Well sure. That's obvious. But Weinstein's defense is that they gave him plenty of assurances that it was all consensual. Using the word "love" is just part of the hint.

Let's put it a different way: would you work for a rapist or a sexual harrasser? Would you condone it? That's what these women chose to do. And they were more certain of this fact than anyone else.

The guy was known throughout Hollywood to be someone you wouldn't leave a friend alone with because he might well rape her. So, yeah, it's possible he was sincerely confused by affectionate text messages... but it's a lot more likely he's a manipulative sociopath who knew how to get his victims to damage their ability to accuse him in the future.

I wouldn't work for a rapist or sexual harasser, but I know plenty of people who care more about their careers and they probably would. That doesn't justify raping or sexually harassing them. And even if they tried to mitigate the damage to their careers by playing along with the abuse, that would still not justify or mitigate the abuse.

I just want to point out what you're in favor of:

1) Lying to a lover. 2) Lying to a boss. 3) Covering up a boss's misbehavior. 4) Doing all of this for money.

Somehow you seem to think that Weinstein's behavior makes it all acceptable to do these things. Really?

And if it was known throughout Hollywood that he was terrible, well, why did they women take the job in the first place? They certainly should have known, right?

It's remarkable that you can hear stories of the form "my boss is raping/harassing me, and I'm terrified of him so I play along to protect myself" and characterize the victim as "lying" to "cover up misbehavior" "for money".

Harvey Weinstein has no agency in your version. He's not a sex addict narcissist who uses his power to make or break movie careers to manipulate and abuse and rape women. He's just a "lover" and "boss" whose greedy, ambitious, slutty employees are out to seduce him.