I personally have a negative view of all of them (all acting stupidly) or a negative view of none of them (no one necessarily guilty if the misunderstanding was truly a misunderstanding). Whichever way you like to look at it. I don't assume there is a victim here at all and the only reason I have spoken up in the accused's defence (and he obviously does have a rational defence because a jury has found him to be innocent) is because the woman in question has been assumed the victim on evidence that is open to interpretation.
Ironically for a group that wants women to be strong and unfettered, feminists are very quick to read victims and villains into a situation when (as the jury has decided) there may well be other explanations.
Feminists on this board are also slow to encourage women to take practical action to protect themselves in the real world we're living in because in an ideal world they wouldn't have to take such action and they would prefer to hold their hands up in horror as women are raped than suggest there is such a thing as acting responsibly to stay safe. It should be obvious that it's possible to both be a completely innocent victim of rape and also to have possibly made choices that made one vulnerable to a rapist. It shouldn't be necessary to shut down any dialogue about safe, cautious behaviour on the grounds that such talk is apology for rape. It should be possible to talk about behaving sensibly in the real world we're living in without this seeming like an attack on victims of rape.
I wouldn't say the woman in question did anything 'wrong'. She was unwise to go home with a stranger, especially while very drunk. If the accused really did say 'go and meet X in the living room' she was unwise not to go and do that. Regardless, if she really was raped, she is no way responsible for that action having occurred. But she was still a participant in a chain of events that led to her being in a vulnerable situation. It is deeply ironic that a group claiming to care deeply about women are so protective of the concept of 'woman as victim' that it is taboo to recognise this.
The problem with getting on like this is that it eventually backfires against the group you're trying to protect. By all means, educate men - but don't expect more from them than you expect from women. To turn a scenario around, how is a woman supposed to know 100% that a man who has sex with her is of completely sound mind at the time? Is she equally responsible for ascertaining this? If she in any way 'helps' him to enter her by guiding his penis or moving her body downwards over his penis when he's inebriated, has she raped him? What if he decides the next day that, despite blanks in his memory of the event, he was not asked for consent and even if he had been, she should have known he was too drunk to give it? Is he within his rights to decide he was raped at that moment and define the event as rape in absolute terms? What if she disagrees?