Саша Пыльников по-американски: The Strange Case of Mary Kay Letourneau ... подробности. And more on this at Infidels, where it's kinda weird to see so much prudishness even here, at Infidels:

I believe that we can safely assume that biology determines that the boy had to be aroused. I am not sure that arousal implies willing and I am quite sure that neither arousal or willing imply legal consent.

Surely even among the males on the board some of them have been aroused but not willing to have sex at some point in time. Remember those pubescent days when you'd get an erection at the drop of a hat and at the most in appropriate times? Even aside from those sort of situations, what about situations were you are in a committed relationship but someone else turns you on. Certainly arousal doe not imply willingness here either. And if it did then rapists defend with say his penis was erect, or her clit was swollen and vagina very lubricated. Almost as bad as the "she said were a condom" defense!

This whole story is very characteristic of the basic impossibility to bring up a child. A hundred years ago masturbation was considered a decease, or a very harmful habit. Whatever change in attitude officially, for parents even now masturbation presents an insurmountable problem in their relationships with children.

Human sexuality is their from very early age, in both males and females. Abstinence has nothing to do with logic. Every kid has to go thru all this utterly alone, as is the case with other, relatively minor lies and falsities ...

:sex:  ¶ 3:00 PM