NOPE, she was way too young to understand, and that 34 year old B&$^@*$ stole her innocence.
Given her age at the time...and his...I'd say that "stolen" is a more appropriate way to put it.If she was older...or he was (much) younger....I might have a different attitude.
I beg to differ. At thirteen you aren't capable of making mature decisions. That's why they have statutory rape laws.
For heaven’s sake.
Does the idea “statutory rape” mean anything to you?
“It wasn’t stolen - she gave it away.”
She was 13 when she started dating him, and 14 when she had intercourse, AND she had no father around. Labeling her as ‘at fault’ is ridiculous. People make mistakes. Children are likely to make more, which is why they have parents to help.
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.
Yeah, and women ask to be raped. /s
Shocking how judgemental you are about a girl, what about the man? he was 34 years older making him 47 years old. Statutory rape laws exist because of this very type of thing.
Her childhood was indeed taken from her. Mince words all you want. She can never go back and relive those years knowing what she knows now.
She has turned her life around and I applaud her.
Yes you are so right.
Adults arent responsible for manipulating children. The children can just say no.
/sarc
You don’t get it, do you? Do you really think a 14-year-old girl has the mental or emotional maturity to “give it away”? In her case, an older man (a 48-year-old rockstar!) took advantage of and seduced her. She herself says that her father was not around [to protect her]. That’s hardly a case of “giving it away”. I sure hope you’re not a father to girls, because you have no understanding whatsoever.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the article, nor of childhood, nor of the importance of the legal concept of "statutory rape." Her entire point is that children of that age do not possess the judgment to evaluate the downside of such behaviors, are under constant social and media pressure to have sex, and are too immature to give informed consent. That is why children have historically needed legal protection from older predators.
The article points out that England's past statutes set the age of consent at 13 during the agricultural age, then raised it at the dawn of the industrial age to 16 (1885). Under both earlier statutes, girls were not expected by society to work outside the home nor have sex outside marriage, nor prepare for careers or higher education.
The old statutes are out of step with today's information age. There is no practical necessity for girls to make themselves sexually available to a husband, provider and protector. Since girls must increasingly support and protect themselves (or be a drain on society under the current UK socialist state), they really should be encouraged to wait, and protected by law from predation, until they have gained employment skills.