Lolita is a famous work of fiction by Vladimir Nabokov. I read this book and saw one movie version of it some time ago -- but it is a story that sticks with a person. The Wikipedia synopsis is pretty good.

There were two movie versions of it to date. The one with Sue Lyons in the titular role in 1962, and the one starring Dominique Swain in 1997.

Humbert is not an evil man, though he is far from a saint. But his love/lust have led him to do things most of us would agree are not in Lolita's long-term interest.

Lolita feels conflicted about Humbert. At times she seems content to stay with him, other times she seems like she wants to get away, though she doesn't have the knowledge of the world to know how to make it happen.

I would opine that Lolita lacks the legal right to get away from Humbert, because he is her designated legal guardian--which everyone under 17 currently require in most cases--and has thus become her de facto parent (read: owner). She lacks the knowledge of the world largely because teen girls, especially in the era where they had no access to a global communication and information access system like the Internet, were deliberately raised to be ignorant of various matters and dependent on their legal guardians up until their 18th birthday.

So here is the question. Suppose that they live in Child Liberation World, driving through the American West. She's 13 years old. Suppose one day she tells a police officer that Humbert, her stepfather, is driving her around having sex with her all the time against her will and she doesn't want to stay with him. She agrees to accompany him to the police station to take her statement. But when there, afraid of what happens next, she says instead that she's consented to it all -- she just said she didn't because she was mad at him and now she wants to go back to him.

In a truly youth liberated world, she wouldn't be trapped in any sort of legally enforced or economic dependence upon her father. Nor with anyone else, for that matter. What you just described sounds suspiciously like a generic abusive relationship that many adult significant others find themselves in, but with the "boyfriend" role replaced with "father."

As I understand Child Liberation World, the police must just let her go. She has made her decision and it is no further business of them to intervene.

It would be the same situation with adults: If the police have probable cause to believe that actual abuse is occurring, then they have the license to investigate accordingly. If actual abuse is proven, and the girl in question refuses to leave or press charges, then the state can move in and press charges in her stead.

I think this is a good case study of where child liberation does not do the right thing.

Again, this sounds less to do with a youth liberation scenario then an argument being initiated about the law's general ability to act if an abused person in any sort of domestic situation refuses to testify... or recants an accusation based on fear. It's almost as if you are searching for special legal conditions to apply to a situation of that sort specifically involving an age disparate couple, as if the existing laws wouldn't be quite PC enough for certain sensibilities.

She needs to go to foster care. The state in all its clumsiness will do better by Lolita than Humbert will.

In a true youth liberated society, there would be numerous alternatives to foster care. The very platform is based on the idea that curtailing someone's freedom and placing them under the enforced "care" of a second entity--whether that entity may be a single individual or a state agency--is not doing good by them at all. It actually seems like an argument over finding them a more benevolent overseer, but has nothing to do with their freedom, which is arguing against liberation entirely, not making a legitimate suggestion as to how to "improve" it.

Any liberation-based platform is based on honoring freedom of choice, and putting that above protectionist edicts. Arguing for the latter being better is no different than insisting that an adult woman who is being abused by her husband be forcibly removed from the house and placed in the "care" of a shelter... whether she wants to or not. Again, the argument for curtailing the freedom of anyone "for their own good."

As I noted above, the state could move forward to press charges without forcing the girl or woman (whatever the case may be) to surrender their freedom to the control of any state agency or institution. The girl or woman could have any number of close friends, or family members, or even buildings designed to provide voluntary living quarters for youth who need a place to stay (but not have their will curtailed while living there). There is no reason why a freedom-suppressing state agency or institution need force the abused person into their clutches.

She does not have the perspective to see that.

This seems to be assuming an intrinsic level of ignorance on this hypothetical 13-year-old simply because she is 13. That is ageist bias that has largely been proven by scientific studies that this board is well familiar with... as are all youth liberationists and academics who have a large degree of familiarity with the work of Epstein, Dumas, and others following in their footsteps. Unless she was literally held prisoner by her father figure-cum-abusive lover, she would have full access to all information and support organizations, both online and offline, that would be available to youths in a youth liberated society.

It seems you are hypothesizing about a strange alternate reality where some sort of nominally youth-liberated world is peppered with a large amount of stringent elements from our gerontocentric, youth-oppressed timeline... which wouldn't really be a youth-liberated society at all.

You could claim that in Child Liberation Utopia she would have been raised to know all about these things and have the perspective.

As is often the case, the term "utopia" is used here in a loaded fashion, clearly intended to imply--in a snide manner, of course--that supporters of youth liberation amongst the pro-choice camp in this community believe a youth-liberated world would be akin to some sort of paradise, or a world of utter perfection, something almost none of us have ever so much as implied. Let me remind anyone who may be reading this with an objective mind (which is not anyone who is fervently anti-choice, it seems): A youth liberated world, especially if it was established within the context of a capitalistic society, would not be a "perfect" world. It would simply be a better variant of the world we live in today, with younger people allowed to shine and grow based upon their full individual merits, and to directly participate alongside older people in the running of society's affairs.

That's too utopian for me -- some kids would know that and some wouldn't -- it was after all their choice not to learn it.

Just as, in today's world, some adults choose to know certain things, and others choose not to know it. The difference is, we almost always give adults the benefit of the doubt because they have the full measure of civil rights described in the Constitution. Barring the rare exception, these rights are in no way contingent upon their true individual merits. I should mention that in supporting the Epstein-Dumas Test of Adulthood, at least for the initial generations of a youth-liberated society, I and others who support it have actually agreed to a major compromise with society, but it seems the anti-choice side of the issue are the ones who will brook no compromise, even though they constantly claim that it's the pro-choicers who utterly refuse to compromise.

And again, it appears as if you are making an emotionalistic appeal to limit the choices a younger person could make in a youth-liberated society if they willfully choose to be ignorant in a manner that you would not insist upon for any adult. This results in a strange combination of restrictions and privileges that are similar to those which have been afforded to women, and other minority groups, by the more extreme PC elements of the Left in the past.