I highly doubt that if a normal man looks at a picture of some 14 year old girl flashing her damn mirror that they are going to be sickened and repulsed by it. It just seems incredibly unlikely. Furthermore, if they look at such pictures or not, it has absolutely zero effect on the pictured teenager. None at all, nada, absolutely no effect. To think otherwise is to think that photographs have a magical property that has never been demonstrated, never been observed, never been explained. Please show me links to the research showing the magical properties of photographs and how viewing them can cause effects to happen to those depicted in them. These is no such research, it isn't real, it isn't even worthy of thinking about because it is so disconnected from reality as to be absolutely absurd! A normal man *will* be aroused, read *will*, man there have been fucking studies done it isn't a matter of debate it is a matter of hooking random selections of men up to arousal reading equipment and noticing that they have the same exact level of arousal to young teenagers as they do to adults. It isn't a matter of debate at this point, studies have been done, science has been carried out, we have an indisputable conclusion, normal men have the same level of sexual attraction to young teenagers as they do to those in their twenties and thirties! It isn't even an unexpected result It would be mind blowing if the average male wasn't attracted to adolescents! And you think a 14 or 15 year old is so vulnerable but not a 16 year old they are fine. Or not an 18 year old, they are fine. It is just nonsense, some arbitrary number that a bunch of religious wack-a-doos and feminists came up with in the late 19th century based on absolutely no science or jack diddly-shit. And since their global campaign to raise the age of consent to this number, people have been slowly brainwashed in the process, and we can see the result of this brainwashing quite clearly in this thread. Men deny that they are attracted to teenagers under the age of 18, despite the fact that some 14 year olds and some 18 year olds look to be exactly the same age, even to fucking forensic development specialists! We have men lying about their attraction to teenagers but the sexual arousal studies are not lying. And big surprise at that for most of human history it has been acceptable to be attracted to young teenagers and even to have sex with them and marry them! Only after the late 19th century did attitudes on this matter start to shift, and they shifted because of the goals of religious and feminist organizations. The amount of logical fallacies coming from those who are trying to argue with me is just insane, we have people saying that it should be legal to look at pictures that it should be illegal to look at, people saying all kinds of insane shit. A lot of people in this thread seem to think that the global age of consent is already 18 and that it is illegal to view CP in the entire world! All of this is the hallmark of massive and intense indoctrination, and it sucks that you are too far gone to even realize the truth. Also maybe once or twice you have thought a young girl is attractive haha dude cut the bullshit. You are not fooling me, I have read the research I have read the reasoning behind why men are attracted to young teenagers, you are not fooling anybody. For one you cannot even reliably tell a 14/15 year old girl from an 18 year old girl by looking at her, she could be an older looking 14 year old or a younger looking 18 year old. For two, you are hard wired to find girls of this age to be attractive, if you have only found one or two girls that age to be attractive it must be because you have only seen one or two girls that age. For three, you are crazy if you think that 14 or especially 15 year old girls are just so weak and vulnerable to predators coming and taking advantage of them, but 18 year old girls man they sure have their shit together. Your opinion of young teenage girls appears to be that they are fucking retards and barely different from young children. Your opinion of photographs has no connection with reality what-so-ever and sounds like something that should get you sent to the insane asylum. So you admit you are the thought police, not the action police. If a Nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and gets off on it, you think it is bad, but if some normal person looks at it and is disgusted then it is not bad. The intent of the action is what matters to you, not the action. So I am sure you think the FBI should be able to look at CP because their intent is to bust child pornographers. Do you think the FBI should be able to rape a young girl if their goal is to bust child pornographers? What if an FBI agent infiltrates a lower level rung of a production studio, and they want him to rape little girls, and eventually he can move up the ranks of the organization and topple it if he rapes enough little girls to earn their trust. Should he be allowed then to rape little girls as his intention is to topple the pedophile organization? No? But he should be able to look at pictures of CP if his intent is to arrest pedophiles correct? Yes? But I thought that looking at pictures of CP causes horrible damage to the children depicted, I thought that it leads to more children being molested even! So why are you okay with one of these things but not the other? Why are you so logically inconsistent? Are you a retard or are you a liar?