charge is not necessarily included within a charge of taking indecent liberties with a child. “[I]ncluded” is precisely how the statute describes the relationship between those two offenses under these circumstances. See Teters, 37 M.J. at 377 n.6 (citing Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983) (noting that if Congress has expressly indicated an intent contrary to the Blockburger rule, congressional intent controls)). Furthermore, regardless of whether the appropriate unit of prosecution for a crime of exposure is the number of exposures or the number of victims, under these facts, it is but one. Yet, the accused stands convicted twice for a singular criminal exposure to one person. Compare United States v. Neblock, 45 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F.1996) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Lacy, 53 M.J. 509
holding that taking indecent liberties with a child is not a lesser included offense of statutory rape given the differing age elements holding that the defendant did not need to have physically touched the victim in order to be convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of ncgs  142021a2 holding that the state felony offense of taking indecent liberties with a child categorically constituted a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing guidelines recognizing that if it is a distinct or discreteact offense separate convictions are allowed in accordance with the number of discrete acts holding the proper unit of prosecution for indecent liberties is the number of discrete acts