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

I would suggest talking to other women about it.

Like we're doing here. Let other women know that if they are being deliberately made to feel uncomfortable then the problem is not with them.

Point out that there is nothing wrong with their instinctive response to these men who are getting off on their discomfort and confusion.

Share information - we have established here that this is a fetish, that's beyond doubt, really. And establish that it's not acceptable to abuse people, that non-consensual sexual activity is beyond the pale, that in some cases yes it's illegal, and in others it should be called out.

We need to empower women and children to state their boundaries and say 'no, thank you' loud and clear. Don't be afraid of being insulted, it only reveals the weakness of their argument.

Or the queer theorists did a very good number on them

How do you know the children aren't going to be upset? It looks odd and definitely not cute. They hardly looked like Barney the dinosaur.

If Mt charente asked why they wearing the masks I would say because they are weird. Why lie? They are weird.

I agree this is up to management/security and perhaps staff training.

If my children asked - that should say.

We can see on this thread how some will attempt to minimise and dismiss and undermine women calling out unacceptable behaviour. We just have to learn how to recognise that pattern and stand up to it.

Abuse thrives in silence. When we are made to feel afraid to stand up and name it.

You are also quite predictable in reeling out the very same fallacies you mention.

It would be upsetting to a lot of kids to think otherwise suggests you don't have any. It would have upset me. Also does the poster think kids can verbalise things like we are doing now? Put down the queer theory bro.

Arabella flunked on what should be done about it as couldn’t define the most basic terms surrounding the issue.

Security and management asking them to leave. Its done all the time.

I defined the terms you asked for, iirc more than once. I did it by looking in the dictionary.

Arabella is completely right here. We've explained over and over and over again that it's inappropriate * to use bystanders, including chidlren, as props ina paraphilia based, sexually gratifying act.

You've responded with:

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.

We've said that we're not policing it, or suggesting others do so. The point is what is appropriate around children, not what is legal. We are not "screaming" (hysterical, pearl clutching...) anything, we are calling a recognised sexual disposition by its name. Reputable source upthread.

This isn't even controversial!! If you ASKED them what they're doing, they would most likely explain that it's a sexual thing. The reason why 'kink at pride' is something that people dressed like those boys defend is because these things ARE kink. I've already defined kink for you, so don't even start asking me what I mean by that.

*not illegal, not illegal to think about.

So then are we not back around to where the line is, in terms of who the security guard asks to leave?

Because in that particular instance, there is no overtly sexual act happening, other than an implied one due to the nature of the face mask. They're not butt plugs, so is it tail related?

No masturbation. No genitals.

Yes I'm saying that personally I feel it's inappropriate and absolutely people are allowed to have boundaries, but as is clear from this instance,

not everyones are the same. Who calls it?

ELO, no one has flunked.

We have all have failed to persuade people who disagree with us.

And that's fine.

We should focus the insults on people who are misbehaving though, not on the people who call them out.

@Because in that particular instance, there is no overtly sexual act happening, other than an implied one due to the nature of the face mask."

Wearing fetish gear in a family public space IS overtly sexual.

That's why they are there.
They didn't wake up and put on the closest clothes to hand.
They didn't accidentally bump into someone else who happened to be wearing similar clothes.
They didn't happen to go to a busy family focused retail outlet at peak time.

They arranged to go out, together, to that specific place, in items bought in a fetish shop.

That isn't random, it's deliberate, it's an overtly sexual act

That was supposed to reply to @GreenManalishi

That isn't random, it's deliberate, it's an overtly sexual act

Agreed, to suggest otherwise is minimising.

Like most of the ways in which vulnerable groups are oppressed under patriarchial societies, the question isn't as simple as "what should we do with these men in IKEA." Probably what happened was correct, people largely ignoring them. I wouldn't have called the police.

The problem is structural to its core, it's root deep. The problem is that we live in a society where male gratification is defended and indulged above the vulnerable groups that their sexual entiltement is directed towards. Or if that sounds convoluted: the rights of men to swing their dicks around trumps the wellbeing of women whom they are swinging at.

You solve it by fighting for a society and a set of social attitudes where men stop feeling entilted to use the world and everything in it as an object for their sexual gratification. That is what (I think) Arabella's "flunked" list is aiming at. Talking to women, discussing the appropriateness of the act, discussing the damage. The feminists call it consciousness raising. The misogynists call it prudeish hysterical screaming, but well, they would wouldn't they.

Define fetish gear

Gear used to satisfy your fetish. Next?

Stuff bought from a fetish supplier.

Management can easily stipulate no fetish costumes or animal costumes. If i turned up to ikea as a furry i would expect to be asked to leave and if i took that personally it would be due to something wrong with me. And for this exact reasoning and thought process most people dont show up as a furry.

you're making this too easy :)

so if someone have a fetish that involves something mundane and everyday, how on earth are you going to police the wearing of this gear in a public space?

Fetish gear is not defined as mundane and everyday. You are being facetious.

Like what?

Fetish suppliers sell all sorts of stuff that isn't exclusively worn in sexual contexts and overlaps with :

leather jackers
studded collars (as worn by emo/punk teens)
pvc trousers
and so on.

if you were to compile a list of all the stock in fetish stores and banned that you would have an unworkable regulation.