She was a minor and he was a successful writer given access to her in a "mentorship" capacity.
She looked up to him and valued his approval and acceptance, therefore he was in a position of power over her.
Because of that power dynamic, when he made sexual advances towards her (fondling a minor's genitals is sexual and criminal), she was not in a position to resist or reject him.
Because she was an adolescent, she did not have the mental or emotional maturity to maneuver the situation, and so she gave herself up. Then, because of her immaturity, she was damaged by the encounter.
This is why it is illegal to have sex with people under 18- not necessarily because it's a magic number, but because teenagers are not on an equal playing field with adults. Thus, anytime a mature adult is having sex with a teenager, you have to question the validity of the "consent."
This is also why minors cannot "consent" to sex, by law. Their brains don't really get what it's all about, and the lasting effects can be very harmful.
I'm sure there are individual exceptions to these rules, like any other. But lawmakers don't have the time or resources to interview every 15-year-old who wants to have sex to gauge their maturity. So they pick ages, draw lines, and make laws accordingly.
reply
share