Politico: Susanna Gibson's Online Sex Life Was Exposed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Does your opinion of yourself change knowing that you are just making stuff up?

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

She did not put it on the other website for public viewing. Some a$$wipe did that. AFTER she entered the race. Very telling.

She operated a chat room on a chaturbate which is a public website.

There are people who then archive all those public chats in real time (a quick search suggest “archivebate” is one if you want to take a look). She was not singled out for archiving.

No, it was a private forum on an adult website. Not a public site.

She was live streaming in a private “room” on an adult website. Someone actively decided to record her via screen recording. Then that person uploaded their recording of her to a different website AFTER her campaign started. That person recorded and distributed a video of her with malicious intent and without her direct consent.

She was dumb to do this and run for office but this other person acted unethically.

Again, as posted above she was in a public chat room. There are websites that archive all of those chat rooms, not just hers.

In that recording she offered to go to private chat room for cash. See this helpful primer from the chaturbate website!

https://support.chaturbate.com/hc/en-us/articles/360035946951-How-do-I-start-a-private-show-

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was exposed... by her and her husband.

+1
Perhaps she should have thought about privacy issues before performing porn for tips online. My tiny little violin will play a mournful tune for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get her shock. She had uploaded over FIFTEEN videos herself live streaming. This wasn’t one video. This wasn’t a hacked video from her iPhone.

She is so dumb it’s sad.

[phone]

[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.

The only thing she should be calling out is her own incredibly irresponsible and STUPID behavior in making online porn videos in the first place. That you won't acknowledge this tells us everything we need to know.

[Anonymous]

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?

Oh, Susanna - we're all crying for you.

[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.

+1
agree with this. Political games have gone to the gutter. 2 wrongs. She put the videos out there but the GOP is exploiting and disseminating them not to be enjoyed as porn but to shame her

[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.

+1
We all (hopefully) tell our kids the moment they post something online, it's not theirs anymore. It belongs to the public sphere, for better or for worse. Clearly, Susanna neglected to take this lesson to heart. I wonder if she'll be educating her own children on what NOT to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only thing she should be calling out is her own incredibly irresponsible and STUPID behavior in making online porn videos in the first place. That you won't acknowledge this tells us everything we need to know.

I already called it stupid and poor judgment.

And there is some POS who recorded it and uploaded it to a public website.

[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.

DP. You cannot be serious. How insulting to claim this woman - who voluntarily (and enthusiastically) filmed herself and husband in porn videos and then uploaded them onto the internet - is in any way a "victim." It's just disgusting and pathetic that you would make this claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Oh, I love it when LWNJs embarrass themselves with complete analogy fails. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Does your opinion of yourself change knowing that you are just making stuff up?

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

Barf. So disgusting. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the usual suspects are defending this... person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You cannot be serious. How insulting to claim this woman - who voluntarily (and enthusiastically) filmed herself and husband in porn videos and then uploaded them onto the internet - is in any way a "victim." It's just disgusting and pathetic that you would make this claim.

She live streamed it.

It wasn’t a recording until someone else (who didn’t worry much about consent) recorded it and then uploaded it to a public site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know Gibson lost and the other thread was closed. But she just gave an interview to Politico and is framing this as a revenge porn situation. I voted for her, but didn't she willingly film herself on a porn site? I'm surprised that fact got scrubbed from this article:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/09/susanna-gibson-virginia-digital-privacy-00130883

She did but the political slut shaming was disgusting and she was robbed of control of her own narrative. But conservatives are revolting, disgusting shit stains on society so it’s sort of par for the course.

"Her own narrative"?? What on earth are you nattering about? Her "narrative" is online, for all to see. Because SHE PUT IT THERE. You clearly need therapy.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Does your opinion of yourself change knowing that you are just making stuff up?

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

Barf. So disgusting. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the usual suspects are defending this... person.

She’s a person. I know you don’t think women are real people, but she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You cannot be serious. How insulting to claim this woman - who voluntarily (and enthusiastically) filmed herself and husband in porn videos and then uploaded them onto the internet - is in any way a "victim." It's just disgusting and pathetic that you would make this claim.

She live streamed it.

It wasn’t a recording until someone else (who didn’t worry much about consent) recorded it and then uploaded it to a public site.

She should never have filmed porn and put it online in the first place. Sorry not sorry. That's what happens - isn't that what you tell your kids??