I draw no distinctions of age when checking out a woman of the opposite sex....unless my hands and penis are also getting involved. Then we start getting mathematical.
Attractive is attractive.
We see it or we don't.
We get an erection or we don't.
That's what's hilarious about the religions and organizations who make attempts to de-homosexualize people.
Sorry, if you're a dude and you like dudes, that's not going to change unless something in his constitution changes as well.
I see girls that chisa thinks are hot, and I'm not interested.
He sees some I'm interested in, and he'd rather pull his own a few times.
When it comes to teh aesthetic of a person, a living room, or a drinking glass, we all have a preference, and that preference is the consequence of a complex number of variables--many / all of which we can't understand.
So, if my head spins at a 13 year old, it's because something in me found her attractive. If it spins at a 55 year old, the same thing just happened as with the 13 year old, except we've applied a moral value to the former and not the latter.
Where it's problematic is when the aesthetic appreciation traverses into the physical manifestation of the attraction. The moral imperative becomes an issue of mental and emotional capacity and consent.
Looking =/= touching and whether there is a desire to touch is irrelevent to the discussion. Otherwise, we'd need tinfoil hats to prevent the thought police from catching us make a thought crime.
I hazard a guess that the vast majority of both the male and female adult populations are "closet" paedophiles because they know when and where to employ good moral judgement, and when to observe beauty and simply appreciate it. Finding someone attractive, independent of their age, is the same as finding anything attractive for any number of reasons....we've just made it so that liking the look of a 15 year old is worse than liking the taste of a 15 year old scotch.