>>434129
I know the feeling. I call this the result of the "enticing solicitation" fashion movement.
Children are (for unknown reasons) pressed into wearing fashions that entice sexual solicitation. The children are totally unequipped to understand this, and they're also unequipped to understand how sex changes the body, the mind, motivation, life in general. So it's pretty unfair for the child, and it's unfair for us, the men who get turned on by these sexually explicit fashions. It's a lose-lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=288.4.
Penal code varies by state. In California we have this:
>Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, arranges a meeting with a minor or a person he or she believes to be a minor for the purpose of exposing his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area, having the child expose his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area, or engaging in lewd or lascivious behavior, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
No law is ever going to legislate away the effect of sex on a child's body...we don't have the technology, and who the hell would want technology like that anyway...if fashions don't change, they will continue to present children as unwitting subjects in sex experiments that most likely have an effect that modifies the genes in the body...in other words gene editing
There's no legal solution to this. Either the fashion says "I'm a cute little cunny, make me an unwitting subject in your gene editing sex experiments" or it says something completely different