Mathilde Grafström has my support
Gorgeous and talented, Mathilde Grafström is a classic example of what libertarianism is all about.As a libertarian,i believe that “enhancing empowerment” is likely to be the kind of impression that visitors receive while viewing a nude photography exhibition, especially when the objects of the photos are women. I viewed the Danish beau work and was impressed.It doesn’t matter whether you think am a pervert or not.The line between nudity and obscenity is thin but a photographer’s work shouldn’t be demonised just because moralists of this world who are iniquity themselves and wicked want that to be the case.As a result, I want to stand up and be counted among those who support Danish photographer Mathilde Grafström who gives room for women to have a say in nude photography exhibition, which many mentally corrupt folks believes goes beyond pornography.Who are they to judge Grafström while their lives are tainted?Since when did photographs of nude adult like Grafstrom happily posing for the camera become pornography? That is same as equating to women wearing stringless lower piece strolling on the beach to pornography!Oh give me a break you dimwits who want to preside moral teachings over a talented beautiful photographer. Does it mean we must all take pictures with our clothes on! Bloody uncool to say the least.I want to hear those dinosaurs criticising Grafström to come and challenge me with facts that nudity is a crime.From our grandfathers parading nude in their bedrooms to our children children walking half naked on the streets has and will never be obscene.Give me a break your idiots who are purporting that nudeness is obscenity!
Do the critics of Grafström want to tell me that taking a shower in my nude body will be considered shameful and obscene? Nude or seminude statues in Danish and other European cities, is that pornography? Shame on you critics of Grafström.Who among those buffoons has never been to hospital or gone to school to remember that photographs in biological books depicting the private organs of both men and woman festered with diseases aren’t pornography and will never be described as obscene.Denmark and other countries around the World are full of people with unsound minds walking nude on the streets with their twigs on full display but they have never been charged with pornography.Grafström work need to remind the muggins about the numerous times men have been seen with their private parts out urinating on the roads and it has never been considered to be obscene. Such moralists can go check the definition of obscenity or pornography, a word derived from the Greek word porno, meaning prostitutes, and the word graphs. If they are on Grafström case because they subscribe to academic institutions definition for pornography that include the depiction of actual sexual contact and of lascivious exhibition and not all pornography meets the legal test for obscenity, nor are all depictions of sexual activity deemed pornographic material as is the case with Grafström work, then they are awfully wrong.Erotica has never been considered to be pornographic material although for underage the parental guidance is recommended.Adult pornographic material is presumed to be non-obscene in nature and its requires judicial determination of obscenity before materials can be removed from circulation, requiring procedures for seizure of obscenity and even law enforcers have standard guidance regarding the definition of obscenity.None of the images of Grafström meets the threshold to be be categorised as obscene.And to the Danish police, isn’t ironical that a country offering to help people get to baby making with 1,000 Danish Krone, which is slightly over USD $150 as the video below shows, a photo exhibition of naked women can be shut down in what you want us to believe is ‘indecency?’
Looking at Grafström photos they give hints of how different her exhibition is to the usual nude photography that usually undermines and exploits women bodies to the full. Grafström goes with a style which I can consider non-mainstream in the nude photography genre but isn’t obscene and has chosen to be “liberal” in exposing female bodies.What is in those photos she has published that those airheads have never seen?In legal terms, obscenity must be proven and in which criteria, outside the protection of an amendment, and is declared obscene under most statutes and such as where it would appeal to a prurient interest and lead them into sexual activity or simulated sexual conduct. Grafström making of said materials didn’t include minors to perform such acts and therefore its not a criminal act as her critics want the whole world to believe.To those who don’t know, pornography has immense benefits for both men and women because it is part of a person’s sexuality. Women who enjoy pornography have long said that they want it to be fully recognised. They started saying so more than half a century ago even before Grafström was born.Grafström work is a clinical display of our real sexual self and those images are awesome. Pornography has entertainment benefits that are also known to improve marital relations. In the past, I have argued that the recognition of alternative sex acts and preferences in pornography has liberated many people from the prescriptive comprehension of sex and helped them feel more comfortable about their own sexuality and this can be construed as a positive function of pornography.Grafström exhibition is a subject that will continue to be debated, researched and argued by many but I stand with her and what she’s done.The presence of sexual organs and the identity of faces, Grafström exhibition bears the warning note “only for 18-years-old or more” means it is driven by uniqueness of the photographer for revealing everything and the subtle messages of women’s empowerment her exhibition sends surely makes it worth paying a visit on Grafström page.