i actually don't think i've commented on this since some more information has come out.

frankly, with the weinstein case and other cases like it, there are two scenarios that need to be separated:

1) situations where he blocked entrances or otherwise prevented disengagement. he should be charged with rape in these circumstances.
2) situations where he coerced sex in exchange for favours. in these situations, what he is actually doing is soliciting prostitution. and, the women involved need to acknowledge that they engaged in a form of prostitution - they consented to sex in exchange for career advancement.

the idea that they were unable to consent due to a power imbalance is neither consistent with any kind of feminism i'm aware of nor coherent in the context of english legal traditions. it's some kind of application of foucault's theory of power, in a way that denies women basic agency - which would be expected of foucault, as he was not a feminist.

in the first situation, i support full prosecution. rape is never ok.

in the second situation, we need to ask ourselves whether we want to enforce laws against prostitution or not. is this a situation where women should be free to make this choice on their own, or should this be considered criminal behaviour? should we be prosecuting both sides of this, or focusing solely on the johns?

personally, this is the kind of prostitution that i'm broadly not opposed to, as there is largely a real choice involved. where i am opposed to prostitution is when it is a false choice - a choice between prostitution and paying rent, for example.