...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....

Article 130 - NY Penal Law (click here)

S 130.50 Criminal sexual act in the first degree.
 A person is guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree when he
or she engages in oral  sexual  conduct  or  anal  sexual  conduct  with
another person:
  1. By forcible compulsion; or
  2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
or
  3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
  4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years
old or more.
  Criminal sexual act in the first degree is a class B felony.

S 130.30 Rape in the second degree.
  A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when:
  1. being eighteen years old or more, he or she engages in sexual
intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old; or
  2. he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is
incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally
incapacitated.
  It shall be an affirmative defense to the crime of rape in the second
degree as defined in subdivision one of this section that the defendant
was less than four years older than the victim at the time of the act.
  Rape in the second degree is a class D felony.
New York State Sentencing Guidelines (click here)

...The judge (click here) then announced that Mr. Weinstein would immediately be sent to jail to await his sentencing. But as court officers approached him, the producer seemed stunned and refused to move.Moments later, he was handcuffed and removed from the room, limping with two officers standing by his side....

A couple of things come to mind. The reason he was sent to jail is that he is a flight risk, but, judges don't normally sentence people to jail following a verdict until they expect them to be serving a jail/prison sentence at the time of sentencing. Harvey Weinstein is going to jail for his crimes.

Regarding the sentencing; it is not specified as to whether the crimes are considered violent or not because that has an effect on the sentence. The sexual act in the first degree (Class B) is more serious than second degree rape (Class D).

Is consent a defense to sex crimes? (click here)

Answer

Yes, where the victim's lack of consent is based solely on incapacity to consent because he/she was mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant, at the time he or she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, did not know of the facts or conditions responsible for such incapacity to consent. New York Penal Law §130.10.

Women are not sex objects in the work place or in work related relationships and have to be taken seriously when the word "no" is stated. No is no. Women, in many instances cannot fend off an attack. Being given the choice of working or moving forward in promotion based on sexual acts to those that hold power creates an understanding of helplessness as well.

Interestingly, in the State of New York, marriage is a value that brings about a better standing of a victim's claims, too. The lawn treats marriage seriously when such demands for sex acts are part of the unspoken work standard.

"Joyful Heart Foundation"

...While this page describes (click here) effects survivors often experience, it is not exhaustive. If a survivor’s reactions do not match common responses—such as no physical injury—it does not mean what happened was not sexual abuse or assault. No one is alone in their healing process. There are resources to help along the restorative pathway to healing....