There is a photo of a naked, young woman on my milk if that gives you an idea. Why? Because it’s ’skim’ milk, and she’s thin and pretty. Giving the impression that you too can be thin and pretty if you drink this milk. I don’t look at my milk and get ‘carnal stirrings’, I pour it in my coffee.

These are photos of a young girl, showing that there is a blossoming woman, waiting to emerge from all girls. There is no sexual act being depicted, just sexuality (which is something we have instinctually from birth – it doesn’t simply ‘occur’ at some abstractly determined ‘age of consent’). The fact that she is nude is irrelevant.

Oddly, when photography was still novel, many European photographers preferred to use very young subjects for nudes because they were seen as more innocent, and as they were less well developed physically these images were seen as not being erotic.

I also find it odd that simply changing where these images are displayed changes these views so much. Does the fact that these same images were seen in Playboy or Penthouse change the nature of the image, or just their interpretation in the mind of the observer?

You Americans are a strange, aberrant, twisted people, with these bizarre notions you have about the human body, but you make good movies so we’ll keep you around. :-)

Seriously, people would think garbage was art if photographed in b&w. Art people are morons and that woman was, at least in my opinion, exploiting her child for her own career.

However I too, like others, wonder if Eva felt exploited. Or if she felt that she had a rep to keep up, therefor going into Spermula and other sexual pieces. Did she even know what he was doing at this age is another question. I guess my opinion is based off of the young model herself if she has regretted it or if she was proud to be such a young star.

From what I know, it’s a common practice in 28 African countries.
It is a foolish “cultural tradition”.

Amnesty International estimates that almost 140 million little
girls have been mutilated, till now. These are official data. The
real number might be much bigger. According to the above
mentioned organization, about 2 million little girls are butchered
every year. This means more that 5400 per day – or more than
230 in EVERY HOUR!!! No one seems to be impressed by their
desperate cries, or by the pain they have to endure. For their
entire life, they are sentenced to feel no sexual pleasure…

But, worst than the genital mutilators, are the “Soul mutilators”:
those who forbid the flourishing of Love between two predestined
human beings.

And also, those who give the little girls’ souls, to the agents of
the Darkness – always willing to transform them in junk…

Indeed, the Romanian language is one of the most difficult
Latin-based languages. Although, it is the second most spoken
language, at Microsoft’s Headquarters, after the English language.
(More than half of their top programmers are from Romania…)

I have nothing against your (critical) opinions.
I am not trying to impose my ideas, to others.
I do not consider myself a “moral instance”.

I have a deep consideration for all the women – in all their
hypostasis: from “saints”, to “depravated”. I strongly believe
that the future of the mankind depends on you, the women.

YOU can stimulate the man, to conquer the Sky, for you;
propelled by Love…

Me too, I like to laugh. I like the joyful people.
But, sometimes, I can’t forget about the Evil which
surrounds us, in this Era of complete decadence.
And I become ironic…

I wonder if Eva Ionesco was ever happy, as a young girl.
And I wonder if she is happy now, at her actual age. She
was (maybe) desired; but has someone really loved her?
Has someone saw, in her, more than an object of desire?

And forgive me, but while I do not think clitoral mutilation is funny under any circumstance (making rabid leaps like that is part of why I have trouble taking you seriously), your comment about “tenths of little girls” gave me a chuckle as well.

Granted, your English is still far better than my Romanian. Cheers.

“Haaahahahahaha.”
Perhaps you would like to tell us, to all of us, Miss Mer,
what’s so funny – in the same concise manner, of course.

(By the way: when I wrote about “more serious problems”,
I was also having in mind the barbarian practice to which
are submitted, day after day, tenths of little girls -
whose genitals are mutilated, at the beginning of their
puberty; especially in some African countries. What would
you feel, if someone will cut your clit***’s tip? Will you
continue to laugh??)

No one – under no circumstances! – has the right
to STEAL a little girl’s/boy’s, childhood. Don’t you
agree?

And also:
a child has NO right to enter, prematurely, in the
adult’s world. At the “tender” age, a well raised
little girl will look for Affection, not for “sex”.

The real Love thinks only to the good of the child -
even if it has to act against her/his will. The real
Love is not selfish. The real Love knows to wait.
Love will develop herself, properly, exclusively in
a climate of purity. Everything else is “instinct”. It
has no (promotional) value.

The real Love is an Abyss – on whose bottom there is
always the Forgiveness…

1. Have you seen Eva, in “Maladolescenza” – the 1977 movie?

2. “Audiatur et altera pars”! [Let's (also) listen Eva's & Irina's
points of view - before judging them!]

3. What IS a work of art? Let’s try to define this concept,
before talking about “exploatation”, “morality”, “sexuality”, etc.

4. Let’s try to decipher the message hidden in these (“decadent”)
photos.

5. The real innocence is devoid of shame! Was, Eva, indeed
innocent, or she perfectly knew what she was doing? Was she
a complice of her mother? Or maybe she was “ill”: suffering
from exhibitionism (and vanity) – like most of the modern
women? Was she a “victim” of her mother? – who planned to
“revenge” on her daughter, by showing her nude, and in
“mortuary hypostasies”, to all the impure looks? Or maybe
her mother is sick: “You can watch her; but you can never
touch her.” (psycho-sadistic) Maybe her mother hated her.
And wished to transform her in a precocious “courtisane”.

6. There are thousands of little girls, from Ukraine, Russia,
Brazil, Poland (by the way, Eva and her mother are from
Romania!), whose nude pics are posted on various (under-
ground) websites, which look much, much better than Eva
(born on July 18, 1965). In fact, some of them are “superb”.

Do we look at the beauty, or do we look at the things
which have to do with our sexual desires? If a (normal)
man has to choose, he will always choose a completely
developed girl/woman. It’ s exactly like choosing a
tasty, mellow fruit.
If NO ONE desires her, the little girl is “protected”. (Of
course, less than 1% of the men can look at a beautiful
nude women, with the eyes of a doctor, of a eunuch, or
of a executioner, for example; i.e., without any sexual
desire…)

7. The pornography problem has to be putted to a more
general level. No matter WHAT age the model would have,
exposing her body, without shame, it is a sin. The body
has to be something sacred – like the soul; something
intangible, which must not be publicly exposed.

8. Not the exposure, in itself, is a sin. The lack of real
love, associated with it, is a sin. A little girl/women who is
inloved, will NEVER show her body, like a piece a meat
destined to stimulate men’s desires.
No one has forced Irina and Eva to become “exhibitionists”
- under the plea that their act has to do with “Art”.

9. Maybe the two poor creatures are making a “sacred
charity act”: “me, the little Eva, I’m yours, for free; you
can do everythink you want with me…”

10. Being a hypocrite is worst than being a sinner!

The mankind is confronting herself with much serious
problems, than the right of a parent to photograph her
child. So much talk for what? The public nudity is immoral.
And also illegal. Period.

She who is without sin cast the first stone…