Irina Ionesco’s Photography, Eva Ionesco’s Childhood


Irina Ionesco is French photographer known for her sensual and sometimes controversial work. She reminds me a little bit of Ellen von Unwerth and a little bit of Sarah Moon. Her crisp black-and-white images focus on artificial beauty and harbor a fetishistic fascination with lace, beads, fake flowers and other textures. Born in 1935 in Romania, Ionesco traveled the world and painted before discovering photography. She is a cult favorite among alt photographers, and her influence can be seen in the work of John Santerineross and Tina Cassati.

What made Ionesco’s work controversial? Her most prolific model was her daughter, Eva. At a young age, Eva posed semi-nude for her mother to create artsy, erotic images similar to Irina’s work with older models. Some images of Eva by Irina (NSWF links ahoy!), though nude, look more like a child playing dress-up to me, but others have a distinct fetish element. To me, these are some of Ionesco’s most powerful images.

Eva Ionesco

Irina’s daughter Eva went on to model and act in many productions that no normal parent would ever let their child near today. It makes me wonder how her career would’ve gone if she hadn’t started posing for the images above. At age 11, she became the youngest model ever to appear in a Playboy pictorial by Jacques Bourboulon in 1976 (check out his doleful Wikipedia entry). Two years later, her images appeared in a Spanish edition of Penthouse in a selection of her mother’s photographs. Eva’s acting debut, also at age 11, was in The Tenant by Roman Polanski (yikes!). That same year she appeared as a Lolita-type character in a soft-core sci-fi film called Spermula. Her career wasn’t all erotic, and she soon graduated to playing varied roles in French cinema and on stage that didn’t revolve around sexuality.

Is it OK to take artistic nude pictures of your children, to publish them? I say yes, depending on context. Sally Mann did it – she too got accused of child pornography – and these images have made her one of America’s most prolific photographers, not because of the controversy, but because the images resonated with people. They recalled the confusion and turmoil of being a female and discovering your sexuality at a young age, a taboo subject that Mann addressed powerfully. Then again, Sally Mann never let her images of children appear in fucking Penthouse. On the other hand, in 1970s Europe, the level of stigma attached to taking sexual images of underage girls was much lower than what it is today, so Ionesco may have had the excuse of a different time, a different culture. My first instinct is to defend Ionesco because the images are beautiful, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder about the ethics of showcasing her daughter the way that she did.

Was Ionesco an irresponsible parent, or a product of her time?


34 Responses to “Irina Ionesco’s Photography, Eva Ionesco’s Childhood”

  1. anodien Says:

    Those art pictures are fine, I guess, but the kid being in Penthouse? That isn’t. Making art with kids and kids getting in a magazine that is obviously for men and in the porn side are two different things. I hope that the girl was mature enough to know what she was facing when posing for those magazines!

  2. Milly von Hilly Says:

    I’m reluctant to excuse the exploitation of one’s child for the pleasure of grown men for any reason: the European/1970’s argument would hold water with a sexually developed girl of, say, fourteen but NOT with an undeveloped child, and regardless of how beautiful the images are (and they are stunning) they lose their innocence after being published in a magazine designed exclusively for masturbation fodder.
    The only justification I could possibly see in doing this to a little girl is perhaps she couldn’t get the images published anywhere else? This argument is still unsatisfactory. I wonder if she ever explained her reasons for thinking this was a good idea?

    I think that, particularly in the States, some serious re-thinking needs to be done with regard to child pornography and exploitation. I think a person is sexually mature enough to have autonomy of their bodies well before the age of 18, and it’s unnatural to categorize teenagers as children. But I truly don’t believe that an eleven year old girl should get a Penthouse spread, and I would love to hear that argument be made.

  3. D Says:

    Of course she didn’t know what she was doing, and shouldn’t have to know either. Sexual content ages 0-18 is legislated against for good reason. Possibly the mother was too full of drugs or something, to miss the difference between art and sex exploit… Beautiful images of her kid that she herself shot, but sex mags? Makes me wish for a thorough test to become a parent.

    An artist like Sally Mann clearly knows the difference (whatever some fundamentalists claim) when making Immediate Family.

  4. Zoetica Says:

    The images of Eva are beautiful, inarguably, likely Ionesco’s best work. I love this one, in particular. I wonder if Eva feels exploited, herself.

  5. Milly von Hilly Says:

    @ Zo…I agree, that image is fantastic, probably my favourite. I would like to hear what both she and her mother have to say about this.

    Pure speculation, but I reckon Eva is perfectly fine with it. Most home-schooled fundy kids have no regrets about their upbringing, either, even though their path in life was forged for them.

    Every person owns their sexuality, and the moment someone else makes the decision FOR YOU to be published in a sex mag, you’ve been robbed of that ownership.

  6. Nadya Says:

    I think that if Irina Ionesco had been a male photographer, people would be even more outraged.

  7. Laura Gardner Says:

    I don’t think it was right to publish those images of her daughter where she did. It all seems a bit selfish. But i do agree that the pictures are beautiful.

    Thinking of Sally Mann’s work, it has a different feel to it than this, more playful, less structured. A child with a smear of mud, holding a fake cigarette seems less shocking than Eva’s poses. Nomatter how much nudity is on display.

  8. Milly von Hilly Says:

    @ Nadya…you’re totally right. I think if the photographer were a man, we’d crucify him. Female erotic photographers are often sanctified while the motives of their male counterparts are scrutinized. The whole (rather boring) art vs porn debate.

  9. Ashbet Says:

    I think that the images are beautiful . . . but I must admit that context is key. Publishing the images in a coffee-table book or hanging them on a gallery wall is very different from publishing them in “Penthouse.”

    Art can always be used as spank material, but the difference is whether it’s intended to be something that’s beautiful which stands on its own (and can be fodder for sexual fantasy by the viewer, but that’s between the viewer and the image, rather than the artist’s intent.)

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with taking the photos (in 1970’s Europe, she’d have gotten lynched for them here/now), but I do think that she crossed a line by allowing her daughter to appear in “Penthouse.”

    And this is speaking as the parent of a 15-year-old, fwiw!

    — A

  10. D Says:

    So true, Nadya, I hadn’t thought of that. Oh my, he’d be dead in a week.

    Still these images of her child are very beautiful.

    Doesn’t matter what the kid thinks of that time today, she never had a choice.

  11. Tequila Says:

    @ Milly…”Every person owns their sexuality, and the moment someone else makes the decision FOR YOU to be published in a sex mag, you’ve been robbed of that ownership.”

    Well that’s the thing…one doesn’t really own their sexuality as much as they make peace with it. One can have it exploited, denounced, manipulated, etc. well before puberty even hits. Depending on the environment ones grows up in sexuality isn’t even a choice but a series of dictated rules. Those who get to honestly explore it without outside intervention are rare…and in this case the child was exposed to it and explored it early enough that even a publication like Penthouse more than likely had no impact. All Penthouse did was publish them…it was not FOR them like your typical centerfold stuff.

    Sure they could have been published in an art book style and hung in galleries…but how many would see them? With Penthouse they got a mass audience. A bold choice that while highly questionable from a moral standpoint makes pretty good sense from promotional standpoint. These are images clearly meant to be seen and illicit a strong response. Ultimately art doesn’t always have the choice in how or where it is displayed…

    I have STRONG issues with child exploitation and these at least for me don’t fall into that category. They’ve a much different feeling and atmosphere and really do have a quality only a parent could bring out it seems…I just don’t think one would get the same expression from the child if it was for someone other than a parent. A few even have that “Take the picture already mom…” kinda look. So in that way they do feel far more innocent and as others have said have a “playing dress up” vibe. This is one of those rare occasions where the parent child relationship, personal outlook, and an era created the environment for such work.

    I will note it’s been very sad to see this work used by other less than artistic minded souls as a way to get around child pornography laws…few to none could get away with doing such work today no matter the sex.

    As far as images like this as a whole…we’re not in an era that can or will examine the issue mainly because it would be automatically assumed as porn no matter what by the moral majority. A shame because I think that’s lead to MORE child exploitation than ever…the underage modeling sites proved that alone.

  12. Io Says:

    I don’t know that man would be lynched. Though also controversial, David Hamilton created erotic images of pre- and pubescent girls that were lauded in the art world.

    As for this woman, I echo the sentiment that publishing images of a child in something like Penthouse was exploitative, whether or not the images themselves were.

    In this country we get somewhat uncomfortable when we discuss child sexuality, and I appreciate the non-reactive stance here. I was certainly a sexual being well before I was teenager, and there is indeed something very captivating about that time in a girl’s life when she is discovering the woman she will become — it’s a major transformation and as a result can be the foundation of some very powerful art.

    In photography, to capture that time/transition artistically and naturally as seen in the images here and in work by Hamilton, I do not think of as being inherently exploitative. But presenting that art in a way that panders to prurient interests is.

  13. Mike Jennings Says:

    I have the Sally Mann book, knowing full well that if somebody ever alleged any improprieties by me against my daughter, it would be used against me in court; routinely, possession of ordinary kids’ clothing catalogs is submitted as evidence against suspected pedophiles. But this actually reveals the crux of the problem: It really has little to do with the producers of questionable content, since through the wrong eyes all content is questionable. To wit:

    I was editing a home video of a beach party at my office one day. Some of the footage featured a little girl crawling around the sandcastle she was building. I wondered aloud if this footage might be a bit prurient and a coworker said, simply, “Depends on which web site it shows up on.”

    That said, sexualizing the innocent is usually an awful idea and I support the laws against it (if not the usual methods of enforcing and prosecuting them).

    Unfortunately, we need not pick on fringe photographers like Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, David Hamilton or Irina Ionesco; the sexualization of children is mainstream big business. Think the Bratz Bralettes furore of a couple years ago was the last we’d see of anything like that? Guess again. 2007 had its fair share as well, and even stodgy old Disney’s having a tough time keeping its 15-year-old Hannah Montana star suitably clad.

    As for the unusual child-rearing strategy, I can only relate a personal story. Browsing the lovely and clever site, my wife and I stumbled across someone we knew as a little girl. Her mother is an old friend of ours, even performed the rites at our (admittedly unconventional) wedding. It was hard to reconcile the wild child on the screen with my memory of her, of course, and I asked around. Finding that our old friend played a role in developing her daughter’s new lifestyle actually made it a bit upsetting. It’s not the posing that bothered me, it was the description of her current lifestyle and proclivities (which I subsequently verified). I’m pretty sure if it were just the posing, I could cope, but it still might spoil the fun of the site for me to constantly worry about bumping into her…

    But she’s an adult now, free to make her own mistakes and her own choices. I can only hope that her mother helped her go into it with open eyes. For me, that’s really what it comes down to.

  14. Ashley Says:

    I think it is disgusting to publish nude pictures of a young girl for all to see. This is probably one of the things that made child molesters think they were in the right. So many children have suffered because of that belief.

  15. Zora Says:

    I had interviewed Irina years back for a book and was subsequently asked to write a review and possibly cover blurb for Eva as it was being released at the time. I adore Irina and have always loved her work. She was very kind to me, sending me all kinds of personal gifts. I have an autographed self portrait of her hanging in my room and an inscribed autobiography. She is a very precious, talented woman. So it was very difficult to review this book as it wasn’t legally released in the US yet. The distributors all refused to make due on the pre-orders. I was really nervous just to have Eva in my possession because at the time it was under scrutiny, by US laws defining child pornography, the book fell under those guidelines. But I had thought to myself that these were photos of Eva taken using Irina’s signature style; of symbolist, baroque imagery celebrating the female form. The question of it being child porn was only an issue here in the US. Once I saw the book though, many of the photos were naked or in fetish clothing, very provocative but again, this is Irina’s style. Eva gave permission as an adult to release these photos as well.

    After much thought on the matter, I came to the conclusion that the pornographic nature of the photos (which Irina was very sensitive about and did not want to discuss) is solely based on who is the viewer and how it is perceived. If the viewer is a pedophile and has the capability to see it as sexually arousing, than that is the problem of the individual, but as a whole, most viewers would never see a child in a sexual manner, clothes or no clothes. What a sad state we live in that the government has to assume all Americans cannot simply appreciate art. It’s laughable when you think about how art is defined as opposed to pornography when frontal nudity is concerned, only one breast can be exposed for it to be art, if two are, it’s porn.

  16. six06 Says:

    ashley, i don’t think this is what motivates child molesters. that’s like saying rapists are just in it for the sex.

  17. Wolfram Says:

    Motto: Ars Longa, Vita Brevis (est)

    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”)

    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

    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…

  18. Nadya Says:

    Jacques Bourboulon, is that you?

  19. Mer Says:


  20. Wolfram Says:

    No, Miss Nadya, it’s not J.B.
    I am Herr Wolfram, from Romania…

    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

    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…

  21. Mer Says:

    Good lord, Wolfram, relax. Nadya made a funny joke, and I laughed.

    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.

  22. Wolfram Says:

    I thank you, dear Miss Mer, for your kind words.
    And I apologize if I have offended you.

    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?

  23. The Doctor Says:

    Unfortunately, you are right, Herr Wolfram, in what concerns the
    “barbarian” practice of genital mutilation of little girls. It’s a very
    cruel habit – which has a lot of dangerous consequences.

    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…

  24. mymaster200 Says:

    Personally, the pictures are beautiful my favorite is this one> <

    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.

  25. whatever Says:

    The woman must have been on drugs. Sure, the pictures could be fine and artistic, but it is the lighting and setting and costumes and make-up and aaaaaall that. The person could have been a girl of appropriate age and STILL look JUST as good. Taking nude pictures of your own kids is OK as long as they’re private and shot in a natural moment or something (like a trip to the beach, swim), but to publish as “art” or in magazines = NO!

    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.

  26. Dirk Gauche Says:

    This is an amazingly American-centric line of commentary. The fact of the matter is that most Americans DO have a tendency to view all nudity as appealing to prurient interests and most Europeans don’t (the rest of the world seems to vary, but is generally less culturally sensitive to nudity than Americans are).

    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. :-)

  27. you can thank your mother for that | Maggie and The Shallow Skin Holes Says:

    […] now how’s that for some leopard print? these aren’t even the raciest of them, go ahead and google the others cause i feel real weird about putting pictures of girls with barely there boobies up here.. i guess she gave up this career for acting, seeing as that’s what she’s doing now, but not before being the first 11 year-old to pose for playboy.. yikes, there’s more info on eva at coilhouse.. […]

  28. loeil Says:

    I’m horrified … Those porno pictures of a child are terrible !
    Hope you people don’t have any chidren !!!!! It’s porno !!!!
    those photos are maybe beautiful but you just forgot Eva Ionesco was a child !!!
    I can’t believe your comments and you should be a shame ….
    Ps: I am sorry for my english , I am french and happy to be when I read your comments

  29. Faina Says:

    “Pure speculation, but I reckon Eva is perfectly fine with it.”

    how did you guys write and research this entire articale and miss the fact that she tried to sue her mother 3 times for emotional abuse? Its even in her wikipedia articale.

    And no, I don’t think it had to do directly with the photos, so much as it had to do withy being told to get completely naked in front of total strangers and pose on the beach for “mummy’s friend” while other kids her age were playing with dolls. You can be a talented artist, have good intentions but really, still be a total idiot. Sally Mann’s kids had a normalized childhood as far as I know of.

  30. Faina Says:

    okay, yeah.

    “She is 80, and we’re going through our fourth trial. We speak through lawyers. I want them to stop selling the pictures of me naked, but she still denies my suffering… It is endless and venomous. There is a dimension of Greek tragedy”

  31. Meredith Yayanos Says:

    “how did you guys write and research this entire articale and miss the fact that she tried to sue her mother 3 times for emotional abuse? Its even in her wikipedia articale.”

    Respectfully, Faina, we’re not a hivemind; Nadya is the sole author of this piece of writing. I can’t speak for her, but my guess is that when she wrote and posted this feature several years ago, there was far less information available about the Ionesco’s relationship.

    FWIW, a quick trip to the Wayback Machine shows me these captures of Irina and Eva’s wikipedia entries around the approximate time Nadya posted her article:

    But I do think that, given recent comments logged here by you and others, and the new wealth of info now available, it’s probably time to revisit this topic on Coilhouse.

  32. Courageous, Brave: The Women Who Inspire Me Says:

    […] I would include Kathe Kollwitz, Pan Yuliang, Suzanne Valadon, Marie Bashkirtseff, Frida Kahlo, and Irina Ionesco. Incidentally, there are some curious parallels between the biographies of Suzanne Valadon and […]

  33. XYZ Says:


  34. Anonymphous Says:

    “I’m horrified … Those porno pictures of a child are terrible !”

    It may be that the law would be on your site, but I wouldn`t consider the vast majority of eva`s pictures as pornography. What is porn is still subjective and if you could imagine yourself to use these images as some fap material, then it may be porn for you, but since these photos are not explicitly showing the genitals, to me, it is just extraordinary beautiful erotical photography art. Where I`m from, there you can see naked children playing in parks, on almost every hot summers day, and this is totally natural.

    “how did you guys write and research this entire articale and miss the fact that she tried to sue her mother 3 times for emotional abuse? Its even in her wikipedia articale. And no, I don’t think it had to do directly with the photos, so much as it had to do withy being told to get completely naked in front of total strangers and pose on the beach for “mummy’s friend” while other kids her age were playing with dolls.”

    I´ve seen Eva Ionesco`s movie “My Little Princes” a while ago, which is some kind of biographical story about Eva`s life as a famous “childporn” star in the artworld, and as far as I know, Eva actually enjoyed the photoshootings at the beginning, but after a while, she had enough of it. That´s when her mother began to force her to model for new photos. And if she forced her to do it against her will, then it`s no wonder that the relationship between her and her mother began to break.

    However, this still absolutely doesn`t mean, that every child who becomes famous for such photos would react the same way. And that Eva seems to regret that her mother took these photos, most likely also has much to do with the social stigmas regarding these things.

    And besides, a huge amount of what is considered as childpornography (and I`m mostly talking about real porn here), also gets/has been produced and uploaded to the internet by children as young as about 8 themselves. So, I wouldn`t too sure that every girl at Eva`s age really is so innocent and only plays with dolls at that age. But I guess, the Americans in this thread already know that children aren`t just innocent, anyway, since it seems to be average there to lock up children for consensual sex between two children.

    Anyway, just my two cents of thought on this thread… And to the hysterical and hypocritical anti-pedos here, I can only say, that I feel pity for you, because you are totally generalizing things, and while you have your opinion, in mine, your worldview looks pretty narrow.