pearl clutcher etc etc 😁). I'm also totally opposed to what these men are doing, as per my earlier post. Acting your kink out in public in a place full of families is completely unacceptable to me and everyone I know on the scene. There are plenty of club nights where these men can publicly dress up in their fetish wear, (in addition to dressing up in the privacy of their own homes). The reason they are choosing to dress like this at IKEA is because they are getting off on exhibiting their kink in such a 'vanilla' family-orientated space. That's not ok. It is not 'safe, sane and consensual' to be exposing kids (and adults who aren't consenting to be in a kink environment, such as a club), to their fetish.

Bingo! ( in more senses than one, unfortunately).

Whatever.

There was a girl in one of my lectures at uni who regularly came wearing a tail and dog ears. Sometimes a collar with her dog persona name on it too. It was weird but she was fully clothed so not overly sexual.

Exactly the response I expected.

Leading people around in dog-shaped gimp masks, whether on a leash or obediently walking to heel, is a sexual act.

These people ARE participating in sexual acts in public.

This is a deliberate D/s fetish sexual performance which casts non-consenting bystanders, including children, as extras and bit-players. The ones in the masks get off on humiliation so they will be even more excited if you laugh at them or shame them (assuming they consented to this which is not always the case). The one leading them will be getting off on watching their humiliation.

We are not stupid. We can see what this is. We do not consent for ourselves, we do not consent for our children. We will not be cast as extras or bit-players in some creepy fucker's fetish wank head movie, even if he keeps his penis covered so as to comply with the letter of the law.

Obviously I don't include everyone in 'we'. Obviously there are a few posters who think this is all completely fine. OP included a poll though. 83% think this is inappropriate.

Completely agree.

We are not stupid. We can see what this is. We do not consent for ourselves, we do not consent for our children. We will not be cast as extras or bit-players in some creepy fucker's fetish wank head movie, even if he keeps his penis covered so as to comply with the letter of the law

THIS. And all the fucking apologists for this kind of thing, we see you.

So you think wearing dog gimp mask in IKEA is normal behaviour? Do you know that doing outrageous things in IKEA doesn't make you cool. It just means you are either a twat, pissed up twat or a really weird twat.

I am really liberal, I am very pro kink and work with people to help them lower their inhibitions and realise their sexual potential. I am definitely not closed minded. This furry thing presents a serious problem though. I am aware that for some it is not a fetish thing, but feel that it is for so many. It is not appropriate to basically use members of the public as sex toys to support your kink.

People engaging in that kind of fetishistic behaviour that involves non consenting others really damages the case of people doing it for other reasons.

You see a similar thing with other aspects of sexual and gender identity. Those men who get a kick out of being in public on women's clothes for example, trading on the trans label but being no more trans than the next person, just horny and wanting wank fodder.

Women who get a kick out of kissing other women, to turn on men.

Acceptance for minority groups is hard won and often begrudging. It is shameful that people hijack genuine identities purely for kicks and make it less acceptable to be someone who lives that reality, who it is not just a fun Friday night for. By all means, get your kicks, do your thing. But not in fucking IKEA. 0r parks. Or anywhere with people not explicitly choosing to be involved.

That is the significant bit to me to in this case.

No, I don't think it's normal behaviour. No, I don't in any way think it's cool. But I'm not going to get worked up about it.

My comment was more to do with parenthood than sex. There are not many mothers or fathers who think it's OK for men to RP their fetish around their children.

There are a tiny few and every so often one posts on MN. They get extremely short shrift.

Because it's not OK for men to RP their fetish around childen.

But since you asked, I think there are a fuckton of vulnerable women and girls in the 'BDSM community' and I also think that the 'pup play' subculture mostly preys on vulnerable young gay men and boys.

I hope your children have another parent who is more focused on their safety and wellbeing.

The Emperor Nero used to dress up as a dog, and tear at the genitals of people tied to stakes for his pleasure. I guess he had got past the visiting IKEA cafe stage.

Hello, we see you too

Definitely not IKEA. It can get like this in Argos in Accrington on Saturday afternoons.