Isnt it amazing how often stories saying:
1. I did this of my own FREE will.
2. In retrospect I regret what I did or it did not work out for me.
3. NOW PASS A LAW SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN NOT EXERCIZE THEIR FREE WILL
draw sympathetic responses on FREErepublic? She did in fact give away he childhood. It had nothing to do with the famous guy she is now using to promote her agenda. She gave away her childhood when she decided at age 13 that hanging around in bars was better than playing with friends her own age.
Had she never met Wyman she was still in the same place. That relationship led to marriage so while there was a large age difference and led to a quick divorce ala many celeb marriages, it was hardly purely exploitive.
In most states, it's no, no, and no, and it's because the law recognizes that the "free will" presumed of normal adults, is limited by impediments to full judgment, including both mental handicap and immaturity.
The answers all turn to "yes, yes, and yes" when the subject turns 18.
I am not the one to argue that the cognitive functions are dramatically improved over the two years from 16 to 18. I do know there are significant differences between the physiological functioning and the intellectual competence of an adolescent and an adult.
I would argue that a line has to be drawn somewhere, however arbitrary the placement of that line might be. The only reasonable alternative would be to require extensive maturity testing on an individual basis, and from a "liberty" and "privacy" point of view that would be way, way too intrusive a requirment.
So we're stuck with an age limit on, for instance, sex. This is not a perfect solution, but one that, roughly and on average, works to the benefit of the young, who need protection. We're not talking about limiting the free will of consenting "adults."
"The law" should have been brought to bear to prevent bars from catering to middle-school girls and to prevent old horndogs from rogering 14-year-old Lolitas. But even absent any change in law and law enforcement, social pressure could deliver a lasting smackdown against those who sexualize minors.
If a few barkeeps and lechers get smacked down hard in the press and in public estimation because Mandy Smith has done her bit to influence social pressure in that direction, I say, more power to her.
How about legally raising the age of consent? Well, argue it back and forth and put it to a vote. But the question can't be dismissed as nannyism a priori.
Perhaps you have heard that most pedophiles blame their victim. "I had sex with a 14-year-old, but she asked for it!" That is why we have age of consent laws. Children of 14 are too immature to make such decisions, and should be protected. The bartenders who gave her and her sister alcohol and the smarmy old goat who seduced her both acted illegally. She was already abandoned by her family. Get a clue who the victim is here.
Secondly, if people cannot learn from their experiences and help others avoid similar exploitation, how can society make any improvements to what has clearly become a sexual cesspool? Rates of illegitimacy have a direct bearing on the rise of socialism and the elimination of freedoms. There is a vast difference between political freedom and sexual license to abuse young girls.
Yeah, it's not like Bill Clinton ever told Monica that he would leave his wife for her, right?