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

We expose children to much scarier worlds than the LGBTQ one. Think of the casual racism, sexism, terrorism, violence and frightening populism that swirls around us at every turn

Whataboutery, and untrue.

Most people do not expose children to casual racism, sexism, terrorism, violence and frightening populism ( what exactly is that at any given moment of a child’s life?)
at every turn.

But yes life is difficult.

What does that have to do with making it ok to sow extra confusion in a child’s mind that what they think is a cute dog dress up costume that adults are using weirdly is normal.

It was a response to the commenter who grouped them together himself.

In the Ikea case, no I don't think there's anything wrong with it though. A tad unusual, but had I been there I'd have found it rather amusing.

Most people do not expose children to casual racism, sexism, terrorism, violence and frightening populism ( what exactly is that at any given moment of a child’s life?)

They do - every time the news is on.

Listen to Helen Joyce here at about 45 minutes in about the reasons for indoctrinating children:

Forced teaming. It's been spelled out several times that BDSM doesn't equate to non-consensual paraphilias, but ELO keeps pushing the line that it does.

Nobody cares what people do in private with consenting adults.

Non-consensual sex acts are not okay, involving onlookers in your fetish is not okay.

First what is wrong with being furry, a practitioner of BDSM or a nudist?

Nothing (and by nudist I meant naked men who join the Pride parade but was trying to be polite - no offence to actual nudists, many of whom have boundaries where children are involved) in the right place. What people get up to behind closed doors is their own business. It is not ok for them to do it in front of children for all the reasons discussed thus far in this thread.

Third, to equate all of the LGBTQ+ community with your unnamed celebrity is plainly inaccurate, although it's so obvious it's barely worth stating. - I didn’t, I am suggesting that certain elements such as the Pride organisation are bringing the furries and bdsm under the trans umbrella and attempting to normalise that behaviour in public and encouraging the police to be more accepting of fetish performed in front of children. The process of cosying up to the police and pushing their boundaries is the same.

Childhood innocence is a myth that only protects parents from explanations – nothing more.". So we should expose children to the full gamut of adult sexuality, fetish and harm before they are old enough to wipe their own bums?

I’m afraid that is a very concerning statement from you and utterly against what is right and suitable for children. We must protect them and let them be kids, not unconsenting participants in an adult sexual fetish.

ah more entitled men getting off on making women and children uncomfortable. What a surprise

Absolutely.

Why spend so much time and energy attacking people who state their boundaries?

Childhood innocence is a myth

Okay, the red flag bunting is getting hung out now.

you're obsessed with policing sexual behaviour (and behaviours that you regard as sexual) aren't you, and screaming "paraphilia" at anything that lies outside your own world.

it's a 21st century Mary Whitehouse - and you and your ilk will be regarded as prudish figures on fun shortly, just like Whitehouse was.

what is it you think you're protecting people from in the IKEA case? seeing someone in a pup mask? who cares?

as for your claim, that involving people in their fantasies without consent, this is nonsense. as long as there is no contact, nudity, harrasment, its fine. people involve others in their sexual thoughts all the time with our consent - even you I would imagine!

'screaming' 'prudish'

Actually what I'm concerned with on this thread is pointing out how some men are willing to invest so much time and energy specifically in trying to erode, and undermine boundaries - especially those relating to sexual behaviours.

It's worth noting how they will use certain predictable methods to do so - usually these include insults and labels such as the ones you've used above, as well as various logical fallacies including forced teaming, whataboutery, minimisation, and false equivalances.

Feminists on MN have spent years dealing with these patterns of behaviour, they're quite boringly predictable by now.

But instructive.

So my hope is that any lurkers on this thread who come across a person who is attempting to undermine their boundaries or make them doubt their own feelings with regards to what is sexually appropriate may be better equipped to say 'no, thank you' and feel comfortable with setting their boundaries and holding the line.

Plus, if you see someone in a puppy gimp mask with a butt plug 'tail', call security.

*what is it you think you're protecting people from in the IKEA case? seeing someone in a pup mask? who cares?

as for your claim, that involving people in their fantasies without consent, this is nonsense. as long as there is no contact, nudity, harrasment, its fine. people involve others in their sexual thoughts all the time with our consent - even you I would imagine!*

Are you saying that having a sexual fantasy about another adult, completely unbeknownst to that adult, is the same as getting a kick from forcing the general public (including children) to watch you parade around in fetish wear and (probably) a wagging tail butt plug?

[they will have known there were a lot of families in ikea . They chose to do it there rather than an adult only nightclub or similar.]

can you honestly not see the difference ?

I really really don't think the tails in the video are buttplug ones. Honestly, look at where they are. They're round the waist. It's not anatomically possible. If they were buttplug ones they'd be inside the trousers.

Well possibly because hearing that wobbly boundaries are a problem is very uncomfortable experience

or because it's quite fun to play devil's advocate by poking women and watching them perform - which would also be using them - and God knows women on FWR are used to MRAs who enjoy that form of exercise

Childhood innocence is a myth that only protects parents from explanations – nothing more.

Jesus Christ, childhood innocence in NOT a myth. This really crosses a line.

or because it's quite fun to play devil's advocate by poking women and watching them perform - which would also be using them - and God knows women on FWR are used to MRAs who enjoy that form of exercise

I really hope it's that rather than a genuine belief that men involving children in sexual fetishes is OK.

'It is wrong to involve non consenting others in your sexual experience' = Mary Whitehouse.

Yeah it'll get you politely asked to leave a reputable BDSM club too as someone they don't want around since they will care about consent and respect for others. = Bunch of Mary Whitehouses?

Childhood innocence = yeah I've read that manifesto and know what offending that political document seeks to achieve.

Gosh isn't it strange how it's all connected. And how it all boils down to 'I want to treat/enable others to treat most of the public badly, disrespectfully, abusively, and I want to shame the public into letting them .'

How many who suffered abuse remember the abuser's whine of 'don't make me feel bad by your crying when I abuse you'?

Given that in this society, thankfully, we are mostly left to self regulate, there will always be a grey area just before illegality kicks in, where people will, and they will, transgress. How do you eradicate this?

I am not saying that this is acceptable. I am saying that it will happen. People are dead weird. I am also, repeatedly asking up thread what we should do about it, but nobody seems to be able to pop down the outrage for a minute and gain the perspective necessary to think about that bit. Someone helpfully suggested a dress code, which we already have, implicitly, the issue is that this pair didn't get the memo.

I personally like my oddballs where I can see them and feel that the Mask Wearing Dog Men of IKEA aren't any more of an issue as the numbers of men that have walked through that very same IKEA in jeans and a tshirt and not turned a head, having perpertrated all manner of weirdness in thought and in deed. At least you can see them coming.

"I am not saying that this is acceptable. I am saying that it will happen. People are dead weird. I am also, repeatedly asking up thread what we should do about it, "

We should object. We should call it out. When we see it, and when we discuss it.

We should not:
Defend it
Minimise it
Accept it as unavoidable
Attack those who address it.
Etc.

Come on, shit happens. When it does we shout loudly about it. We don't shrug and say, well it's not as bad as rape/murder/racism/famine..l

Come on!

@GreenManalishi I think all that was needed in this case was for a member of staff (possibly security?) to approach and say something like 'Really lads? Come on, lose the masks or off you go'. This is the kind of approach I regularly used in a previous role many years ago and never had any issue. People knew they were pushing a boundary and knew they were busted. Unfortunately that won't work when boundaries have been so blurred that staff fear they will be cancelled / shamed / disciplined or whatever for taking that approach. Which is exactly the aim of people trying to blur these boundaries, to cast enough doubt that people (staff or customers) don't have confidence in speaking up and objecting.

That is part of Queer theory.
All things are artificial social constructs, and the whole idea of childhood can come under that idea too.

Imo ‘social constructs’ are how humans attempt to create to create better lives.

'Childhood innocence is a myth that only protects parents from explanations – nothing more.'

That is fucking revolting and whoever wrote that article needs looked into.

Anyone who thinks like this about children needs their head examined.

I am also, repeatedly asking up thread what we should do about it, but nobody seems to be able to pop down the outrage for a minute and gain the perspective necessary to think about that bit.

In this case, they should have been asked to leave the store.