A candidate in a high-stakes legislative contest in Virginia had sex with her husband in live videos posted on a pornographic website and asked viewers to pay them money in return for carrying out specific sex acts.
Screenshots of Susanna Gibson on the website were shared with The Associated Press. The campaign for Gibson, a Democrat running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in a district just outside Richmond, issued a statement Monday in which it denounced the sharing of the videos as a violation of the law and her privacy. Gibson called the exposure of the videos “the worst gutter politics.”
“It won’t intimidate me and it won’t silence me,” she said in the statement. “My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up.”
okay? a man and woman (or man/man, or woman/woman, or…) should be able to do what they want, as long as enthusiastic consent is given.
what’s up with everyone being enthusiastic these days? maybe the first time with someone new but most times it’s more like? eh, ok might be fun.
Where’s the problem? She and her husband were obviously consenting, the viewers were consenting.
Who the hell cares.
It was pretty vanilla sex between a married couple without a condom, the only kind of sex God likes. You’d think the Republicans would be thrilled.
Who cares
Old people and strict Catholics who unfortunately make up 120% of voters.
that statistic cannot be accurate. And yet it is… yet it is…
That’s gerrymandering and corporate lobbying for you.
The real controversy is that somehow Wapo and AP decided to assist a GOP operative in violating Virginia’s revenge porn laws
Chaturbate TOS:
You may not, download, reproduce, sell, rent, perform, or link to any content made available through the Platform, except as expressly permitted by the Community Member and/or Independent Broadcaster, as appropriate, responsible for such content or otherwise as permitted by the rules of the Platform.
Virginia revenge porn law:
Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
It’s clear from the TOS that unless Mrs. Gibson expressly permitted dissemination of the materials, that the sites on which they were reposted AND the GOP operative “had reason to know” that they were not licensed or authorized to disseminate the content. That said, it’s hard to prove malintent in a political context. GOP operative could simply argue that there was a public interest in this information being shared.
I’m pleased to find this as the top comment. It summarizes my reaction perfectly.
Did she break the law doing it? Hurt her husband? Hurt others? Did she scam people?
So she and her husband needed some side income and figured out a way to legally and non-harmfully monetize something they were already doing? So… you’re telling me she and her husband are, uh, enterprising? Probably Millennials? Horny for each other? Cool? What’s the story? Are the Republicans just going to breathlessly read off her resume now while their base hyperventilates?
Someone here did break the law: The GOP operative source and the Wapo and AP who are obstructing justice by hiding their identity
She probably didn’t break a law, but that may also depend on when and where this happened. Virginia passed a low that went into effect recently banning websites from showing content “not appropriate for children” without age verification. I doubt a user posting a video is responsible for it though, and the website may have required it (but some do not still).
That law came into effect two months ago, so if she was violating the law, it was by posting in the last two months on a non-compliant website which she would have had to personally run (since liability for that would fall on the site owners, as you alluded to).
So, uh, it’s basically guaranteed she didn’t break the law and nobody’s alluding to actual lawbreaking.
Erections have consequences.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The campaign for Gibson, a Democrat running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in a district just outside Richmond, issued a statement Monday in which it denounced the sharing of the videos as a violation of the law and her privacy.
“My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up.”
The revelation marked an explosive turn in a contest that will carry significant weight in determining the balance of power in the Virginia General Assembly.
Watkins cited a 2021 Virginia Court of Appeals ruling that found it was unlawful for a man to secretly record his girlfriend during a consensual sexual encounter even if he did not show the video to other people.
Gibson, 40, a nurse practitioner and married mother of two young children, won a Democratic primary in June and is running against Republican businessman David Owen in one of the most competitve districts in the state.
Gibson had an account on Chaturbate, a legal website where viewers can watch live webcam performances that feature nudity and sexual activity, according to the screenshots reviewed by the AP.
The original article contains 739 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Oh gosh this is absolutely terrible.
Where?
I’m betting OnlyFans and I have no idea why the AP is being so prudish about it.
The issue is that the videos were deleted from the original site and are now being hosted elsewhere without her consent.
Chaturbate is mentioned.
I could not care less about such a thing when it comes to a candidate and I wish no one else would either.
i think it’s a positive
If she was anti porn it would be an issue. If she bill herself as a “good Christian”, it would be an issue. If it was legal, so what? Porn-loving self professed Christians likely won’t vote for her though.
She’s being accused of…having sex with her husband lmfao
Now let’s cut to a montage of all the elected men who fucked around on their spouses and had no consequences
Let’s start with Trump. Although he may actually face some consequences on that front for once.
Yet if she was advocating for guns and straight-up shooting political competitors, and a GOP, she’d be feted as ‘standing up for American values’.
Oh God, how dare we elect a sexual deviant!
And?
They (the GOP) Had no problems with Melania Trump’s naked photos and infact praised her for being so “bold and beautiful” 🤮🤢 but they have a problem with a (“one”) Man and (“One”) women who are married to each other hosting naked photos of themselves… and they do not realize the leopards feasting on their faces? Or is that shock and adrenaline keeping them from noticing lmao 🤣😂 fuck the hypocritical GOP fascist…
When she gets a campaign donation does a bell ring and she says “ohhh thank you baby?”
Conservatives are judt weirded out because their sex scandals involve rape/children.
The only difference between this and other sex scandals that Republicans have ignored is that in this case the woman consented. I’m therefore forced to conclude that they believe consent is the problem. Men can rape all they want because men are dumb animals who just grab women by the pussy and have no actual moral agency, and a woman being raped isn’t an issue because she didn’t want to do it and is therefore “morally intact”. Sex is only a scandal if it’s not straight, or if the woman consents. Both of those represent wilfull violations of the rules of their death cult, and must be punished.
