Has there been a trial (either ecclesial or civil) with witnesses and proper process or just the jury of public perception? I am not aware of any such process running its course. Perhaps in the rush to judgement we could just keep repeating that the seriousness of the the charges trumps our commitment to judicial process.
Likewise we ought be slow to label someone as victim as we are to throw around the term abuser. In the Doug Phillips case there is much not known that may or may not justify the term victim. In fact there is an unanswered question whether the woman involved is the seductress and guilty of adultery with a man she knew was married. In Old testament jurisprudence that could be a capitol offense. That does not excuse the actions of Doug Phillips but it does change the perception of prejudicial terms like abuser and victim. Justice and deliberative process do not feed the feminist rage like the meme that men, especially patriarchal men, are evil beings who oppress poor helpless weak women who of course have no moral agency because men won't let them be strong, independent matriarchs.
Your whole "imagine" statement is a cavil and not a material fact. Your imagination is but a phobia exploited by many to destroy families and create prejudice against the very men that would defend and provide for the family.
Sounds like you are bringing a lot of preconceived baggage to the article that was a clear exposition of Biblical teaching on the subject, and not a trial transcript or tabloid fodder about those individuals, who were mentioned only in passing to introduce the topic. One wonders why anyone would take it so personally.
Whether Doug Phillips was the pursued or the pursuer, the victim label seems appropriate. Clearly if Doug Phillips seduced her, then she is a victim.
However, even if she were the seductress she might still be called a victim. If she was foolish enough to seduce a married man, doesn't DP still have some responsibility to try and correct her? Consider that DP was much older and presumably more mature (both emotionally and spiritually), her pastor, her employer, and a long-time family friend - each would impose on him the duty to try and correct her erroneous ways. None give him the right to take advantage of her and by doing so, he made her a victim. If she was a seductress, she needed help and DP violated her trust on several levels by not providing it. At a minimum, he should have stayed away from her if he couldn't provide this help.