At least, this judge seems to think so:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241635/Soldier-41-sex-girl-13-spared-jail-woman-judge-says-did-running.html
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to point out some fatal flaws in this choice statement:"Judge Mowat continued: 'It was clear from the evidence that she was a disturbed girl, that her behaviour was precocious in several respects, that she looked and acted older than her age and she made most of the running in this action.'"
1.) She was "disturbed". Not only was she "disturbed" but "clearly" so. What kind of fucked up monstrosity of a man wants to have sex with anyone who is clearly disturbed and thus obviously not thinking straight, regardless of their age? At a guess, a child rapist maybe...
2.) "Her behaviour was precocious in many respects". Yes and she was 13, and he was 45 and aware that was 13. I fail to see what her "precociousness has to do with anything.
3.) "She looked and acted older than her age" Yes and (please forgive me for repeating myself) she was 13, and he was 45 and aware that she was 13. I don't care if she looked 30, YOU DON'T HAVE SEX WITH A 13-YEAR-OLD CHILD. Simples!
4.) "She made most of the running". It doesn't matter if she turned up unnanouced in his bedroom, naked but for a sign saying "Take me big boy, I'm yours" - SHE WAS 13. A 13-year-old girl cannot consent to sex and you, sir, are a rapist. End of discussion.
What is so awful is that the judge doesn't realise that the most dangerous person involved in this whole case is herself. She says she gave the guy a light sentence because he is unlikely offend again and for what it's worth I agree with her; but the hugely ill-advised statement she made, seemingly in his defence, is likely to cause many, many other men to offend, because she's basically just said it's ok if she looks a bit older than her age.