Politico: Susanna Gibson's Online Sex Life Was Exposed

[Anonymous]

furthermore, voters should in fact know about stuff like this because if she wants it hidden, it becomes obvious blackmail material once she's in office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She intended it to be streamed in a private, adult setting.

Recording it was unethical.

Distributing the recording was unethical.

Publicizing it widely was unethical.

Sending screenshots & quotes of it to unsuspecting families in VA was unethical.

You may or may not agree with what she did, but there was a lot of other crap that happened that she is calling out.

Sorry but the pornography website through which she voluntarily steamed her sexual activities to strangers for money specifically requires pornographers (like her) to agree to its terms of use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

Ummm, yes, she posted the videos publically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

No subscription login payment is required. It’s completely open. Pornographers like her perform sexual acts for whoever wants to watch and people toss money at her if they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so odd that she suggests that a majority of millennial women have taken nude photos of any sort. Perhaps I'm just an unlucky guy.

There’s a big difference between talking a risky photo and sending it JUST to your long term partner, and performing live streamed sex acts for the public for $$$. If you and your partner break up and your ex leaks your private nudes, that’s revenge porn. She’s trying to muddy the waters by claiming having sex on live video chat accessible to Lord only knows who and then having the recordings leaked later is also revenge porn. It’s silly.

You are showing your age by using "risky".

I'm 38 and have probably two dozen pics of naked exes. I honestly can't think of a woman I've slept with that I don't have pic of. This is the norm.

I’m also 38 and have never taken a nude and have been married since I was 23. You also didn’t respond to the actual content of my post. Which I’m not surprised about since you are a man and clearly very capable of mansplaining.

No one your age will ever believe for a second that your husband doesn't have a nude picture of you. It might be true, but no one will believe you.

I disagree. There are many social circles in which this is not the norm. Either because of people’s innate beliefs about intimacy or because the consequences of exposure are too high to risk. Recently, my eldest who is 30 told me about a friend who was the victim of revenge porn posted by her ex fiancé . Everyone in their friend group assumed she was secretly taped and then surprised to learn the victim consented to making the video that was posted. These are not fundy young women. They just are media savvy.

[Anonymous]

Let’s not forget how her privilege allowed her to voluntarily participate in distributing pornography, quit, and then claim victimhood. Thousands of women do not have that option as they are trafficked and forced into the sex industry. They are the true victims, not her. It’s vile she continues with this line.

[Anonymous]

Onlyfans is not public. It's subscription. Could you have accessed them before someone recorded and copied them illegally?


It's no different than sending a pic meant just for your husband and him showing it to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

No subscription login payment is required. It’s completely open. Pornographers like her perform sexual acts for whoever wants to watch and people toss money at her if they want.

You clearly don't understand how OnlyFans works. That is where she posted the videos consensually. That business model is a subscription service. People subscribe to specific content creators. It's not PornHub.

Does your opinion of the situation change now that you are aware that these were NOT uploaded for public viewing?

Is your opinion entirely based on your feelings about what the content was and not on the mechanics of the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget how her privilege allowed her to voluntarily participate in distributing pornography, quit, and then claim victimhood. Thousands of women do not have that option as they are trafficked and forced into the sex industry. They are the true victims, not her. It’s vile she continues with this line.

Let's not start with the "who is a true victim" line of thinking. It's what excuses cops for asking if rape victims maybe shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt.

[Anonymous]

Every time I am on a stream, even on a private Zoom, I make sure I am dressed appropriately and speak appropriately, just in case somewhere, somehow I end up recorded and broadcast. How she could possibly think that she could run for office having streamed live sex acts biggest my mind. She must be the dumbest person on earth.

Maybe political parties should start asking candidates this question as part of the vetting process. If it's all fine and normal then they disclose and the party okays them and supports them. If they lie and such materials come to light the party withdraws support and candidate pays back any funding. That would protect people who just sent a few nudes to their SO which is what she's trying to lump herself in with.

[Anonymous]

Oh please Republicans your moms 4 Liberty threesome is way worse.

Let’s talk about that Bible thumping threesome wrecking our schools under the morality spotlight.

Hypocrisy to the max

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Onlyfans is not public. It's subscription. Could you have accessed them before someone recorded and copied them illegally?


It's no different than sending a pic meant just for your husband and him showing it to everyone.

Except she didn’t use only fans. She agreed to the terms of use of a different platform in order to perform pornography for money. She’s only a victim of her own stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget how her privilege allowed her to voluntarily participate in distributing pornography, quit, and then claim victimhood. Thousands of women do not have that option as they are trafficked and forced into the sex industry. They are the true victims, not her. It’s vile she continues with this line.

Let's not start with the "who is a true victim" line of thinking. It's what excuses cops for asking if rape victims maybe shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt.

No not sorry for pointing out that some UMC suburban woman wants to use her privileged access to a national platform to claim victimhood for VOLUNTARILY participating in an industry that relies on the exploitation of poor women, participates in human trafficking and forced sex for money. She was not forced or coerced in any way. She’s a victim of her own bad choices and simple narcissism.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea how this woman thought that she could create porn content for a subscription service and then run for political office without that fact being made known. The only way to survive that type of judgment error (a la Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian) is just to be brazen and own it. No whining.