It is certainly deeply unpleasant if someone is frightened to tell their creepy boss to shove off in case it affects their job.

But how is the boss supposed to know that they are not enthusiastically joining in if they go through the motions and say nothing?
Are they expected to read minds?

Also, I know the law is the law blah blah, But in MY OPINION, even if you have the threat of losing your job, if you choose to have sex with your boss instead of refusing and maybe having to be a bus conductor or cleaner instead, it is still your choice.

I am not defending anyone who takes advantage of those who they have some power over. It is thoroughly vile. But hardly the same as brutal rape, murder, and child abuse. Yet these perpetrators are often given a similar sentence to those committing the Harvey Weinstein type of crime.

Weinstein was convicted of rape honey. Where do you draw the distinction between rape and "brutal rape"? At what point on a continuum of aggression does it occur? Your scenario involves consent, rape doesn't, by definition; unless statutory, due to age, which was not the case here...

You say you aren't "defending" him but you are. Maybe you are correct and he is not guilty of rape but "mild coercion".

But as with your point about his wider reputation being unknown: how can you know that either?

wyot wrote:
Weinstein was convicted of rape honey. Where do you draw the distinction between rape and "brutal rape"? At what point on a continuum of aggression does it occur? Your scenario involves consent, rape doesn't, by definition; unless statutory, due to age, which was not the case here...

You say you aren't "defending" him but you are. Maybe you are correct and he is not guilty of rape but "mild coercion".

But as with your point about his wider reputation being unknown: how can you know that either?

How does the court?

My definition of a brutal rape is one where the victim does not take part in it.
In my opinion, this trivialises rape "as we have known it".
It is not the same.