Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?

from the but-think-of-the-commenters... dept

Wed, Feb 24th 2010 10:53pm — Mike Masnick

The EFF and the National Coalition Against Censorship are apparently asking YouTube to consider changing its policy with regards to nudity. Apparently, it will allow nudity if the video is from a film or TV show -- but not if it's user generated videos made for YouTube. Separately, YouTube suggests it will allow nudity with "some educational, documentary and scientific content, but only if that is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic." The problem, according to the EFF and NCAC, is that there is no exception for work that is artistic in nature, and apparently YouTube recently removed the videos of a well-known artist, Amy Greenfield, for violating the "no nudity" policy. Now, this isn't actually a "censorship" issue, since YouTube is a private site, and not the government. So, honestly, I don't see any problem with YouTube deciding that it doesn't want that particular content on its site, but there is a separate issue raised here -- which is that, once again, the real issue is Google's lack of customer service -- something we've seen a lot of lately. One of the complaints is that Greenfield's videos were taken down with no recourse and no method for her to communicate with folks at YouTube to talk about getting them back online.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: nudity, video, youtube
Companies: eff, google, ncac

142 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 10:35pm

I think that, if I were YouTube, the answer would be a definite NO. It's very hard to draw a line between artful nudity and pornography, and YouTube is having enough trouble as it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ccomp5950 (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 11:32pm

The easiest way is as Rose put it, just no. Having exceptions like this really is silly when in the same breath we say "how are they supposed to know the difference between permissive use of copyrighted material and otherwise" and than what some would call art and pornography. Sure you could allow users to try and police this with a "bring it to our attention" button but as we've seen with the previous rick roll story all of these systems can and will be abused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sinsi (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 11:50pm

If users are uploading "20 hours of video a minute" how can that be policed? For someone uploading to youtube it's personal, but to youtube you are just one of a deluge. Maybe that's why google seems so bad at PR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:41am

It depends...
...more on who you are, is seems, than what you do.

Hollywood studio nudity: OK
Independent video maker nudity: Not OK

The "big corporate club" in action? I guess membership has it privileges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 1:02am

Let me start off with a meme: Rule #34 of the Internet.

Pornography is protected under the 1st amendment here in the US with specific caveats as a form of art. From Lap dances in bars being considered a performance art (and in Las Vegas, Nevada, are taxed as such) to the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of Hustler Magazine (Larry Flynt) v. Jerry Falwell.

So long as the people involved are all consenting adults.

Would an image or video of nude people riding the bus as if they were wearing clothes be considered artistic or pornography? Or is pornography strictly erotic in nature?

Maybe I've been on the internet for FAR too long to see where the line is drawn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mariush (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 1:38am

Nudity on Youtube
I was positively surprised seeing videos about breast feeding on Youtube, which actually showed a woman's breast as the child was doing its "job".

Then, I thought maybe stuff like this is so controversial (womem rights, breast feeding in public and so on) they probably preferred to leave them with just a warning ("may not be suitable for minors").

I'm all for it and it's a pity Americans are so stuck up about nudity - here in Europe it's not such a big deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frosty840, 25 Feb 2010 @ 1:38am

There are plenty of medical videos featuring nudity, though that might come under some kind of subheading of "medical nudity" and might therefore not be banned.

But they're very much present on the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tfp, 25 Feb 2010 @ 1:59am

rights n stuff
Nudity is good, we need more nudity not less. War and murder and greed should be the taboo, not clotheslessness.

Stoopid people (present company excepted).

Copyright Me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
m., 25 Feb 2010 @ 2:54am

tfp...
tfp is absolutely right...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monk, 25 Feb 2010 @ 3:07am

Artful vs Awful
Can anyone define the difference between Artful and Awful ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 3:22am

Mainly we need labels
Why would some forms of nudity be ok while others not? So long as appropriate labels are provided & over 18 agreements are enforced as much as an honor system can be, let it all happen. There is some in such poor taste that I won't watch it, but someone would, or it wouldn't be there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 3:37am

Objection!
"...but there is a separate issue raised here -- which is that, once again, the real issue is Google's lack of customer service..."
Give people an inch, and they'll soon demand a mile.

This is exactly what's happening here given this idiot named Amy Greenfield decided on her own accord to change the services she saw fit.

I don't believe Google, who gives people plenty of leeway to upload some rather ridiculous things, should be punished (or thought of doing so to its customers) for implementing a few restrictions, one of which being nudity.

Those who challenge "nudity is art" are the same that will turn around ten seconds later and scream "child pornography!" if the same approach is taken to children.

Google has every right to stand by this decision not to open up this can of worms, while trying to give people the choice to determine what's art, and what's pornography.

If people are that damn desperate for seeing nudity, the internet is more than sufficient to meet their desires.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 3:50am

They should allow nudity, in the mean time Im going to know one out to Amy Greenfield
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SKC, 25 Feb 2010 @ 4:21am

I find it ironic how artistic/tasteful nudity is against policy, yet there's nothing in place regarding trolling.

So let me get this straight... Natural is against the rules, but cyberbulling is perfectly hunky dory? wtf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 4:46am

The first post here was spot on. NO. If you even give people the ablitly to post nude videos you will ultimately have a pretty sweet and funny video site populated by pornoagraphy where "buisnesses" just use it as a free forum for advertising sex. I would be like the internet where almost everything you searched for will somehow almost bring up a porn result. If you want to see nudity or porn just search googles main site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
raindogg (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 5:01am

who cares
Why is nudity so fregging bad. This country is a bunch of babies. We all have the same parts, get over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 5:08am

I'm confused. How does YouTube taking down videos without notification indicate poor customer service on Google's part? I understand that Google does have poor customer service, but I just don't see the connection there. To the best of my knowledge, Google and YouTube are completely separate, and nothing on YouTube's site suggests otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 5:17am

Re:
I'm surprised they drew the line where they did. Educational and big media TV/movie nudity is OK and so is the gratuitous but non-nude pornography. But, on the other hand, Artistic and not big media TV/movie nudity is not OK.

They do need to move the line. Ether no nudity or nudity, I'll support them in ether decision, but I don't support their current policy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyote, 25 Feb 2010 @ 6:01am

Youtube already has the 18+ warning restrictions on some content... The uploader can make it 18+ to start with, and the userbase to flag content as 18+ or flag it for removal.

It's self-regulating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ramon, 25 Feb 2010 @ 6:12am

I wouldn't want to be judge of what is artistic
Personally, I have no problem with any nudity, but if I worked at Google, I wouldn't want the responsibility of deciding what is artistic and what is pornographic, especially in view of instances like Italy's sentencing of Google execs for the contents of a video placed on Google Video.

In order for Google to accept what is artistic, they have to become judges of what is artistic and what isn't. By comparison, it is easier to judge what is of scientific value or what has come out of a major studio.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:30am

Re:
I thought pornography had to depict acts of sex. So, it stands to reason that anything that has nudity but doesn't show people having sex should be fine.

Or, are we still in the camp where parts of the body are dangerous to children?

Humans are an odd bunch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
redwall_hp (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:35am

Re: Nudity on Youtube
It's because you Europeans forced those annoying Puritans to come over here. Thanks. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:36am

Re:
As Mike said-- there is no 1st amendment issue when the dealings are between two private entities. Google is perfectly within the law to say "No boobs" just as they could say "no red shirts can be worn in an uploaded video".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:57am

YouTube is a PRIVATE COMPANY. Let them decide on what they want to show or not show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:12am

Re: Re:
"no red shirts" -- Well, I think they do have a policy against showing snuff films and death... ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:16am

Re:
http://www.youtube.com/t/company_history

In November 2006, within a year of its launch, YouTube was purchased by Google Inc. in one of the most talked-about acquisitions to date.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monarch (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:46am

Re: Nudity on Youtube
I just spotted an IRONY at it's most precious!

A video of a CHILD Breastfeeding with a warning: ("may not be suitable for minors").
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:41am

Re: Objection!
I don't believe Google, who gives people plenty of leeway to upload some rather ridiculous things, should be punished (or thought of doing so to its customers) for implementing a few restrictions, one of which being nudity.

That's not true: they DO allow nudity. It just depends on who you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:12pm

Re: Re:
No, porn is the depiction of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual excitement. Boobs and penetration both count, under that definition. Now, personally, I don't have a problem with pornography at all, but what you and I might consider okay, other people flip out about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:14pm

Re:
If they start allowing nudity, they'll have to stop allowing children, and my kids and their friends will be pissed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:17pm

Re: Re:
I think the line makes sense. If someone sues YouTube for their content, Big Media is much more likely to to step up and help prove that it's not porn. Small Media just doesn't have the same resources.

Further, it's really easy to say 'This has educational and/or scientific merit.' or 'This does not have educational and/or scientific merit.'. It's really, really hard to say 'This is art.' or 'This is not art.'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re:
If they start allowing nudity...

They already do.

...they'll have to stop allowing children, and my kids and their friends will be pissed.

No, they'll just restrict some material to registered adults, like they already do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
I think the line makes sense. If someone sues YouTube for their content, Big Media is much more likely to to step up and help prove that it's not porn. Small Media just doesn't have the same resources.

If that really made sense, then they would ban all videos from anyone other than Big Media. (Porn isn't the only thing that someone can object to, you know.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 6:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Art, however, is the hardest thing to define.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Malcolm Boura, 26 Feb 2010 @ 11:10am

YouTube is a censor
If there was any evidence that nudity caused harm then You Tube would have some excuse for their policy but the facts are actually very clear. Censoring the human body resutls in wide spread and often serious harm. What is more, it is particularly harmful to the young people that YouTube claims to be protecting. Try comparing the teenage pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted infection rates for prudish countries such as the USA with those for say The Netherlands, Denmark or many other European countries. Attitudes have consequences and the attitudes encouraged by YouTube are disastrous. Children become sexually active younger, are more likely to be promiscuous and less likely to use a condom or contraception. The results are predictable, getting on for ten time more likely to become pregnant, several times more likely to have an abortion and tens of times more likely to catch something.

Prudery is child abuse with good intentions and anyone who doubts that should be required to stand in a juvenile abortion/pregnancy/STI waiting room and explain why it is that if those young people lived in The Netherlands hardly any of them would be there. Is irrational prejudice against the human body really worth the life of even one young person? This policy is driven by commercial pressures founded on prejudice and myth.

What is even worse, because YouTube has a near monopoly, they are exporting harmful attitudes to the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Mar 2010 @ 3:16am

Re: YouTube is a censor
YouTube doesn't have anything close to a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
brian, 4 Mar 2010 @ 3:02pm

By the way, the best Va-Jay-Jays are actually in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Female-Anatomy-Close-Ups-Photos-Vaginas/dp/1451513135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s =books&qid=1267742388&sr=8-1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josephine Shaffer, 13 Jun 2010 @ 6:45pm

Should You Tube Show nudity
I have say yes deffently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 28 Nov 2010 @ 10:34am

nudity on youtube
yes I think nudity should be allowed you youtube. I placed a video on youtube. A circumcision slide show of various nude men that were intact and tried to create a debate on which is more natural and more natural to look at. Or shall I say more pleasing to the eye. (I like the intact men better) I demonstrated how babies become hurt when they get circumcised as well as debate over circumcision and intact. But my video was deleted off of you tube stressing guidelines was beyond their laws of ethical frames of mind. It was too x-rated even though there was absolutely no sex and no erections. Just pictures of the intact male.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 10 Aug 2011 @ 3:39pm

Re: nudity on youtube
Satan is in the minds of the humans on Youtube that hates all things nude, and they had better bane all natural things, and not show hair or fingernails or eyeballs because all of them are nude, and Youtube should only have man made objects that are not living on YouTube videos, and killing machines. Heaven forbid if Youtube has a video during the mating season of plants they are nude too, and spores will be floating all over the place. Can't have the kids see, and be as aware of that. Can't expose the kids to nudity of any kind. Surround them in a dead lifeless environment like humans are in when they are put in jail. That should make the parents, and Youtube extremely happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 10 Aug 2011 @ 3:54pm

YouTube should allow nudity. That is the kind of planet
YouTube should allow nudity. That is the kind of planet we are on. As it is humans are bowing to clothing like idol worshipers bowed to the cow, and bull god Baal, and Moloch. Humans waring, and endorsing a condemning legal system, and humans giving fear to take drugs for named things directing humans away from www.upcspine.com. U,C,S, chiropractic care.
All of all ages needs to be evaluated by one.
Furry nude art is constantly attached, and we should not stand for it any more, and give loving understanding to the furries,and not hatred at all. That art in all of its complexity should be allowed on youtube of any age depicted even as we see all ages from birth on up in nature before our eyes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 2 Jul 2012 @ 5:50pm

Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most art of all
Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most art of all the art whoever will ever see. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the furry making it up to them any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly,and heartlessly removed from Youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:02pm

Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beutiful art of all
Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all the art whoever will ever see. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the furry making it up to them any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly,and heartlessly removed from Youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:11pm

Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all
Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all the art whoever will ever see.It is far more expressive than the human form in many ways. The lines, and expressions are priceless. Representations of clothing obscure the subtleties that should not be hidden anymore that the soft petals of a flower. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the Furries making it up to them in any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly, and heartlessly removed from Youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:14pm

Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all
Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all the art whoever will ever see.It is far more expressive than the human form in many ways. The lines, and expressions are priceless. Representations of clothing obscure the subtleties that should not be hidden anymore than the soft petals of a flower. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the Furries making it up to them in any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly, and heartlessly removed from Youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:35pm

Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude,and sexual art.
Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude, and sexual art. The comics that have it are well done. Stop punishing the Furries about everything. Hurt the furry hurt the heart of Jesus. That goes for the zoo, and Person called the Pedo too. All of us die. That is a body that has sin in it. Condemn anyone condemn yourself to die in what hell really is. Religions will not tell you. It is the glory of God that burned the top of Mount Sinai when Moses saw Gods back. Give joy, and likewise receive joy. it works out that way.

Restore the video gay furry yiff {18+} Apologize to them. They did not harm you. Proverbes 3:30
Morality is not found in hatred.Stop engaging is warfare against furry nakedness, and Yiff sex. War is evil propagating white crosses. Be a peacemaker. Stop bending to hatred which is murder. 1 John 3:15 ,Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.Nakedness is not a sin. Youtube needs to know this. K J V1 Corinthians 11: 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Youtube is banning what is on their own body hating themselves. Youtube needs to accept all the furry art rejecting their religions waring mentality. The long hair is a covering. shame for the man is not being naked. Restore the video gay furry yiff {18+} Apologize to them. They did not harm you. Proverbes 3:30 Strive not with a man without a cause, if he hath done thee no harm. Youtube constantly strives against the furries. Tell me when you humble yourselves apologizing to them
Sent to: YouTube
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:52pm

Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude,and sexual art.
Oppressing is the sin of Sodom, and Gomorrah. What is oppressing is the military policing the world. What is oppressing is the legal system. Police oppressing.YouTube oppresses the furries, and many others too. That means the Sodomites are in control of Youtube. YouTube needs to do what God asks in this verse.King James Version Isaiah 1 >>17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Did you get that youtube, relieve oppression not give it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:54pm

Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude,and sexual art.
Oppressing is the sin of Sodom, and Gomorrah. What is oppressing is the military policing the world. What is oppressing is the legal system. Police oppressing. YouTube oppresses the furries, and many others too. That means the Sodomites are in control of Youtube. YouTube needs to do what God asks in this verse. King James Version Isaiah 1 >>17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Did you get that Youtube, relieve oppression not give it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 13 Dec 2012 @ 12:01pm

People against the furry nude, and sexual art are against God who made it
People against the furry nude, and sexual art are against God who made it being sodomistic oppressors. Can't YouTube see that they are on the side of the devil being against the furry art?
Isaiah 1 >>
King James Version
17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
deleting one video after another is not relieving the oppressed. The videos showing people jumping from a tall building is accepted by YouTube. That is sick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 15 Dec 2012 @ 6:55pm

Youtube needs to be slapped kicked, and punched for doing the same to the furry videos. Y
All of what the furries put on youtube is artful. People need to sue the ass off of youtube for being unspeakably horrible to the furries. Maybe then the Youtube would stop being like religious sodomistic warmongers against Edenlike people. Youtube needs to be slapped kicked, and punched for doing the same to the furry videos. Youtyube needs to give back all of the videos that have been banned. Youtube employes, and those in charge-need to humble themselves bowing before the furry before all eyes saying they are sorry for what they have done groveling before their furry paws!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 21 Dec 2012 @ 12:08pm

Youtube is admitting that they are allowing all furry videos on youtube.
Youtube is admitting that they are allowing videos on youtube that is what is in nature its self. Healthy minds will be the result of it. Youtube must hold to what their words are, and put videos on the web making no bones about it that they are sorry for treating the furry badly by banning their videos. Youtube would do well to make it up to the furry.

Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube
WEBUPON.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 21 Dec 2012 @ 12:11pm

outube is admitting that they are allowing all furry videos on youtube.
Youtube is admitting that they are allowing videos on youtube that were at one time banned. Healthy minds will be the result of it. Youtube must hold to what their words are, and put videos on the web making no bones about it that they are sorry for treating the furry badly by banning their videos. Youtube would do well to make it up to the furry.

Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube
WEBUPON.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 21 Jan 2013 @ 10:47pm

Youtube does not tolerate the hate of others, but does not consider their own hatred
Youtube should not ban any furry nude or sexual video. To call a nude or sexual video bad is to call your own sexual nude body bad. God did not ban anything from us. All things from him are freely given. Youtube does not allow hateful people on youtube. Therefore youtube should ban themselves for being hateful toward the furry art. That hate exists because people have the word porn. That word needs to phased out. Youtube needs to say they are sorry for banning any furry video. Youtube does not tolerate the hate of others, but does not consider their own hatred against the furries that hate no one. Youtube needs to hang their heads in shame for not being equal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 21 Jan 2013 @ 11:08pm

Stop making the furry sad. Make the furry glad. Please?
All of the videos should be given back. Youtube is a Thief, a robber. There is no hate in the videos, No one is threatening anyone. yet hate is given. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is like an unprovoked attack. Let the furries back on youtube that were banned. All they want is to be is loved. Please stop slapping them for wanting to be loved. The furry loves all of the parts loving the whole body. Love the whole body too. Stop making the furry sad. Make the furry glad. Please?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 21 Jan 2013 @ 11:22pm

What the furry shows on youtube is not even compared to leprosy even as people see it but youtube treats the Yiffing, and nude videos as if they are worse than leprosy. Psalm 34:14: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.The furry is a peace seeker. Seek it with them giving the furry Joy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Jan 2013 @ 6:57pm

Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on.
Should All nude and sexual furry videos be allowed? yes they should be allowed. The sodomistic oppression needs to s end. Read Isaiah 1 17,KJV, Youtube is oppressing the furry that oppresses no one. All, and I mean all of the furries banned should be reinstated. All of the videos need to be given back. I don't know if that could be done but it would be an gift showing that the militaristic religious youtube is repenting. They are a monster for treating the Eden like Furries the way they have been treated. YouTube needs to be ashamed of themselves. Youtube is a worshiper of clothing. Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Jan 2013 @ 6:58pm

Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on.
Should All nude and sexual furry videos be allowed? yes they should be allowed. The sodomistic oppression needs to end. Read Isaiah 1: 17,KJV, Youtube is oppressing the furry that oppresses no one. All, and I mean all of the furries banned should be reinstated. All of the videos need to be given back. I don't know if that could be done but it would be an gift showing that the militaristic religious youtube is repenting. They are a monster for treating the Eden like Furries the way they have been treated. YouTube needs to be ashamed of themselves. Youtube is a worshiper of clothing. Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Jan 2013 @ 7:07pm

Youtube is guilty of engaging in unprovoked attracts , preemptive strikes against furry nude, and sexual videos that are as harmless as a butterfly. YouTube needs to repay the furry four times that what was done to them. The rich man who killed a poor mans sheep payed him back four times, and a tax collector gaining ill gotten gain did the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Jan 2013 @ 7:08pm

Youtube is guilty of engaging in unprovoked stacks - , preemptive strikes against furry nude, and sexual videos that are as harmless as a butterfly. YouTube needs to repay the furry four times that what was done to them. The rich man who killed a poor mans sheep payed him back four times, and a tax collector gaining ill gotten gain did the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Jan 2013 @ 8:08pm

Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on.
Should All nude and sexual furry videos be allowed? yes they should be allowed. The sodomistic oppression needs to end. Read Isaiah 1: 17,KJV, Youtube is oppressing the furry that oppresses no one. All, and I mean all of the furries banned should be reinstated. All of the videos need to be given back. I don't know if that could be done but it would be an gift showing that the militaristic religious youtube is repenting. They are a monster for treating the Eden like Furries the way they have been treated. YouTube needs to be ashamed of themselves. Youtube is a worshiper of clothing. Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 28 Jan 2013 @ 8:38am

This headline is seen on the web page WEBUPON.
"Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube" "Webupon"
I thought that Youtube was repenting of being a consuming monster chomping of furry videos, and banning harmless loving christlike people that harm no one from youtube. The hater in this instance is Youtube acting like the troll I report doing bad to me and others with Youtube banning the malicious hater. How can Youtube not be equally malicious in their hatred? Youtube is acting like the trolls I report to be banned. YouTube is being unequal. The devil is unequal.
Soon after reading the headline on WEBUPON Youtube treated the nude,nand sexual videos like a marksman shoots clay pidgins. Youtube is a malicious hater of natural things ending up hating their own natural nude sexual body.
People need to start loving their own bodies. When that happens people will stop treating the furry videos like a target at a shooting gallery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 28 Jan 2013 @ 8:39am

This headline is seen on the web page WEBUPON.
"Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube" "Webupon"
I thought that Youtube was repenting of being a consuming monster chomping of furry videos, and banning harmless loving christlike people that harm no one from youtube. The hater in this instance is Youtube acting like the troll I report doing bad to me and others with Youtube banning the malicious hater. How can Youtube not be equally malicious in their hatred? Youtube is acting like the trolls I report to be banned. YouTube is being unequal. The devil is unequal.
Soon after reading the headline on WEBUPON Youtube treated the nude, and sexual videos like a marksman shoots clay pidgins. Youtube is a malicious hater of natural things ending up hating their own natural nude sexual body.
People need to start loving their own bodies. When that happens people will stop treating the furry videos like a target at a shooting gallery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 31 Jan 2013 @ 10:46pm

It has come to my attention that YouTube can reinstate banned videos. All of the banned Furry videos that have been banned by youtube by people acting like a self righteous scribe, Sadducee, pharisee, chief priests,and high priests like a military personnel needs to be reinstated showing the furries that Youtube is sorry for being cruel to them when they have not been cruel to anyone. Tell them Artie the white arctic fox demands that youtube does this.

The Los Angeles Times reports that YouTube admitted to their mistake in banning Upton's video, which she made with fashion photographer Terry Richardson. The Times published this statement from YouTube about the "Cat Daddy" video: "With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 1:13pm

Re:
Say no say no to your own body bowing to cloth like a Baal worshiper. Call the nude sexual body indecent on Youtube call your own body the same name. Call the maker of all things the same name too. The furry art, and the furry is being oppressed. Lift the oppression.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 1:19pm

Re:
That is right. people will abuse people. Hate is what abuses people. Little do the haters know that they are in Gods eyes hating themselves. They are hating what God made as a result hating themselves with the same intensity not even knowing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 1:22pm

Re: It depends...
Don't people see that what they did not make is nude? The word porn divides. That makes war. YouTube is at war with a thing that this world is all about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 1:27pm

Re:
Dislike one part of a nude person is disliking the whole body. Nature is nude. Artists see nature as artistic. Sheeh people make the indecency law obsolete.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Nudity on Youtube
The puritans are satanic not being like Jesus at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re: Nudity on Youtube
The devil in the souls of people make the warnings being divided against themselves. Youtube needs to wake up so they will stop serving the devil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 2:10pm

Re: Artful vs Awful
Awful is in the eye of the beholder. Have the eye of the beholder perceive in their mind that a piece of art is awful registers it in their mind as being awful .Another person will see what you saw as artful. In reality all of it is vanity. Better to not war about what is seen. Heaven is what is not seen. War about what is seen war about what is not seen. Warmongers will not be in Gods kingdom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 2:38pm

Re: Mainly we need labels
Labels are good to a degree because people know what to look up on the web, but in the beginning God did not make labels. Labels have an inherent by product of creating division giving the illuton that one is better or worse thgan another. That is an illusion. Good question. Nudity is nudity. The type that is not medical is much more creative. Furry art is creative. They show life as it is. Furry art is expressive. Accepting it calms your soul. That is Gods spirit in your soul.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 2:48pm

Re: Re: Objection!
Now I see. There should be no restrictions for nudity. We are not restricted from being born nude. I am sure the devil would like to have a man made things on us when we are born. That would pacify the devil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 2:54pm

Re: Re:
Children are the ones who don't have a problem with a nude form. People that are adults have the unstable mind. To protect the kid from all nudity would be fatal. The air itself is nude. What God made is naked. People kill nude life freaking out about nude people. That tells God that what he made is bad. The devil wants to do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 2:58pm

Re:
incredibility insightful. Hateful trolls are a blight on the web denying people to have freedom. We must not let hate win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 3:07pm

Re:
Videos that harm no one having beautiful positive music have been shoot down by Youtube like a clay pigeon. The love of many will wax cold. That is a very good example of having a cold heart. That needs to stop.Many furry nude,and sexual videos banned That includes zoosexual videos too. Youtube doing that says violence is better war is better. Youtube is saying that hateful people are right even though they ban them from Youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re: YouTube is a censor
it is what YouTube is teaching people. Youtube is teaching people that a warring mentality is better than a non warring mentality. Furry or zoosexual videos of all kinds are not of a warring mentality. They are innocent in whatever they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Feb 2013 @ 3:24pm

Re: nudity on youtube
The people that have the bible in their blood soaked hands have the truth hiding it. The King James Version has what God wanted in 9 places in KJV saying the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the sexual organs at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3 >> 30, circumcision is a blood sacrifice. nothing more nothing less.
Youtube is acting like the lying religious people that were against Jesus, and Lazarus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:41pm

Nudity is nudity. Make one part bad make the whole body bad. Don't make the whole body bad at all. Nature is graphic in your face. You love it. A hummingbird hovering in front of you face captivates you, and yet that hummingbird is totally naked with no man made covering. Why make furry nude art bad? All things are nude. Protect people from all nudity would be fatal. Please relax about all forms of nudity. Persecution of the nude form needs to come to an end. To not want nudity would be youtube sending the message that clothing is the only acceptable thing to be seen on youtube. Youtube is teaching the world that people or representations of people are bad. How can people war calling the body good? Youtube is for war when they should be for peace. Like I said; make one part bad make the whole body bad. The peoople at youtube not changing their policy are calling their bodies bad too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:55pm

18+ is arbitrary. To even have an age limit means a baby to give suck would be illegal. A young human under 18 is seeing a tit. Not only seeing a tit, sucking on it too. According to law the way it is with the age limit would mean by law a policeman would have to arrest a mother for feeding her infant. ans laws are indeed foolish,and oppressive. That baby is definitely under 18 years of age.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 4 Feb 2013 @ 1:00pm

18+ is arbitrary. To even have an age limit means a baby to give suck would be illegal. A young human under 18 is seeing a tit. Not only seeing a tit, sucking on it too. According to law the way it is with the age limit would mean by law a policeman would have to arrest a mother for feeding her infant. mans laws are indeed foolish, and oppressive. That baby is definitely under 18 years of age.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 5 Apr 2013 @ 8:19am

Furry nude, and sexual art.
people need to accept the nude form like the furries accept it. To not accept it would be the same as rejecting Adam and Eve in their innocents has Jesus raise them up from the dead in our day. People would unmercifully attack them. Stop attacking Adam and eves innocents. Bring back Marvel VS capom video with the nude females, and music. Stop warring against the zoosexual too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 5 Apr 2013 @ 8:26am

Furry nude, and sexual art.
People need to accept the nude form like the furries accept it. To not accept it would be the same as rejecting Adam and Eve in their innocence had Jesus raise them up from the dead in our day. People would unmercifully attack them. Stop attacking Adam and Eve's innocence. Bring back Marvel VS capom video with the nude females, and music. Stop warring against the zoosexual too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitfox, 21 Apr 2013 @ 1:35pm

Re:
The art is what it is to the eye of the beholder. Be tolerant even as the peacful furry is. You know what KJV bible says. If your eye offends you pluck it out. It is better to not have it offend you. If what is seen offends you what will heavenly things do to you? Can't take what is seen how can you endue what is not yet seen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitfox, 21 Apr 2013 @ 10:59pm

Re: nudity on youtube
An anti God anti Christ religious mentality that favors the blood sacrafic of circumcision deleted your video and every single zoosexual video and every single furry video too. Satan in he souls of religious people crafted the X rated myth. If that was true nature and all things in the universe would have to be called X rated because they are all NAKED! Religious people are demonic liars having truth not wanting people to know the truth wishing secretly that all life had their sexual organs ripped out.
9 places in KJV says the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the penis tip at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3, 30, Islamic religious parallels the deceptions of the west. Truth has been hidden in a shroud of darkness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitfox, 21 Apr 2013 @ 11:04pm

Re: Re: nudity on youtube
An anti God anti Christ religious mentality that favors the blood sacrafic of circumcision deleted your video and every single zoosexual video and every single furry video too. Satan in the souls of religious people crafted the X rated myth. If that was true nature and all things in the universe would have to be called X rated because they are all NAKED! Religious people are demonic liars having truth not wanting people to know the truth wishing secretly that all life had their sexual organs ripped out.
9 places in KJV says the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the penis tip at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3, 30, Islamic religious parallels the deceptions of the west. Truth has been hidden in a shroud of darkness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitfox, 21 Apr 2013 @ 11:13pm

Why are people even trying to make what God made bad? Satan in he souls of religious people crafted the X rated myth. If that was true nature and all things in the universe would have to be called X rated because they are all NAKED! Religious people are demonic liars having truth not wanting people to know the truth wishing secretly that all life had their sexual organs ripped out. No longer delete any of the furry videos bringing back all of the cruelly deleted ones. You know which ones,and the zoosexual ones too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitfox, 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:43pm

Nature itself nude with myriads of different kinds of sex going on in it. People accept that. Why reject what has been rejected?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitfox, 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:44pm

Nature itself is nude with myriads of different kinds of sex going on in it. People accept that. Why reject what has been rejected?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re: Re:
Satan is the one flipping out. Jesus is level headed.
Youtube is lying to everyone.
K J V Col: 3:9 :Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. Youtube lies calling furry videos naughty indecent banning them. Furry videos have charity.1 Cor, 13:4. YouTube is offending one of Christ�s little ones needing to apologize reinstating all of the furry videos. Youtube acts like the hateful wrathful trolls being naughty. James:1 20 - 21, for the wrath of man worketh not the rightiouness of God. Whearfor lay apart all filthyness, and superfluidy of naugtyness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re:
We are on a planet of sex. Therefore according to Youtube we are on a pornographic planet. Youtube had better annihilate ban the entire planet so people don't see it. Problem is they will ban thermselvbes at the same time. See how idiotic Youtube is being cruel to child like furries offending them? All know what will happen to those that offend one of Christs little ones. It will be better for them to drown than burn in God's judging light being hell to them.
Youtube gives nothing that is good being rotten. Proverbs 17: 4,A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.Jeremiah 24,2,One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are firt ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad. Youtube's banning are like rotten figs; Exstremly unpalatable.Youtube needs to reinstate all or f the furry videos and thjat is a lot of them writing a formal apology to them with a broken and contrite heart. The same in videos doing the same thing. Youtube is still at war with the gay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 12:41pm

Re: Nudity on Youtube
Just recently a furry video, Gay furry 1-youtube was banned. The unsuitable for minors is a lie. They are saying nothing. Adults with an unstable mind are hating their own body paranoid about nothing. People that are against what you tube is against are in self hatred only admiring the things they make looking with disdain with the substance that can make life - semen and the act that can make life - sex disliking the sight of sexual pleasure of any kind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 5:35pm

Re:
God did not come to not condemn John 3:17.Youtube is a troll condemning any furry video. YouTube should in good conscience reinstate each and every video banned with that slant faced image only being seen when video is removed. Youtube's trollish anti Christ mentality that is religious is full of wrath toward the furry videos not laying apart all filthyness and superfluidy of naugtyness. James:1: 20: 21, Youtube has no charity as in ! Corinthians 13:4. Youtube personnel are still in their sins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 5:48pm

Re:
Your body is pornographic. Be against any furry video and I mean any furry video be against your own body. Police are people that are like the servant of the high priest that arrested Jesus. Who is being abused are the furries. People in Youtube are abusing Jesus in the furries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 5:52pm

Re: It depends...
You are nude under your man made clothing. According to your logic your body is not OK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:09pm

Re:
The constitution protects no one. Jesus in us protects each other. The word adult is arbitrary. We are called the children of God whatever the age. The word adult and consent allows police to get involved like the servant of the high priest.
(King James Version)Galatians 3:26-29:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: Nudity on Youtube
Puritans are anti Christ in behavior. How then therefore can Christ be in it? Have Chriust not be in it the devil who is all bad things is in it. Puritans therefore worship the devil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:14pm

Re:
That is a sterilized version of nudity. You might as well be looking at a cadaver. Satan likes that. That is why devils in people allow it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:16pm

Re: rights n stuff
Finally, a godly person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:21pm

Re: Artful vs Awful
All that God put here is artful. All however is vanity. People that fight over what art is artful or not are fighting over a vain thing. Not smart, but Youtube does that with ease.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:33pm

Re: Mainly we need labels
The age 18 is an arbitrary age. It just so happens that 18 is the age to be allowed into a profession where killing is perfectly legal and acceptable even as sacrificing humans is acceptable to sadomasochistic lancet using Baal and Baalim worshipers. See what Youtube values? Move over Adams family. There is a new troupe in town with worse values than what you have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:40pm

Re: Objection!
All of the furry videos have an Innocent about them no matter what video they give still art or animated. The people who scream child pornography are condensing themselves for being a living breathing human being that is nude if it was not for what their corruptible hands made. You are hearing devils screaming from their jail cells hating what God made. God in a person would not scream like a locked up devil about what God made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:41pm

Re: Objection!
All of the furry videos have an Innocent about them no matter what video they give still art or animated. The people who scream child pornography are condemning themselves for being a living breathing human being that is nude if it was not for what their corruptible hands made. You are hearing devils screaming from their jail cells hating what God made. God in a person would not scream like a locked up devil about what God made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:48pm

Re: Re:
If you think that Children shopuld b not see a nude thing or any sexual activity they should be blinded.That will ensure that no nude thing will ever bee seen.Next they are immersed in a nude substance called air. If you want to protect them from that it will kill them. Water is nude too. OK, now that you know this shrink back into your corner like a paranoid Devil being fully await of what is nude things are. OH I almost forgot; All things off of this planet are nude too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:50pm

Re: Re:
If you think that Children should not see a nude thing or any sexual activity they should be blinded. That will ensure that no nude thing will ever bee seen. Next they are immersed in a nude substance called air. If you want to protect them from that it will kill them. Water is nude too. OK, now that you know this shrink back into your corner like a paranoid Devil being fully await of what is nude. OH I almost forgot; All things off of this planet are nude too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 6:54pm

Re:
Youtube acts like a hurtful, hateful, malicious, abominable perverted, deviant, defiled troll toward the furry videos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:09pm

Re:
People that are godly give a positive response to the furry videos whatever they are. The people that gave negative or trapping comment to Jesus were religious people that were ungodly. What I am shooting for are more godly people. Don't let the furries be free don't be free yourself. There will be videos on Youtube that are funny and sweet. Your fear is the same as; what will happen if gays are allowed to marry?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:11pm

Re: who cares
God who made the parts is smiling regarding what you said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:24pm

Re:
Can you see the robot in lost in space being the only thing that is not nude waving his robot arms hysterically upon realizing all that is around his sexless body is nude saying in an ever increasing state of panic; warning. warning will Robinson, warning, pornography is all over. You cannot hide, you cannot hide, you cannot hide, and them explodes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:29pm

Re: I wouldn't want to be judge of what is artistic
What you are against are condemners. God is against condemners. Therefore God is in you. You judge yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:31pm

Re:
A private company deciding if privates can be seen. That is funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:48pm

Re: YouTube is a censor
That is right. Youtube is exporting negative attitudes around the world. Youtube has a military mindset of attack whatever is natural. What are people that are not to bright goings to do. Emulate the attacking mentality of Youtube. Trolls that hate are born.
If nudity harmed all life would extinguish it's self in a nano second. All of nature is nude. The stability of nature would be as stable as TNT or nitroglycerin.
People need UCS chiropractic care as soon as they are born and maintained by non cavitating Upper cervical specific chiropractors. Upcspine, upper cervical health centers or Specific Chiropractic. Use the UCS DC practitioners to maintain spinal heath.
All life has a soul that has the potential for eternal joy. In Gods Kingdom the more the merrier. Those that are like Jesus is will share in that overflowing joy. Satan wants to give us fear of sex in every way he can.
To give a child guilt about their body is psychological abuse people do not talk about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:49pm

Re: YouTube is a censor
That is right. Youtube is exporting negative attitudes around the world. Youtube has a military mindset of attack whatever is natural. What are people that are not to bright goings to do. Emulate the attacking mentality of Youtube. Trolls that hate are born.
If nudity harmed all life would extinguish itself in a nano second. All of nature is nude. The stability of nature would be as stable as TNT or nitroglycerin.
People need UCS chiropractic care as soon as they are born and maintained by non cavitating Upper cervical specific chiropractors. Upcspine, upper cervical health centers or Specific Chiropractic. Use the UCS DC practitioners to maintain spinal heath.
All life has a soul that has the potential for eternal joy. In Gods Kingdom the more the merrier. Those that are like Jesus is will share in that overflowing joy. Satan wants to give us fear of sex in every way he can.
To give a child guilt about their body is psychological abuse people do not talk about
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2013 @ 7:57pm

Re: nudity on youtube
Unbeknown to you religious people that are godless removed your video. They want circumcision even though their own book talks against it. 9 places in KJV says the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the sexual organs. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3 >> 30 Youtube is Religious in their mentality being against what God made. How can that be godly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 30 Jul 2013 @ 10:21pm

If people cannot stand the sight of what is seen how
If people cannot stand the sight of what is seen how can people stand the sight of what is not yet seen? Don't bloke any more furry videos giving all of the videos that have been banned back showing up on YouTube again with a public apology to the furries and whoever else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Aug 2013 @ 8:02pm

Re: Artful vs Awful
God would not call any art awful. The word awful is not a word God would speak from his holy self. The enemy of God wants to see the things he made as being less honorable not comely being whatever negative word he can conger up to have people speak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Aug 2013 @ 8:13pm

Re: Mainly we need labels
The art is not even living and it is treated like it is some sort of contagious disease like people think leprosy is contagious. The power of a weapon is idolized but the body that is killed with them is degraded in the mind call the parts bad. That needs to be reversed in the minds of people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Aug 2013 @ 8:37pm

Re: Objection!
People that are screaming child pornography have angry devil in their soul screaming. They have nothing that is good inside saying nothing that is good hoping that their good for nothing words makes the nude and sexual images as bad as their words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Aug 2013 @ 8:39pm

Re: Re: Objection!
People that are screaming child pornography have an angry devil in their soul screaming. They have nothing that is good inside saying nothing that is good hoping that their good for nothing words makes the nude and sexual images as bad as their words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Aug 2013 @ 8:53pm

Re: Re:
People that have an aversion to nudity have an aversion against their own body. The innocence of a child has no problem with what adults fuss over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Aug 2013 @ 9:01pm

Re:
Incredibly insightful. God breathed insightful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Aug 2013 @ 9:38pm

Youtube: Stop acting like the trolls against the furries.
Youtube: I am giving you rock solid good reasons to not ban any furry video whatsoever. Why ban the last video, gay furry love 1. The furries have love. Why give them hatred? You are not sorry at all banning the videos; stop lying. Youtube: Stop acting like the trolls against the furries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 18 Aug 2013 @ 3:45pm

YouTube seeks a vain thing banning the videos that they have banned like the furry videos and the zoo videos sent to me. Give back what you have stolen. Thou shalt not steal. Heard of that one YouTube?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Dec 2015 @ 11:14pm

the nude form
yes. Whoever is offended by the nude form needs to have a permanent blind fold or be blinded. If you cannot stand what is seen; how will you stand what is not yet seen in God’s kingdom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 28 Dec 2015 @ 9:12pm

yes. What would unartful nudity be should be the question?
yes. What would unartful nudity be should be the question? Art is art is art is art is art. All of the things that God made has a stigma to it. Man made things don't have that stigma to it. The devil wants God made things to have a stigma to it. Let people use thir own discretion as to what they want to post. They alone are responsible to God for what they post. People are put into bondage when people try to control what another person does. People end up obeying the doctrines of men rather than the laws of God.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 28 Dec 2015 @ 9:13pm

yes. What would unartful nudity be should be the question?
yes. What would unartful nudity be should be the question? Art is art is art is art is art. All of the things that God made has a stigma to it. Man made things don't have that stigma to it. The devil wants God made things to have a stigma to it. Let people use their own discretion as to what they want to post. They alone are responsible to God for what they post. People are put into bondage when people try to control what another person does. People end up obeying the doctrines of men rather than the laws of God.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 9 Apr 2016 @ 9:04pm

All art is artful. What else can it be?
All art is artful. What else can it be? All of the parts on a living thing are artful. How can a person call them anything else? Google is giving me a problem about an icon that is undoubtedly artful trying to call it something else. Nature is artful, genitals and all. They that are against them are literally aginst themselves. People that are offende3d by them need to be blinded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 9 Apr 2016 @ 9:09pm

All things God made are artful. All art is artful. Why reject any?
All art is artful. What else can it be? All of the parts on a living thing are artful. How can a person call them anything else? Google is giving me a problem about an icon that is undoubtedly artful trying to call it something else. Nature is artful, genitals and all. They that are against them are literally aginst themselves. People that are offended by them need to be blinded. God has things in his kingdom that no one has seen. People needs to accept whatis seen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 9 Apr 2016 @ 9:12pm

People need to accept what is seen.
All things God made are artful. All art is artful. Why reject any?

All art is artful. What else can it be? All of the parts on a living thing are artful. How can a person call them anything else? Google is giving me a problem about an icon that is undoubtedly artful trying to call it something else. Nature is artful, genitals and all. They that are against them are literally aginst themselves. People that are offended by them need to be blinded. God has things in his kingdom that no one has seen. People need to accept what is seen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Apr 2016 @ 3:54pm

To not allow nudity is to deny that we are nude.
Yes. To not allow nudity is to deny that we are nude. Nude is art. Anthropomorphic nude art is art that is artistic. The terms are inseparable. We need to accept what is seen. We must not let our eyes be offended by what is seen. Fallen angels are offended by what is seen. They complain through people with people thinking they are complaining. It is an evil being complaining through them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Apr 2016 @ 4:08pm

God did not say to Adam and Eve: I will ban you because you are pornographic.
I have an fursona image. It is not having sex. How can it be said to be sexually explicit, Google? God does not do that. God did not say to Adam and Eve: I will ban you because you are pornographic. There are no biblical laws saying ban or block whatever or whoever that is nude saying they are pornographic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 17 Apr 2016 @ 10:01pm

How can the deliberate paint strokes that paint genitals not be artistic?
All things are artful. People like different kinds of art. Allow for people to be themselves. That is freedom. We have genitals that look different from other kinds of genitals around us. That is all. There would be no life without them. Google people are anal about nothing. God is not malicious for making genitilea. How can anything not be artful - artistic when an artist is involved paining whatever? People call an elephant or a monkey splashing and dabbing paint on a canvases a thing that is artistic. How can the deliberate paint strokes that paint genitals not be artistic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2016 @ 5:18pm

God would not block
God would not block people for showing others what he made. Google is in error.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 11 Sep 2016 @ 8:13pm

Nude art is artful by the very term. The term artful allows people to be mean to people saying that their art is not artful being arbitrary to the person. Google - Youtube needs to allow all art making it clear that that is what they allow. God's kingdom will have things in it that no one has ever seen. It is better to not be offended by what is seen, now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:11pm

Artful is in the4 eye of the beholder. Don't be ofende4d by what is seen. God has things in his kingdom that no one has ever seen. Let people post what they want to post. God is a discerner of the heart. That is what people need to be concerned with not the images that show up on the web.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:14pm

Artful is in the eye of the beholder. Don't be offended by what is seen. God has things in his kingdom that no one has ever seen. Let people post what they want to post. God is a discerner of the heart. That is what people need to be concerned with not the images that show up on the web.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonathan Hughes, 6 Jul 2018 @ 12:03pm

Nude cannot be evil to see
Nude is art. The important thing is have God's loving Sprit in them loving others. That spirit will help them to see who is evil and who is not evil. The nude body real or not real cannot be evil. Artie Whitefox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonathan Hughes, 6 Jul 2018 @ 12:06pm

Nude is art. The important thing is have God's loving Sprit in you loving others. That spirit will help them to see who is evil and who is not evil. The nude body real or not real cannot be evil. Artie Whitefox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 22 Aug 2018 @ 8:27pm

Nudity needs to be allowed everywhere. Wicked people mKe laws against it. There are no. Iblical laws saying thou shalt mot be nude confront of a young person or thou shalt not let a person see nude art.The laws at furry conventions need to change. Idolitirs are .No g the He restrictions laws and anti nudity laws for real and representations of a nude form. God in a person would not care about seeing a nude form real or imagined. Obliterate those laws. unfetter the furry and whoever else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 22 Aug 2018 @ 8:39pm

They that are against nudity are odolitots.
Nudity needs to be allowed everywhere. Wicked idolitrious people make laws against it. Those idolitrious people are worshiping their clothing. There are 8no Iblical laws saying thou shalt mot be nude in front of a young person or thou shalt not let a person see nude art. The laws at furry conventions need to change. Idolitirs are making the restrictions laws and anti nudity laws for real and representations of a nude form. God in a person would not care about seeing a nude form real or imagined. Obliterate those laws. unfetter the furry and whoever else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artie whitefox, 22 Aug 2018 @ 8:45pm

Nudiry is as natural as you are
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artiewhitefox, 24 Jul 2019 @ 2:05pm

We are ma in Gods nude Image. God would not say don't show it.
We are made, in Gods nude image. There should be no such thing, as allowed. They that are offended, need too blind themselves, plain and simple or repent. Romans 14:10“But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
King James Version (KJV) Allowed, tries to control, people. We need to control, ourselselves. That, intense, desire, to control, ends up, terrorizing zoosexuals. and nude people, too. People go, into sacrifice mode, when any pedophilia, is mentioned or any, of the others. Fake, Pedophilia, Catholic leaders, and fake, pedophilia Muslims, smile. They, are the things, we need, to reject. Everything else, is a distraction. 1. Vatican Pedophile Ring, Child Trafficking, Mass Graves and ...
1. Catholicism and Child Sacrifice – Online Ministries
3.Sacrifices of Children in the Catholic Church: Horrific ...
1. Eyewitnesses Testify: Pope Francis Raped and Killed ...
5.The TRUTH About The Jesuit Pope, Child Sacrifice & The ...
1. Brazilian Police Release Details of Grisly Child Sacrifice
2. Horrifying Child Sacrifices | ICLCJ Court Litigating The ...
They are not pedophilia people. The word pedophilia comes from the Greek pa??, pa?d?? (paîs, paidós), meaning "child", and f???a (philía), "friendly love" or "friendship".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2019 @ 2:10pm

We are made, in Gods nude image. There should be no such thing, as allowed. They that are offended, need too blind themselves, plain and simple or repent. Romans 14:10“But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
King James Version (KJV) Allowed, tries to control, people. We need to control, ourselselves. That, intense, desire, to control, ends up, terrorizing zoosexuals. and nude people, too. People go, into sacrifice mode, when pedophilia, is mentioned or any, of the others. Fake, Pedophilia, Catholic leaders, and fake, pedophilia Muslims, smile. They, are the things, we need, to reject. Everything else, is a distraction. 1. Vatican Pedophile Ring, Child Trafficking, Mass Graves and ...
Catholicism and Child Sacrifice – Online Ministries
3.Sacrifices of Children in the Catholic Church: Horrific ...
Eyewitnesses Testify: Pope Francis Raped and Killed ...
5.The TRUTH About The Jesuit Pope, Child Sacrifice & The ...
Brazilian Police Release Details of Grisly Child Sacrifice
Horrifying Child Sacrifices | ICLCJ Court Litigating The ...
They are not pedophilia people. The word pedophilia comes from the Greek pa??, pa?d?? (paîs, paidós), meaning "child", and f???a (philía), "friendly love" or "friendship".
[ link to this | view in thread ]