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

www.huffpost.com/entry/sexual-fetish_n_4144418

that's a hypothesis, but you can't know their exact intent.

For crying out loud....

There is no other purpose in wearing those clothes to that place in that way.

It wouldn't work if it was something mundane and every day.

Wearing red knickers or black socks may turn you on, but it's only exhibitionism if you insist on showing them to people.

If you don't look any different from other people because what you're wearing is mundane, then it's not involving onlookers because they aren't looking!

Motorcyclists remove their balaclavas and helmets. You wouldnt even need to specfy fetish oufit all you have to say is dont come dressed as an animal. Again if i did i would be a bit worried if i wasnt asked to leave. But thats because i dont get off on bundary pushing and weirding people out...

Ok, you are being contrarian. This is pointless. I too could claim I can't see the difference between black and white. It wouldn't mean there is no difference.

I've answered your question in the much longer thing I posted about 5 minutes ago.

I don't want to police anyone. I think I've said that many, many times. I want a society where people don't use unsuspecting others, inc. children, as bystanders in their sexual acts. A society where men don't feel entilted to use whomever they please as part of their sexual gratification. This particular kink is based on doing just that.

Leatger trousers don"t cause sensory deprivation and humiliation which is mainly what gimp masks are used for.

they are sold in some fetish wear stores, however. which undermines the claim made upthread that fetish wear can be defined as gear sold in a fetish shop and that is the definition of what should be banned in public spaces.

if you mean a specific type of fetish wear should be banned, I'd be curious about how you'd define that. I'm not asking just to be contrary - it;'s because I don't think you can in any meaningful and consistent way.

BDSM sensory deprivation

are you saying that is all you'd ban?

It's interesting to see inside other people's heads though, as they argue that people get aroused in public all the time so there's no point trying to constrain it as long as there's no actual nakedness.

I have never been aroused in public- wait, in a nightclub when I was about 17 and the bouncer came and threatened to kick us out.
I have never been aroused in front of children. In fact there's nothing quite like a kid popping up, to throw a bucket of cold water on you. Anyone not constrained by the presence of kids is waving red flags a plenty. And that includes poor sex starved men whose wives don't want to be groped in front of the kids.

Ah ELO again, helping the rest of us see how sensible we are and how lacking in sound arguments they are. The poster who convinced me on a previous thread just how dangerous loosing our single sex spaces would be, by their complete lack of boundaries and willingness to throw women under the bus.

@EastLondonObserver you're just ignoring hundreds of insightful posts to shout 'you haven't answered my question! Define fetish gear! You want to police people!' Posters are writing long replies explaining why that isn't the case and you're just ignoring them.

what's the issue with that though?

we all use bystanders in our sexual thoughts all the time. we don't require their consent to do so.

obviously the IKEA incident isn't merely in their minds. but why does it bother you? it's only you that have decided to feel violated.

no one calling for fetish gear to be banned in public has defined fetish gear in workable way across the 30-odd pages of debate. it's a reasonable question to continue to ask, if this is a course of action people are demanding.

No.

To start with gimp masks in shops where children are is a start though.

I don't care what you say but a lot of children would think those masks are scary and why should the gimps feelings be put before everyone else?

No child is going to be freaked out over a leather child but a grown man wearing a leather dogs head might freak them out.

I would suggest you are extremely unusual if you have never had any sexual thoughts in public.

What is it about women saying 'No thank you' that some men find so difficult? 'No thank you' actually is enough.

leather jacket not child.

I took my DC to Pride and there were quite a few people in fetish gear / masks. All the kids there weren't scared at all.

"we all use bystanders in our sexual thoughts all the time"

No we fucking don't.
HTH.

Seeing someone in the street and finding them attractive is very very very different from going somewhere where there will be people specifically to get off on the fact that you are getting sexual gratification from their presence. "We" don't all do this. I have literally never used a bystander for sexual gratification in this sense, and definitely would never use a child.

I guess the only example of something similar I can think of that is more widespread is people who pole dance in clubs, and who get gratification from being seen pole dancing. Ok, fine, but it's to an audience who have chosen to be in a club with a pole. Different from these guys, who have deliberately targeted a location where people would expect not to be involved in a sexual act.

@sillybillyboo1

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.

I'm really not trying to split hairs, but in order to create a rule you have to draw a line. You have drawn a line that exludes fetish wear, and furries, from your imaginary shop.

We have already established that Furries are not sexual, and are distinct from the sexually motivated Pups in the Dog Men Of IKEA Incident. If the sexual element of the Pups are the issue, then you'd be removing let's say, non neurotypical teenagers who find furry ears and a tail a comfort and enable them to leave the house to socialise.

Do you see where the difficulty lies? If the Dog men of IKEA have not broken a law, which as far as I can see they didn't, and I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just a fact, then how do you begin to remove people with certain items of clothing which are sexual in nature from your shop without gathering up others who are not, in the process?

If you took being asked to leave personally you feel it would be due to there being something wrong with you, which could be said is exactly the issue with people that cannot self regulate and fit in with society. There is something wrong with them. They have and always will exist and a sign above your shop door isn't going to make it not so.

so you've never fancied anyone by sight, come on...

How do you know? Did you ask each and every one? They may have been laughing but you don't know how they felt.

Your children may have been bought up with Uncle Gary and their parents sat in gimp masks but most children haven't. There is really no need.