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

is it or is it not OK for men to get sexual thrills from non-consenting victims?

The specific argument here is that it's okay so long as the victims don't know that they're non-consenting.

We need to bring back thorough understanding of what consent actually involves, specifically the informed part of informed consent.

Ok, actually, I retract what I said above. I was confused by the furry thing, which I think is not a fetish (although, can be sexualised like anything). But yes now I've taken a closer look this does seem to be a kink where public humiliation is the point. Also yes, I think we can all agree that women are sick to the back teeth of being forced into complicitly with male sexual kinks.

This by @littleburn changed my mind, good post:

Part of what they are getting off on is the exhibitionism/degradation of being in a public, family-orientated place dressed like this. Displaying kink in front of children and non-consenting adults is never ok.

Essentially I think this is right. They have chosen IKEA on purpose, and it is sexual to them because of the audience.

I am constantly surprised by this.

So, do some posters think it is ok for a male to masturbate through their clothes then, because all clothing is sexual, and hey, no one can see their penis, and we can tell kids that that male has an itch and is just scratching it.

So, is that what we should be telling our children and we should just let public masturbaters get on with it.

What about a simulated sex act where no one is 'harmed' and nothing is seen as people are all clothed. Touching on the outside of the clothes? Is that ok? Because it can be explained away to children?

I'm really not seeing any leads in the video. The one in Edinburgh live is the right video I presume?

The article mentioned leads. I haven't watched the video because I have enough trouble sleepng, but regardless of whether they had leads, I know exactly what those masks represent. It really isn't even questionable that it's part of a kink.

You do not umderstand consent. There is no way this is concensual or appropriate it is sexual psychopathy and i worry about anyone that thinks that is normal or healthy. Its lile arguing someone in a coma who is assaulted is morally okay because they didnt know. Jfc

Yes, absolutely. I'm agreeing with you! Just pointing out what others are arguing.

You appear to have got the wrong end of the stick as to which side @ArabellaScott is on.

Look, it's absolutely absurd to suggest that people wearing these fetish dog masks are not doing it for sexual reasons.

If you want to argue that displaying a sexual fetish in public is reasonable, we can have that discussion, but these outfits/costumes are fetish wear. This is a recognisable kink/fetish/paraphilia/culture. It's just nonsense to argue otherwise.

Exactly. It's like arguing that customers in a bank shouldn't be wary of the men who just entered, wearing ski masks.

It harms the public and kids who are involved non consensually in someone elses fetishes. It would cause me psychological harm as a survivor i do not see it as different, they are people who get thrilled by breaking boundaries and getting a reaction. Its disgusting and shoupd be illegal imo

But equally, we don't have thought crimes. If your colleague thinks you're really fit and gets himself off thinking about your arse in the pencil skirt you wore to the budget meeting on Tuesday, but in person he is completely professional and you have no idea, is he committing a crime? Are you a victim, and if so of what crime?

If a man in the shop finds your heels incredibly sexy and gets turned on, but leaves you alone and you have no idea, is he committing a crime? Are you a victim, and if so of what crime?

If you're wearing exotic lingerie or no underwear out on a date with your OH and you find it a turn on, are you violating everyone else around you?

Yeah it might just be the Storytime cast , @Quveas . Ada HD having a bit of downtime. Most reassuring.

I’ll take my Rottweiler in for a stroll around Ikea if that’s the case. He’s around the 12 stone mark and I will just say he’s a man in a costume and carry on with my walkabout if the staff ask us to leave.

You are overlooking a very important distinction that one behavior is cocert hidden the other is overt which knowingly involves unconsenting persons. There is link between furries, paedophiles and zoophiles. It is boundary violation

Maybe worth pointing out that indecent exposure is a crime, but so is involving children in sexual activity:

www.emmottsnell.co.uk/blog/flashing-indecent-exposure-legal-remedies

Sarah Everard's tragic death highlighted that indecent exposure and paraphilias are often precursors to offenders escalating.

Worth looking at the Sexual Offences Act and what it says wrt children, specifically.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally engages in an activity,

(b)the activity is sexual,

(c)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he engages in it—

(i)when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii)knowing or believing that B is aware, or intending that B should be aware, that he is engaging in it, and

(d)either—

(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Dressing up for sexual purposes = intent.

I asked you on the previous page, but do you have a link to the study which has the data please?

Intent to commit bestiality? By putting on a dog mask?

What part of this 'pup play' fetish gear is not registering as 'pup play' fetish gear?

Your comparators are missing some aspects. This gear is deliberately worn for sexual purposes, the people they are encountering are part of the fetish, and have included people in plain sight in their fetish.

This is nothing like a man getting off on seeing someone's heels and then remembering when they get home to masturbate to the memory. And if you are exposing your exotic lingerie in Ikea, then yes, you also have sexual boundary issues relating to exhibitionism.

@fairgame84

Your ds may be misinformed about what asexual means I’m afraid. It doesn’t mean that you don’t have sex, it means that a desire to have sex should not be a requirement for actually having sex.

We discovered this in conversations around the concept of asexual being taught to Girl Guides - the people pushing this want to normalise sex without desire. We need to think carefully about who benefits from this.

Im afraid your ds may be caught up with people who do not have his best interests at heart. The furry anime content is frequently sexual and aimed at grooming people into certain behaviours.

When looking at Sexual Offences of exhibitionism- especially in relation to children mens rea (intent) is a large part of the law. So yes, the 'thought' behind an act matters.

See the extract of the SOA I posted above.

The difference between someone thinking someone is 'hot', and getting off on the response of a non-consenting person is obvious. Wearing an outfit that is designed to elicit a response from someone who is not going to understand the messages involved is deliberately engineering a situation for your sexual gratification, it's not just observing and responding to something.

It's not accidental that these men are wearing these specific masks, in this specific place, with these specific connotations, labels and associations.

It's all a very deliberately scenario created for one rather obvious purpose.

I asked you on the previous page, but do you have a link to the study which has the data please?

A quick Google of "furries paedophile" is illuminating.

Maybe, but I'd urge caution if you're at work.

I think these examples are differnet. For the men in that video, the whole point is to be seen and for people to know that you are 'being a dog'. They understand that some of the audience (e.g. the children) won't immediately grasp the sexual links that these men have to 'being dogs', and they understand that some of the audience will absolutely know that they are witnessing a sexual display.

The ones of you getting off to a memory of someone is completely different, you are in no way involving them. The one where the woman isn't wearing any underwear, presumably that's sexual to her because of the anticipation of having sex with her (willing, consenting) DH. If she went around the restaurant informing each diner that she isn't wearing underwear I'd say she's involving them in her kink, even if they don't all understand that not wearing underwear is a sexual thing.

Also, I think that it's a myth to think that having clear boundaries means that there won't also be some grey areas. It is wrong to involve others in your sexual fetish agaisnt their knowledge or will. Is it wrong to sext your DP at work, when part of the sexual excitement comes from knowing your colleagues think you're texting about work? I honestly don't know. Maybe there isn't an answer and it's a borderline case, maybe whether it's ok depends on how much the colleagues and their opinion feature into the decisiona and sexual gratification of sexting.

But it's a mistake to think that we need to catgeorise each and every instance as 'wrong' or 'right' before we can call out the ones that are clearly wrong. And this is an example of forcing others to join in a kink, and therefore wrong. It doesn't actually matter if there are structutally similar analogues that we're less quick to judge as wrong.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/31/prosecutors-boy-sexually-abused-at-furry-parties-by-man-who-wore-fox-costume/

Just google it. You get lots of results. the amount of women esp with kids defending mens paraphilias never ceases to depress and terrify me.

This is an illuminating article:

4w.pub/bad-journalism-on-furries/