The most interesting thing about all this I think is that this kind of shows that while furrys are kind of wishy-washy when it comes to determining what is 'furry', they're quick to point out what is not.
This is only going to happen all the more as the entertainment industry tries to snake its way in. Some described Ms. Cyrus's dance with animal costume performers as getting 'frisky with furries'.
Now if the definition of a furry is "Someone dressed in an animal costume" that would be correct. However, I doubt the person in the costume had any dealing with the furry fandom. Furry fans wish they were paid that much... though if the cost is getting near Cyrus-- well, maybe not enough money...
In addition: I wouldn't call the animals costumers in Miley Cyrus's performance, or for that matter Tyler Swift's"We are never get back together" video are not symbolic of furry or furry fandom. Those costumes are merely symbols of childhood (animated stuffed animals).
For instance the the animal costumers that show up during the chorus of Taylor's song are a symbol of a breakup's regression to a simpler state of being. The complexity of 'adult' relationships are simplified to a more child-like and free state. (Plus it helps with the 'nyah-nyah' sounding cadence of the chorus).
Once again, the hardship we're dealing with is the blowback from the ambiguity of the term furry. You're calling this "Psudo-furry" because it wasn't made by a furry fan... but according to furry fans what makes something furry is that it contains anthroporphization of animals, in which case the videos you showed here cannot be called psudo, they actually are.
The problem here is that our fandom wants to have no one control what furry means, but at the same time have complete ownership over the term. In it's own way it shows the struggle of identity... you want to force people to see you in a certain way but you cannot control how other people see you.
The most interesting thing about all this I think is that this kind of shows that while furrys are kind of wishy-washy when it comes to determining what is 'furry', they're quick to point out what is not.
This is only going to happen all the more as the entertainment industry tries to snake its way in. Some described Ms. Cyrus's dance with animal costume performers as getting 'frisky with furries'.
Now if the definition of a furry is "Someone dressed in an animal costume" that would be correct. However, I doubt the person in the costume had any dealing with the furry fandom. Furry fans wish they were paid that much... though if the cost is getting near Cyrus-- well, maybe not enough money...
In addition: I wouldn't call the animals costumers in Miley Cyrus's performance, or for that matter Tyler Swift's"We are never get back together" video are not symbolic of furry or furry fandom. Those costumes are merely symbols of childhood (animated stuffed animals).
For instance the the animal costumers that show up during the chorus of Taylor's song are a symbol of a breakup's regression to a simpler state of being. The complexity of 'adult' relationships are simplified to a more child-like and free state. (Plus it helps with the 'nyah-nyah' sounding cadence of the chorus).
The Miley symbolism was explained by Cracked .
Once again, the hardship we're dealing with is the blowback from the ambiguity of the term furry. You're calling this "Psudo-furry" because it wasn't made by a furry fan... but according to furry fans what makes something furry is that it contains anthroporphization of animals, in which case the videos you showed here cannot be called psudo, they actually are.
The problem here is that our fandom wants to have no one control what furry means, but at the same time have complete ownership over the term. In it's own way it shows the struggle of identity... you want to force people to see you in a certain way but you cannot control how other people see you.