the second element do not require a prior sexual affront;[24] precisely, because a prior sexual affront is not the only way to satisfy the second element. It is in this light that I had, during the deliberations of this case, discussed the need to contextualize the operation of Section 5(b) in reference to Section 5(a) and the other parts of Section 5. I understand the structure of Section 5 as following the more common model or progression of child prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation: A child is procured, induced, or threatened to become a prostitute by any person, in violation of Section 5(a). In this instance, the person who has sexual intercourse or performs lascivious acts upon the child, even if this were the very first act by the child, already makes the person liable under Section 5(b), because the very fact that someone had procured the child to be used for another person's sexual gratification in exchange for money, profit or other consideration already qualifies the child as a child exploited in prostitution. In this instance, no requirement of a prior sexual affront is required. In cases where any person, under the circumstances of Section 5(a), procures, induces, or threatens a child to engage in any sexual activity with another person, even without an allegation or showing that the impetus is money, profit or other consideration, the first sexual affront by the person to whom the child is offered already triggers Section 5(b) because the circumstance of the child being offered to another already qualifies the child as one subjected to other sexual abuse. Similar to these situations, the first sexual affront upon a child shown to be performing in obscene publications and indecent shows, or under circumstances falling under Section 6 is already a violation of Section 5(b) because these circumstances are sufficient to qualify the child as one subjected to other sexual abuse. In certain cases, however, it appears that a first sexual affront, on its own, cannot be considered a violation of Section 5(b). For example, a person who has moral ascendancy or influence over a child cannot be automatically considered to have coerced or influenced the child into indulging in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with him on account only of his or her ascendancy over the child, unless there are circumstances that would allow the inference that the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim amounts to coercion or influence (e.g., as when a person who has ascendancy over a child is later found with the child under the circumstances of Section 6, any subsequent sexual activity squarely violates Section 5(b), because the circumstances of Section 6 may be the basis to infer that the accused conducted his relationship with the child with the view of inducing him or her to indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, thus furnishing the element of coercion or influence). Otherwise, it appears that without the circumstances of Section 5(a) or independent evidence of coercion or influence, a