I've been following the reporting on this situation, and I think people need to make an important distinction here.

As of right now, there is absolutely no publicly substantiated evidence that Jensen Huang used his position as CEO to pressure, coerce, or threaten any of these women into having sexual relationships with him. There have been no reported allegations of quid pro quo arrangements, career advancement being contingent on sex, threats of retaliation, or employees being punished for rejecting his advances.

What has been reported is that he allegedly had multiple extramarital relationships, including with women who worked under him. That's certainly a corporate ethics issue, particularly given the inherent power imbalance between a CEO and his subordinates. But it is not automatically evidence of sexual exploitation.

As far as the publicly available reporting establishes, these were relationships, and there is no established evidence that they were anything other than consensual. We shouldn't manufacture victims or invent allegations simply because we disapprove of someone's personal conduct.

You can criticize Huang for infidelity, poor executive judgment, and potentially serious conflicts of interest without escalating the story into sexual coercion allegations that nobody has actually substantiated.

There's a pretty significant difference between having an affair with an employee and holding someone's career hostage in exchange for sex. Let's not pretend those are the same thing.