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

Emotionalsupportviper

I noticed that no posters have said anything about the Rainbow dildo butt monkey after I posted the link before. Nor the paedophile leading the teen around Glasgow in a gimp suit.

I figured it was just too uncomfortable to see that already there are reported instances of where this behaviour leads when it is minimised by 'there is no harm', 'it is just a joke', or telling children that it is just 'dressing up'.

Yeah they are definitely not furries. That is pet play. A sub/dom kink, like walking your slave around in bondage gear and a butt plug.

As you’ve originally said there’s the ‘good side’ and as pointed out by other posters there is the kinky side, but more relevant is as highlighted by Lang that predators will exploit these areas

There are furry & cosplay clubs / societies around the country, I go to a few comicons and a particular cosplay society is prevalent at them. There are quite a few furries, I don’t know if they are in that society or have their own groups - but all tend to be friends and associate with each other

That society (appears to be) young cosplayers running their own society for their own benefit, and the event organisers are very hot on what is and isn’t acceptable at their events
There are a few online groups that flag up warnings and particularly flag up events/organisers that are more ‘suspicious’

As you say, you only have limited influence on an 18 year old, but keep engaged and aware where possible

Is he a member of a group, and can you see the range of people associated with it?

This is massively false equivalence and a weak argument. In your example someone has stolen a photo/data and posted it on a location specifically for sexual purposes. Clearly a crime. As is Storing the photo locally for the same purposes.

The closer example would be someone dressed up as wonder woman (or any other popular sexually attractive character ) walking around a city centre. It causes no harm to anyone whatsoever, intends no harm to anyone whatsoever and is in no way outwardly sexual except for those who are projecting their own issues and views on sexual deviance onto others. In fact, other than the character being dressed up as - the two scenarios are almost identical.

The law has clear lines that shouldn't/can't be crossed - there was no sexual contact, sexual activity, coercion or exposure taking place in the situation in the OP - it was literally some people dressed up as animals. Nothing more, nothing less - it is a reflection of your own mindset if you see anything more in this instance.

Not knowing about it is harmful

may not harm you directly but in time it will harm others because soon they won’t just be getting their sexual trills from what could be seen as innocent photos, this so often leads to filming, exposing themselves, wanting others to see their fetish - exhibitionism

its the constant pushing of boundaries this is harmful

Not a big deal.

My son is in primary 7, they're all around 11 years old. They were to give a talk on anything they enjoy. One of the girls did a talk on how she e enjoyed being a furry.

It created a bit of a hoo-ha because she had been watching stuff online and her parents didnt know. They hadn't practiced the homework with her so didnt know what talk she was about to give.

Let's imagine for a moment that their motivations were entirely innocent. They just love wearing masks and tails that are normally associated with a sexual fetish but for them it is entirely non-sexual and just fun. Ok. So, why take it to IKEA? In planning that trip, might you not consider how it might feel to others? Might you not think, 'Oh, we know this isn't at all sexual for us but since these outfits are mostly associated with a sexual fetish and IKEA is full of families perhaps we just shouldn't spend our Sunday walking about in IKEA dressed this way when we could just stay at home instead'?

Many years ago I worked in stewarding of a large scale event where year on year we would get people turning up in entirely inappropriate costumes, for example a giant dildo. It wasn't for sexual gratification (as far as I could tell!) but it wasn't what the event was about. All we ever had to do was say 'This is a family arena' and tell them to move on. No issue. When boundaries are repeatedly pushed, motivations second guessed and allowances made, we lose the ability to say, clearly, 'no' and I wonder whether nowadays that simple statement would be enough to deal with something like that.

Yes, it is.

Paraphilias almost always involves non-consenting participants, and of course children are unable to consent.

Paraphilias also tend to cluster, so if someone has one fetish/paraphilia, they are quite likely to have others:

'Paraphilias, in general, are more common in men, with reasons unknown.... Specifically, fetishism, frotteurism, voyeurism, and masochism held a prevalence ... The research found that the most common paraphilic interest amongst men is often voyeurism and fetishism.[14]'

I suppose if you get off on non-consent then you are likely to find any activity that involves non-consent (voyeurism, exhibitionism, paedophilia) exciting.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554425/

'I have yet to see a single post on this thread which has explained how dressing up as an animal with no sexual connotations or actions taking place is harmful to anyone else.'

These people are getting off on people looking at them in their fetish gear. Children in particular should not be involved in scenarios that adults use for sexual excitement.

No doubt there will be people mocking the 'outrage' on mumsnet 'oh won't somebody think of the children' and so on. Safeguarding children isn't seen as a cool thing to do, kinks are cool but protecting children isn't. Have a think about who is pushing that agenda. Who wants to break down the barriers to safeguarding children and why?

I doubt they would have done it in an empty IKEA, devoid of people. Surely it is people's REACTIONS that gives the thrill?
Transgression requires those who are being transgressed ie unwilling participants.

The closer example would be someone dressed up as wonder woman (or any other popular sexually attractive character ) walking around a city centre. It causes no harm to anyone whatsoever, intends no harm to anyone whatsoever and is in no way outwardly sexual except for those who are projecting their own issues and views on sexual deviance onto others. In fact, other than the character being dressed up as - the two scenarios are almost identical.

No. Wonder Woman is a character in movies, cartoons, comics etc and people may sexualise that character. They may be aroused wearing that costumer, they may simply be dressing up.

Pup play masks and tails are not used for any other purpose and are sexual fetish wear.

The two scenarios are not identical from the outset.

And there was me thinking, "Edinburgh? Shirley knot. Now Glasgow I'd believe..."

Anyways, I briefly knew a therianthrope back in the day.

Aye, the all right jacks never bother until happens to them of course and the way things are going those chances are ever increasing.
Womens rights are being eroded by men..male sex entertainers read to children, fetshists popping into ikea. This is a complete coincidence totaly benign, and in the end...mens sexual rigjts trump everyting else.so whats the big deal. Makes me weep.

If they didn't intentionally want to include children in their kink show, they wouldn't have gone to IKEA on a Sunday afternoon. It's because there are children there that they chose it. It heightens the thrill to get away with it in front of innocents.

I had the misfortune of arriving at IKEA yesterday just after these three - they headed in through the exit and must have gone straight up to the cafe. It was absolutely heaving as is normal for Sunday afternoon and full of families with small children.

I'm not sure I would agree with the 'nobody seemed to notice' assesment. In the car park at least, several people stopped in their tracks and stared open mouthed. Others were about rolling their eyes out if their heads once they had passed.

Personally, it made me feel hugely uncomfortable because I knew they were likely getting their rocks off rather than picking up some candles. And I had to have a conversation with 15 year old DD that probably left her regretting tagging along for an ice cream!

Exactly - every time anyone (man or woman) finds someone visually sexually desirable they are involving a stranger in their sexual feelings.

It doesn’t really matter as long as long as it’s not aggressive, intimidating or demanding an active involvement from a stranger.

I find many of the comments here tediously prudish. Life’s full of weird shit.

Pup play masks are fetish masks. They are used for fetish play. Unlike furry costumes, these masks are never part of any non-sexual dressing up.

What are you not getting about this?

Womens rights are being eroded by men..male sex entertainers read to children, fetshists popping into ikea. This is a complete coincidence totaly benign, and in the end...mens sexual rigjts trump everyting else.so whats the big deal. Makes me weep.

This is it. It’s all about eroding boundaries and vilifying those who object. Let’s think very carefully about the group of people who will benefit, and who will suffer.

Why is our society suddenly on a fast road to removing all safeguarding of children, be it exposing them to fetish, removing their single sex spaces or introducing them to adult concepts of self and identity that they can’t process effectively?

Yes. Anyone saying 'the kids don't know' must be the lucky ones with children who have not been exposed to this, or to porn, by their friends.

So are you fine with paedophiles getting off to the presence of children as long as no one is physically getting hurt?

The law has clear lines that shouldn't/can't be crossed - there was no sexual contact, sexual activity, coercion or exposure taking place in the situation in the OP - it was literally some people dressed up as animals. Nothing more, nothing less - it is a reflection of your own mindset if you see anything more in this instance.

It wasn't literally some people dressed up as animals. It was people in fetish wear on leads in IKEA on a weekend. You can deny it's fetish wear all you want, you can say its fancy dress. But it isn't, it's a fetish mask, bought from a fetish shop.

When I used to go to fetish clubs, people wore clothes over their clothes. Why? Because noone needs to know that you're wearing latex. Save it until you're in the space where everyone has agreed to be in latex.

If you and your toddler want to willingly take part in someone else's fetish, I guess that's up to you. But I object to someone dragging my two year old into theirs.

Tediously prudish people not wanting themselves or their children to be involved in others fetish. They love that they have your suporrt. They count on it.

To any undecided lurkers: Do you think it is silly, hysterical, prudish, etc, to object to men getting sexual thrills from non-consenting people?

It was people in fetish wear on leads in IKEA on a weekend

They weren't on leads, to be clear.