I'm sorry that your experience of it wasn't the safe refuge that I think it ought to be.
It may be (by which I mean, "I've read rumours from a perhaps-biased or one-sided source that this is so, but I have no personal experience with it") that the community in question does not have a sufficiently effective institutional mechanism to resolve this sort of problem -- I don't know, for example, whether there's a higher authority you can complain to, nor what the principle motive or policy of that "higher authority" might be, or a way to make a formal complaint with effective resolution.
I'm not sure why your friends are preaching compassion; I can imagine it might be:
- Parroting doctrine
- Wanting to sweep negative publicity under the rug
- Not accepting the way in which you framed the story
- Trying to ease or appease your mind (e.g. here or here)
Of these, only the fourth seems to me really worthy.
Andrei's answer points to the third (I'm not saying that he's wrong, I think his answer is subsequent to or informed by some of his own training which I'm not familiar with).
I suppose that if and/or when you resolve this experience, then you may review it from other perspectives -- but perhaps doing that is a result of a "cure", not a cause of a cure -- i.e. even if it (the cure or resolution) is desirable, I couldn't recommend "see it from another perspective" as a prescription or therapy. I'm not even saying it's a bad therapy, just that I couldn't meaningfully prescribe it here, and people's trying to casually say that (e.g. "review it with more compassion") might be like saying, unhelpfully, "just get over it, see it differently, from another perspective".
Also, it seems to me that the most important part of any offence-then-apology, i.e. of any apology, is an assurance that the offence won't recur -- for example, "I'm sorry that I hurt you, and I won't do it again, so you can feel safe now." I guess that without (or even with) that kind of reassurance you're in a state of heightened alert, hence your saying "I am struggling to stay with my own experience now, as my need for safety has become tenfold", and Tenzin Dorje's mentioning PTSD.
I think a symptom of PTSD is reliving the experience, and that (past) experience having unwholesome influence on your perception of the present.
Would it help to get advice, are you able to, have you had advice, on what to do to escape or avoid a repeat of that experience?
As for whether it's skilful to continue, I've no easy answer. Are you learning from it, does it benefit you? Does your participation benefit others? If you can't answer whether your input is skilful, can you assess whether it's virtuous? Would it be "praised by the wise"? It seems to me that you can't necessarily control other people's behaviour, you may be able to control your own (see also for example an alcoholic relationship, or abusive domestic/romantic relationships).
Also there's ideal behaviour, for example I think the Punna Sutta is an example of:
- A semi-enlightened person
- Going to benefit others (like a Bodhisattva might)
- Practising the Brahmaviharas (in this case, I think, surprisingly, mudita) if or when assaulted
I find it an admirable story, and find it difficult to see him as an overwhelmed or coerced victim in that situation. On the other hand I don't think it's good to feel like a victim, and it may well be unskillful to remain in (or to seek) a situation in which you do feel like a victim. On the third hand the world is something of a dangerous place, including some unskillful and abusive people. Perhaps you need to find a[ny] way to become more independent (of such people), less subject to coercion.
As the community's reaction to your situation, you said that they advised you to "bring compassion", but you didn't say what their advice or response was to the other Mitra, except that you said that they "seem to tolerate sexual misconduct".
I think your question i.e. "give my energy to this Sangha that seems to tolerate sexual misconduct?" asks for our assessment or judgement on their tolerance.
"Coercion" doesn't sound right to me, even intolerable, an abuse that ought to be addressed. In a normal social context (e.g. the workplace) that even sounds criminal, illegal.
In case you didn't know, it's easy to find published critical commentary (e.g. here or here).
Beware that I found this criticism as a result of searching for it: so I presume it's a one-sided view almost by definition.
As for being a victim, you wrote, "I have within the last five months been a victim of sexual coercion and minor abuse" and "I don't wish to call myself a victim".
I'm not sure what you mean.
On the one hand, I respect it -- I think that calling yourself a victim, "I am a victim", can be an example of a self-view, a view that can lead to long-term suffering -- both in general (e.g. "I don't like my life, life is unfair, and I can't do anything about it") and more specifically (in the case of abuse, violence, post-trauma).
I'm also inclined to agree with Tenzin Dorje's answer -- an enlightened response might include (not be instead of) involving the police and/or a professional counsellor (or, who knows, perhaps your family doctor for advice or a referral).
See also here again -- I think this is one of the reasons for Buddhism's teaching about anatta, though judging by the number of questions on that topic it's not an easy doctrine to teach.