Finally, it's important to note that I think very highly of men. Now, if most men thought like I believe Buck clearly stated he thinks - that if a woman drinks around a man and/or invites him to her place or goes to his, she is consenting to sex - then I certainly would have been raped often. Luckily, most men know that in fact, that does not constitute consent. I feel that if you cannot be with a man and drink with him, and then be alone with him either at his place, yours, or in a hotel, without him assuming this means you said yes to whatever acts he decides to commit, then he isn't much of a man.
I believe, that it's clear that anyone, man or woman (and many, many women perpetuate this crap) who believes that a woman who enters a man's home, or invites him into hers, and has been drinking or whatever, has consented to sex, is saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men. That boys will be boys, because that's how they are, they can't control themselves. It's up to the woman to control them, and that means, don't tempt them.
That's a very low view of men. Men are not animals, they're human beings. Most of them are fully capable of conducting themselves as such. And men who do rape, know full well that they're rapists. THat's what they get off on. All of the distractions about, oh she wanted it, and she was drunk, and look what she was wearing - that's all bullshit. THey know they raped her. That's how they like it. They get off on rape. Not sex. And they count on apologists of both genders to keep them from going to jail, or even being charged, or even of having the woman they raped be strong enough to call it what it is.