Claire Blacklaw, 31 years old, has made headlines lately for getting evicted from her apartment after having sex in the corridor outside her apartment. Journalists have taken to the internet, portraying her as a wild, careless, sex-crazed woman. And yet every article is ignoring the fact that on paper it seems like Blacklaw was in no way able to consent.

To begin, a witness said that Blacklaw was clearly "very drunk". Furthermore Kirkland, the man she was with, "insisted they make their way" inside her apartment. He also had protested having sex with Blacklaw outside and insisted they went inside. If he was coherent enough to know that having sex outside or in the hall was a bad idea, why was he not coherent enough to tell that Blacklaw was clearly "very drunk" and probably not in any position to consent to sex?

As if that wasn't the only disturbing part of the situation, Blacklaw went to the pub at 8:30 and was in the hall with Kirkland at 9:30--a very short period of time for her to be so intoxicated. Not impossible, certainly, but still not probable.

And what should increase concern for this case is that Blacklaw's lawyer said, "Alcohol took hold very quickly and she has absolutely no recollection of this incident." Some may assume that the lawyer merely said Blacklaw had no memory of what happened in order to take the guilt off her. Perhaps. But if that is the case, then the lawyer is taking credibility away from actual rape victims. And of course there are situations where alcohol may hit a person faster than they intend. But wouldn't a 31-year-old know that? Know not to drink on an empty stomach? Or not to do 10 shots in 10 minutes? And it is pretty safe to assume that if she was drunk enough to black out, she was in no position to give consent.

I am not saying this is a rape case. I am saying how am I the first person reading about this thinking something isn't right here.