...Ms. Mann and Ms. Haley (click here) both acknowledged that they continued to see Mr. Weinstein after the alleged assaults and later had consensual sex with him, testimony that complicated the prosecution’s case.

I don't believe the law is clear in that this is mental oppression of self-expression. The women were REQUIRED to maintain their sexual availability which was an extension of the initial rape. 

The truth was they were not involved with a consensual relationship so much as ECONOMICALLY ENFORCED relationship with Mr. Weinstein. The reason was an honest one, they submit to sexual acts, in understanding it was a condition of their professional status. Whether that was a condition of "the culture" of their profession is another question, but, it was clear to both these women their professional status hung on a SPECIAL CONDITION they did not consent to so much as submit to, regardless of their rewards for remaining "sexually available."

There is a huge difference between "sexual availability" and a relation that sustains and respects the word "no," even within the relationship. A wife or a husband has a right to refuse sexual acts within a relationship. That applies to most sustained relationships. In the case of the "sexual availability" of professional women, there is no saying no.

Justice Burke allowed the prosecution to call four women as witnesses to corroborate the five charges stemming from Ms. Mann’s and Ms. Haley’s claims against Mr. Weinstein.

One of those witnesses was Ms. Sciorra, who says she was raped by Mr. Weinstein nearly 30 years ago in her Manhattan apartment. She was called to support the charges of predatory sexual assault, which require proving that a defendant attacked at least two victims. The jury ultimately did not convict Mr. Weinstein on those counts.

The three other women were permitted to testify to bolster the prosecution’s contention that Mr. Weinstein engaged over time in a pattern of sexually abusive behavior....