The news is full of women accusing men in high places of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct.
The misconduct IS WRONG.   :cussing:

HOWEVER, what is the difference between prostitution where a woman accepts money for sex, to live on  and a woman keeping silent so she can keep her job and further her career?  

I fully realize one does so willingly and probably unashamedly but... the other makes a conscious decision to remain silent and accept future abuse because of future benefits:  then years later when she has received those benefits she hollers rape or sɛҳuąƖ abuse when she may again financially benefit because the perp is now a millionaire

What is the difference.....am I missing something?    


Of course if the victim was a minor it's a totally different scenario.
And I am addressing high profile individuals not abuse within family circles etc.

I have thought along the same line.  These women have traded their dignity (or more) in order for a chance to be famous and wealthy.  They did have the option to walk away but they valued fame and money more than their dignity.  

These women can't say that they have kids to feed so were forced to become TV/movie stars to keep food on the table, unlike a working class woman who does have to put up with a lecherous boss because she needs her job to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

The TV/Movie industry has long been know to be a cesspool, why would these women choose to even go there in the first place?  Ambition. Avarice.

That's not to excuse the behavior of any of the guilty men, they are scuмbags, but women in the entertainment field know they are scuмbags yet continue to throw themselves in their paths. 

I save my sympathy for true victims.

And many are forced into prostitution, particularly by coyotes.

(for those not from the SW "coyotes" is slang for human smugglers who bring people up from Mexico)

Where does this stuff end though? The lecherous dirtbags need to be smacked down, yet the whole thing is taking on the flavor of a witch hunt. A person's whole reputation and career ruined because he's accused of goosing a gal decades ago? And with no proof? (Not talking Weinstien here) I'm not sure how justice can be doled out in many of these cases.

I still have a problem with this.  If she keeps silent is she condoning his actions?  And also by staying is she becoming an occasion of sin for him? and thereby herself?
Should she not seek employment elsewhere?  or report him?
A damned if she does and damned if she doesn't situation.

I agree, but a woman may not see a way out, especially if there are limited employment opportunities in her small town.  I would hope that a woman who finds herself in that position would find a new job as soon as possible, probably easier to do in a big city than a small town.
I don't think the woman is any way an occasion of sin for the lecher though, he is the sinner, not her.

The world is full of whore like women. Look at the trash that marched in DC with vulgar filthy signs with pink knitted vagina hats on their heads.  They even marched with their children. So many children are abused now more than ever.  There are women pushing sex into their children when they should be arrested and charged with child abuse. 

I think you are remembering this incorrectly.  According to publicly available information, Bishop Moreno retired at 72 due to ill health and died three years later.   Everyone seems to agree that he was a good man but poor administrator who did not deal well with cases of sɛҳuąƖ abuse by priests.  Settlements with victims were a major cause of the bankruptcy. They paid out a huge amount.  There were serious problems in the diocese, but I cannot find any accounts of him managing a prostitution ring.  It seems greatly out of character with everything else known about him.

Songbird, I am disappointed that you have neither explained your comments about Bishop Moreno nor retracted them.  I see that you have logged into the forum since I posted this, so it seems likely you would have seen it.

The more serious the accusation made against a person the more careful we need to be about being accurate.  It is wrong to state some vaguely remembered rumour without any attempt to verify it.  It can be a serious sin to harm the reputation of another.  

St. Thomas wrote in the Summa,

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)] [/color]Nevertheless it happens sometimes that a man utters words, whereby someone's [/size]good name is tarnished, and yet he does not intend this, but something else. This is not backbiting strictly and formally speaking, but only materially and accidentally as it were. And if such defamatory words be uttered for the sake of some necessary good, and with attention to the due circuмstances, it is not a sin and cannot be called backbiting. But if they be uttered out of lightness of heart or for some unnecessary motive, it is not a mortal sin, unless perchance the spoken word be of such a grave nature, as to cause a notable injury to a man's good name, especially in matters pertaining to his moral character, because from the very nature of the words this would be a mortal sin. And one is bound to restore a man his good name, no less than any other thing one has taken from him, in the manner stated above (II-II:62:2) when we were treating of restitution.

(pars secunda pars secundae quaestio 73)