MovieChat Forums > Maladolescenza (1977) Discussion > Why this isn't kiddie porn

Why this isn't kiddie porn

posted 17 years ago by chtfj21
36 replies | jump to latest

1) It is not uncommon for teenagers over 12 to have sexual experiences with other teenagers. Since when has it become "sick" to portray an accurate representation of real life? Most of us can probably identify with some aspects of this film. We all started to discover our own sexuality at that age.

2) Sex between teenage minors is LEGAL in most Western countries. And where it is not legal, it's not considered a felony. What is illegal is sex between adults and minors. That's not what this film is about.

3) The actors taking part in this film, as well as their parents, consented. They were not abused. They were not emotionally damaged by making this film. This is the KEY difference to kiddie porn. They are adults now, pursuing successful acting careers. Have you ever heard any of them complaining? No.

4) The purpose of this film is NOT to give the viewer an orgasm. The fact that SOME viewers might be sexually aroused by this film is irrelevant. There will always be weirdos out there. Heck, some people are sexually aroused by clowns!

The human being is a sexual creature. Get over it.

This current mass hysteria/ moral panic about child molesters is getting out of hand. Child molesters have always existed, and fortunately, they are extremely rare. Children face far bigger threats that tabloid newspapers never care to mention. Life is never 100% safe. Get over it.

Whatever happened to common sense? In some ways the 70s were a more enlightened decade than today. The human race has regressed. Makes me depressed...

reply

[–] teawoman_2000 13 years ago

Actually, Eva Ionesco (the blonde girl in the film) is complaining today. She just made her movie My Little Princess (orignally titled I'm Not a *beep* Princess!) and it doesn't seem like she was acting acting in various erotica from a very early age.

Lara Wendel (the brunette) continued to make erotic films. i doubt this was a chosen career. It might have been the only one she felt she could pursue.

I don't know about Martin Loeb, but he quit acting rather quickly.

The fact that a 12-year-old consents to whatever doens't make their consent legal. They are not mature enough to consent. They are vulnerable. This is the law for example in clinical trials. A child under the age of 14 cannot give an informed consent, because he cannot grasp the full extent of what he might consent to.

As for Eva Ionesco's mother (who I'm sure signed her daughter's consent very willingly, and for a nice fee I bet), she had been taking pictures of her naked daughter in suggestive poses (yes, erotica or pornography, at your will) for years, starting as early as 4 (yes, 4).

Sure the human being is a sexual creature, but exploiting others (sexually or otherwise) is unacceptable.

And for the record, Eva Ionesco is on her fourth lawsuit seeking to recover the negatives from her mother.

The 1970s might have been an interesting decade in many ways, but they were also a very violent one, where many unacceptable acts were accepted in the name of sexual freedom.

And I don't know that child molesters are that rare.

reply

[–] filmscholar35 12 years ago

Moreover, a lot of people don't realize that there weren't child pornography laws until the late 70s. There were local and state laws regarding obscenity in general, but there were not laws saying that it was specifically illegal to buy, own, sell child pornography. Making explicit child pornography was always illegal, because it would involve the sexual abuse of a minor to make it. The adults involved in the production would be criminals. However, it was NOT a crime to sell, buy, or own or watch it. Later, someone finally decided that to cut down on it, you needed to go after not just supply, but demand, as well. Also, the patrons of it usually turned out to be sex offenders, as well. In the mid-70s, you could go into certain sex/adult book stores in "The Deuce", NYC, and find legally available child porn for sale. And "art cinema" and even mainstream media were starting to really get out of hand with it by the late 70s. Finally, they drafted and passed specific FEDERAL laws regarding it around 1978 or so. So, what a lot of people don't realize is that, just because something was legal and available in the 70s, doesn't necessarily mean it is still 100% legal today. The laws have also been amended and made even more strict in more recent years. There was a law passed in 1996 that started to become TOO strict, in my opinion. They later amended that law, for being "too vaguely worded". (It would have potentially made works like "Risky Business" and "Grease" into child porn, for example.) Again, as teawoman has said, Eva Ionesco was exploited by her mother. Period. Ionesco was even featured in a European edition of Playboy (!) in 1978. That most certainly would be considered child porn today. I think "Maladolescenza" may be, as well.

Now, if Eva herself is even decrying this stuff, then the chances of it being accepted are even less. Someone has to be very brave to be ordering this online and having it brought through the mail.

A guy in The NETHERLANDS, as recently as 2010, was arrested and tried for owning this film. If The sexually open Netherlands thinks its unacceptable, then you KNOW America does.

reply

[–] timlin-4 11 years ago

Where is the porn? There is no penetration. And who cares what the actress says? Women are famous of dramatizing their lives and playing the victim at every opportunity. All child actors are "exploited", I fail to see how being undressed is particularly traumatizing.

reply

[–] VAndolini 12 years ago

All of you on this thread, martyr to be be ex con included, need to get off the computer, slowly back away from the child porn you are jacking off to, and maybe find light and love in the real world, Ya know, that place outside with oxygen and real people. For anybody, such as many posters above, to ramble ON AND ON AND ON about how this is not child porn really need to take a good look at themselves "Methinks doth protest too much." Jesus, I am so over all of you. And before the hue and cry of me behaving hypocritically because I am commenting, I was reading an article on disturbing movies and this was mentioned. Like the foolish *beep* that I am, I decided to click on this site. BIG MISTAKE. I have kids, and parents who think this is okay need therapy. BY THE WAY: Eva Ionesco, one of the kids in the film, is currently suing, and has been for some time, her mother for emotional distress because of how she was raised. The courts actually took her away from her mother, so Einstein above, I think the now grown woman herself, NOT YOU, disagrees with your assertion that she was not emotionally damaged. Clearly SHE WAS. Hard to argue with the lady herself, aye?

reply

[–] hand-eti 12 years ago

I am not sure that Eva Ionesco was not abused by her mom, who also publisched erotic photographs of her preteen daughter and shortly after this movie lost custody.
Eva Ionesco has recently made a movie about her troubled childhood, I'll go see it to know what she thinks of it herself.

reply

[–] ClockworkPomegranate 9 years ago

Bumped for truth yo. Knowledge dropped in 2007 is even more valid in 2k15. Didn't bother reading all the nutty comments but wonder if any of these pearl clutching morally retarded fools were ever teenagers or are they all extremely sheltered 50 year-old virgins?

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

“teenagers over 12”?

You don’t know what words mean. Life must be very, very confusing for you. I bet your brain-part hurts a lot.

Please do not recreate yourself.

- Signed, the Human Species

reply

1
2