sex between a 17 year old and a 21 year old-is not equivalent to exploitation in sexually explicit materials. Moreover, the court relied on a Congressional determination which is not present here. This court has also found that Michigan’s “second-degree criminal sexual conduct [crime] involving ‘sexual contact’ with a person, age 13 to 16, of the same blood affinity presents a ‘serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’ ” United States v. Campbell, 256 F.3d 381, 396 (6th Cir.2001)(citing Sentenoing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)). While this holding does offer some support for the government’s position, the statute is distinguishable from Tennessee’s statute considered here. There, the victim can be two years younger and the perpetrator must be a family member. See id. (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Thomas, 159 F.3d 296,
holding that taking indecent liberties with a child under 16 for sexual gratification constitutes sexual abuse of a minor even without physical contact holding iowa common law touching assault met use of physical force required for enhancement under 18 usc  922g9 be cause any physical contact by necessity requires physical force to complete holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim holding that there is a real possibility that physical force may be used in making sexual contact when the victim is a minor between 13 and 16 and within the structures of familiarity and proximity bred by kinship holding that a conviction for sexual assault of a child under nebrevstat  28320011 was a crime of violence because this type of contact between parties of differing physical and emotional maturity carries a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense