7 the parking area of the church, the mutual masturbation happened frequently in the appellant’s dental surgery, and also when they were going somewhere together. It was always initiated by the appellant and, after each incident, the appellant gave money to the complainant and continued to spoil him. [12] In respect of count 4, the complainant was studying at home for his end-of- year standard 7 examinations in October or November 1998. The appellant arrived at the house when only the complainant and the domestic worker were there. The appellant and the complainant socialised for a while and then started to play a game of chess in the complainant’s bedroom. During the game, the appellant came to sit next to the complainant, he then put his hand into the complainant’s pants and masturbated him. Once again the mutual masturbation ensued until the complainant ejaculated. While this was happening, the domestic worker was busy with tasks in and outside the house. [13] There were several other instances of mutual masturbation thereafter which eventually graduated to full anal penetration on more than one occasion. By that stage though, the complainant had already turned 16. In the light of the conclusion that I have reached on the constitutional challenge to s14(1)(b) of the Act, those allegations need not detain us any further. [14] The last sexual ‘encounter’ between the two of them occurred, according to the complainant, in September 2001, when the appellant accompanied the complainant and the latter’s brother A to the Aardklop Festival in Potchefstroom. They spent the whole day at the festival, returning to the appellant’s flat in Randfontein, where they spent the night. It would appear that this encounter at the appellant’s flat was the proverbial ‘last straw’ for the complainant and, according to him, he decided that he did not want that to ever happen again. From then on, he deliberately avoided the appellant, seeing to it that he was not at home when the appellant visited or that he went to bed early on the evenings when the appellant slept over at his home. Under cross-examination, it was put to the complainant that, after this ‘final’ incident which had allegedly occurred in September 2001, the complainant went out for a meal with the appellant at least twice during the course of the year 2002. The complainant readily conceded that they had in fact had a meal together in