That’s weird. I find somebody attractive, I find them attractive. I may base my decision on whether or not I would have sex with them on non-appearance-related factors, but they still look good.
Since you asked, I guess I should answer. For myself, it’s sort of a set of nested concepts: Sexuality is a subset of General Attraction, Reproductiveness is a subset of General Sexuality, Legality is a subset of General Reproductiveness. [Caveat: These are generalisations; there are exceptions.] My original point was that attraction was being talked about here, not actual sexual contact, so the “Age of Consent” caveat was meaningless in this context, and the invocation of it silly. Legality is limited to those over the age-of-consent laws, so it constitutes a “permission” (at least conceptually) to have sex with them, not a “permission” to want to. IMO, the onset of (their) puberty constitutes a “permission” to want sex with them, as they are reproductively viable at that point (even if it’s not a good idea or legal for them to do so).
However, sexuality is about more than reproduction, as it is to a large extent motivated by a desire for physical gratification, which is something common to all humans, post-pubescent (or even post-consent age) or not (kids masturbate just like the rest of us). Thus, sexual attraction to children is something I can at least grasp conceptually, rather than have my brain twist into knots at the mention of it like most people seem to do. Then, too, there are more vectors of attraction than the sexual, as well. There are purely aesthetic considerations involved, in addition to the stereotyped “I wanna hump’er” kind of thing. For me, the desire to jump bones is marginal, if even noticeable for someone young, but they can still be visually breathtaking. I hit puberty myself at 12, so I think girls that age will always have seniority as attractants, simply because they were there first. I still don’t have sex with 'em, though, so the whole age/legality thing to me is largely irrelevant. 
It’s interesting, but to a lot of people, just the knowledge of age does have a big impact on their perception. There was a Brazilian photographer named Fabrio Cabral who several years ago did a project he called “Anjos Proibidos”, or Forbidden Angels. Nudes of young women, but no [Monty Python]Full Frontal Nudity[/Monty Python]. For the most part, the models were developed enough that they could have passed for adults, which wouldn’t have phased anyone. The fact that he posted their ages (12-19) with their portraits is what got people in an uproar. I think that was the point that he was trying to drive home: if the picture itself isn’t offensive, why does appending a unverified piece of information suddenly transform it into an outrage? Don’t know, but it sure seems to.
Lotsa pronouns in there. Something’s bound to be ambiguous.
I think it outrages people because they find them attractive but think it’s wrong to, which places them in an uncomfortable position of making them judge themselves and find themselves wrong in some sense. Imagine a picture of a cute prepubescent 11 year old girl in a bikini playing at the beach, most people would have no problem with that. Grandma might even have it in her photo album. If that same 11 year old girl is a bit precocious physically and has a well-developed and attractive figure, it’s going to make more people upset.
And if someone isn’t upset by it, then people gets upset about that, too. I’m starting to think it all springs originally from the “Sex=Bad” meme. How anyone could fall for that one is beyond me.
Without wishing to ruin your enjoyment of her singing (and please appreciate that I’m using a lot of restraint here on the subject of Ms. Church), her voice makes me weep too, albeit for entirely different reasons to yours.
Enjoy the voice while it lasts; she won’t have it much beyond age 18.
No, you’re both wrong. I’ve been hearing that joke since I was about 14. That’s about 8 years ago.
Besides which, it should be painfully obvious that neither Colin Quinn nor Kid Rock are clever enough to think up something that witty on their own. They’re idiots.
I’ll end my hijack now. Have a nice day. 
Bestiality is illegal at any age.
Likely true, which makes it all the more poignant.
Of course, many critics declared she’d lose her voice by 14, and that hasn’t happened, so maybe…
I don’t have a problem with people finding underage people attractive or sexy. But for me, the attraction literally goes away if I learn, or even suspect that they are younger than twenty or so. It isn’t a question of legality or consent or anything. Just the age is a turn-off.
Don’t know why and have always assumed it was that way with most people. Guess not.
Perhaps it’s unfair to say that she’ll lose it altogether, but she will likely damage it sufficiently to rule out any sort of long-term singing career. But then, once she hits 18 the child prodigy marketing angle goes out the window, and I can’t see her continuing on much beyond then. As it is, however, I can almost see the vocal nodes forming every time I watch her sing.
And that, largely, is why I don’t like her voice; she’s forcing everything to achieve a sound that she can’t produce “naturally”, and it just sounds wrong to me. I don’t blame her for doing it – it brings her fame and money – but I have nothing but scorn for whoever her vocal coach is, and for her parents. Let’s hope the parents are saving the money for Charlotte’s future.
On a similar note, I’ve been watching the show “Pop Idol” (on ITV in the UK), in which literally thousands of wannabe pop stars audition for a panel of judges hoping to be chosen to go through to the next round and eventually get a recording contract. The vast majority of applicants couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket; a smaller but significant percentage can sing in tune but try to force themselves to make a “popstar” sound which is wrong for their voice. Fortunately the judges are astute enough to let these people know they’re doing it (and axe them early on).
I’d read somewhere (can’t recall at the moment, where, exactly) that her family was deliberately rejecting concert gigs, keeping her engagements to only a few a year to keep the wear-n-tear on her vocal cords to a minimum. Is this true?
Anyway, damage or no damage, she’s going to lose at least some of that angelic voice as she ages, no matter what.
We’ve a similar, and just as painful-to-watch program here, called “Star Search”. I’d rather walk on broken glass than watch that show.