One thing I have in mind is that we use (wisely I think) plenty of economia on this issue. I'm personally very gentle in what happens in confession unless it's adultery (ie 'cheating' between married spouses). In other words none of what has been said on the Forum about Christ's freedom from sexual passion implies that we are against sex.
If Christ though was a 'normal healthy adolescent, etc' then we have no ideal to guide people towards simply because the truth is that 'normal healthy adolescents' never are able to overcome their chidlish attractions without Christ's divine grace. In this area the risk is real that we remain adolescents for the rest of life even into old age.
The answer to this could well be (as was mentioned or implied in some posts) that Christ is of benefit to us, and is authentic in His incarnate reality precisey because He underwent these passions and overcame them.
This postion seems to make sense and is appealing in a certain way. It is however a straight forward description of the Nestorian Christ and leaves out the central insights of the enhypostatic Christ as described by the Council of Chalcedon.
What does this mean? Antiochian Christology always emphasised the two natures of Christ. One reason for this was an attempt to avoid what they saw as any 'mixing' in God's nature of what is human. But along with this in this there was also an interesting moral point that if only Chirst God is involved in overcoming the passions, ie if He as human is not involved in a true and real way in this- then of what good is that to us who are human? Antiochian Christology could go so far as to say that Christ's overcoming of passion is heroic precisely because it was done through His humanity (as in communion with His divine nature of course).
I think that this lost Christology is worthy of consideration. In some ways it is similar to what we find at times in western Christology of the Patristic period that was never condemned.
But even then was must never forget St Cyril's criticisms of some tendencies in Anitochian Christology especially as Nesotrius put this forward in a very structured 'rationalised' form. (and which was condemend as heresy). Here what St Cyril explained is that the starting point of correct Christology is that Christ is not two personal realities- a human one along side a Divine One. This is incorrect because then as St Cyril explained we are not describing Chrst incarnate but rather a good man or perhaps a prophet.
Christ then is One Person- the preternal Word Who is perfect, sinless, immeasurable, good, pure, etc. This words adopts humanity (not a human person) and in so doing His humanity is infused with the divine qualities. Does this mean that He loses His human qualities? No.
But these human qualities are not as in a fallen man with passions. Rather His humanity is sinless and is in perfect accord through His human will with His divine will (St Maxmius and the 6th Ec Council).
What this means then is that Christ's human will does not act in the fashion that it does with us, where we search out God's will, have sinful impulses which we then correct and set in the right direction, etc (the 'gnostic will'). This too is a return to the original impulses of Nestorius concerning the dynamic between human and divine that he believed make sense in terms of authentic human salvation. What St Maximus said then (as confirmed by the 6th Ec Council) is that Christ's human will perfectly accords with His divine will. There is little human analogy to explain this reality because all of us use gnostic will- (ie we start from a point of not knowing what God's will is or not being clear about it or worse-of actively resisting it). With Christ the relationship of His human will to His Divine will is one of immediate accord without that intervening uncertainty or wavering that we experience. And as St Maximus explained the radical difference bwteen how Christ's huamn will operates and how our human will operates is the hwole basis of what allows our salvation.
A last point though in order to be charitable to Anthiochian Christolgy which I think before it's pre Nestorian phase did have something good to offer. (there's a strong argument to be made that St Cyril's reconciliation with Bp John of Antioch involved an acceptance of some of the major insights of Antochian Christology). No Antiochian nor even Nestorius ever maintained that Christ's humanity was passionate, capable of sexual passions, etc.
This leads me to the thought, that the question here then, is a very modern one with all of the focus on Christ as someone Who is really one of us. We suffer, we feel isolated alone and we wonder what God has to do with any of what we suffer through.
Such questions are authentic and important for our time.
But their answers are found in the vision of Christ as explained especially by St Cyril where Christ is described in the warmest terms as having adopted what is ours.
But this does not mean that a deep and continuing conversion of mind and thought will not still be needed by us. Almost all of us are profoundly affected in one way or another by the humanist treachings of the past few centuries that makes man the measure of all things. This tendency is even stronger now with all of its emphasis on 'be your real self'. To counter this then ie to convert our minds and hearts will take very deep metanoia (change of mind & heart) so that voluntarily and involuntarily we do not bring in the teachings of this world to replace what is of the Church.
Ultimately much of this comes down to a pastoral question. As said at the beginning of this post, healing for those who are deeply suffering from the various passions can only come from Christ's divine grace.