Eniko Mihalik | Page 261 | the Fashion Spot

Eniko Mihalik

I like those pictures but I also like p*rn :lol: Her body is seriously amazing.

She looks great with Constance at the Replay party. They both look fresh and beautiful :heart:
 
Love these latest pictures, p*rn or not, they're amazing! + Wish she could have done something different with her hair at the Replay party but still she looks pretty.
 
It's explicit, not p*rn - p*rn is made with a very specific intention by the sex industry, featuring p*rn stars. Just because these pictures are nudes, does not mean you can just label them p*rn, lets give Eniko a little more credit than that.
If you guys saw some real p*rn I think your eyes might fall out of your head!!! Does not even come close!!!
 
^There are different degrees of p*rn and it does not have to feature p*rn stars. You cannot deny that the last photo has a specific sexual intention.
 
But sexuality and p*rn can be 2 different things....
If p*rn magazines published photo's like these, for example...I'd probably buy them!!!!! But they never would, because this is not p*rn.

I guess my point is that not everything sexual needs to be immediately classed as p*rn - it's not that black and white
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any p*rn magazine would definitely publish the last two. I know that not everything sexual is p*rn, but those photos are.
 
So jealous she got to kiss that guy, unf.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh and yeah, her hair at Cannes was so bad. Like she couldn't be bothered to shampoo that day :lol:
 
It's a photo of her hands near her crotch holding out her underwear. You can practically see her vagina. It's suggestive, it's sexual, it's p*rn. That sounds like a slogan...
 
^ that's just erotic, not p*rn*gr*ph*c. there's no sex. ( and i can't see her vagina either.:lol:)
anyway i don't think that Enikő would ever make p*rn pictures or anything..
 
^I agree, I dont get the p*rn vibe either but everyone has there different views on whats erotic and whats too much. She looked lovely at Canne in that coral Fendi dress and the Vogue It is awesome one of my favs:heart:
 
It doesn't actually have to contain the actual act of sex to be p*rn... And I said practically see it. It's from earlier in her career (you can tell 'cause her tattoo is missing) and she was probably pressured to do a shoot like this. This conversation isn't going anywhere. You can't convince me it's not p*rn, because it is.
 
^ you can't convince me either, but you are right about this conversation isn't going anywhere. :D
for me 'p*rn' is when i clearly, closely see some private parts of p*rn actresses and actors, and raw sex. not just a half-nude topmodel.
even the films in you can see two people having sex, but can't see their private parts called just erotic films, not porns.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,425
Messages
15,302,026
Members
89,423
Latest member
reverie92
Back
Top