In that excerpt, Amy Peikoff was referring to the comments of Erosophia blogger Jason Stotts from his post Contra-Peikoff on Rape. From the introduction to that post:
"I think that Leonard Peikoff has done some great things for Objectivism, he is like a demi-Aquinas, but when he talks about sex and sexual issues, it makes me really sad. Frankly, his position on rape is both disgraceful and disgusting. I don’t know how anyone of good moral character or intelligence could actually advocate what Peikoff advocated. It is made much worse because Peikoff is someone I respect and I did not expect him to hold such a reprehensible view of rape.
Leonard Peikoff believes that if a woman were to come to a man’s house late at night, dressed sexily, and perhaps drunk, that he should just be able to use her a fuck-toy, even if she says no. Even if she says no. He thinks that the context is sufficient consent and that any other consent is unnecessary. Furthermore, he believes that this consent cannot be withdrawn, which is the most troubling part of his claim.
Ultimately, the only thing that differentiates sex from rape is consent and just because a person initially gives some kind of consent, does not mean that this consent cannot be withdrawn.
I really hope that Peikoff just wasn’t thinking clearly when he said this and that he will recant his statement after reflection."
Jason's analysis in the rest of his post is essentially correct. He has already taken heat for the harsh tone of his post, Amy Peikoff being one heat source.