First, that wasn’t really my point. I could’ve easily have been 18 for the point of the story. However, I was actually 17 when it happened.

Under today’s laws, anyone (other than a teacher with a student) of any age can have sex with a 17-year-old in Louisiana. You can’t serve them a drink, but you can have sex with them.

There was a case a few years back where some guy brought two 17 year old girls back to his boat in Slidell. He had sex with him and took nude pictures of them as they willingly posed. There was nothing wrong with his having sex with them and he wasn’t charged with that. But he was charged with and went to Angola for producing underage pornographic material. Think about the absurdity of that.

Further, at the time these events to place, there was no law against having underage sex with a male of any age in Louisiana.

Getting back to my story -- my point was that the law as it stands is extremely hazardous. People have debated this on this board ad nauseam, Why is it that the girl is the only party this law applies to, especially when both of the parties are drunk. There are a mainstream Democrats out there who say that if a drunk girl says yes to sex one night but wakes up the next day and regrets having sex because she really didn’t want to, and she wouldn’t have had sex with that guy if she was sober, it doesn't matter if the guy was also drunk -- he's guilty of rape. I don’t buy it .

We don’t know if the 17-year-old was drunk or how drunk he was. As far as we know, he hasn’t given a statement. But let’s say he could have blown a .3. And let’s say that the tape reveals she seemed okay with having sex with a 17-year-old and knew what was going on. Is he still guilty of rape because she had a .32 BAC?

If you really want to read about one of the most egregious cases, look up the Amherst rape case.

This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:45 pm