VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it illegal? No. It is weird? Yes.

Prostitution is illegal here are some quotes it eludes to campaign fund raising

Gibson tells her husband: 'Ill let you f*** me in the a** doggy style in a private room if someone wants to pay. That's the deal.'

At another point she says: 'Y'all can watch me pee if you tip me and some tokens, again I'm raising money for a good cause.'

At another, Gibson explains she is in an open relationship with her husband even though he 'doesn't like sharing.'

Her husband, attorney John David Gibson, then says: 'Sometimes I have to though. She makes me.'

'I've had three in a day actually,' she says at another point. 'Don't tell my husband he was the third.'

'I’m married and I think the person I’m married to is amazing. But I love sex. I always have I always will. I don’t think that when you are in love with someone it means that you don’t want to f*** other people. Like love and sex are not mutually exclusive right,' Gibson explains of her marriage.

In many of the videos, Gibson urges viewers to provider her tips in the form of 'tokens' and promises to take viewers into a private online room for the right price.

'Y'all I need more tips ... They want anal and missionary but I'm only doing it if they're in a private room.'

'Racking up one token left and right, any more? I'm raising money for a really good cause,' she says at one point. It's unclear if she meant she was raising money for her campaign.

I’m speechless.

+1
She is utter and complete trash.

I think she has an untreated mental health issue.

[Anonymous]

Don’t all criminals have mental health issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is she out campaigning or not?

Would you shake her hand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Exactly. Giving an adulterous handjob while getting your fake boobs groped in front of a public theater full of children is a lot worse than a private subscription-only website for adults. Extra low-class points for cussing out the theater staff and flipping them the bird when the staff asked her to take it elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Exactly. Giving an adulterous handjob while getting your fake boobs groped in front of a public theater full of children is a lot worse than a private subscription-only website for adults. Extra low-class points for cussing out the theater staff and flipping them the bird when the staff asked her to take it elsewhere.

Whataboutism. That's your official position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's gonna lose. Her poor kids will never be able to live this down. Imagine going grocery shopping and everyone knows this about you.

I feel bad for her but at the same time she CHOSE to run for office and should have known that online sex tapes were gonna be used against her. She tried to have her cake and eat it too. Shows a serious lack of judgement and David Owen is inoffensive R.

A poll came out showing her 11 points down which is just bleak. Nearly 80% of voters are aware of the scandal as well.

+1 but I don't feel bad for her at all. What kind of truly stupid person would do this?

But her response has been to claim she and her husband are the victims here.

Are they victims?

You can say that they should have known better, but technically they were victimized. Someone recorded without their consent and then distributed it.

They had no reasonable expectation of privacy when they self published their live streams, FIFTEEN TIMES. They have no case. I would still vote for her if I was in her district bc I’m worried about abortion laws. But she and her husband are both idiots.

Yes, they were idiots for doing it and for not thinking people would record without their consent.

I’ll take a harmless idiot over a monster who wants to take away my rights and who wants to hurt LBGTQ kids.

That's the spirit! Vote for my candidate, a harmless idiot.

Vote for the candidate who will protect women and LGBTQ.

I guess if you’re homophobe misogynist then she’s not the candidate for you.

Ah, the false, binary choice argument. Got anything else?

Either you want to protect women’s right or you don’t. It’s not complicated.

So, you're a single issue voter. I am too.

So, you don’t value women’s autonomy. Noted.

Women have no special, privileged status that makes them exempt from the government's laws and regulations.

They are real people who deserve the same rights as others. You don’t care if they lose their lives and liberty.

Yes, you have just as much right to your body as I do to mine. Does that include vaccines or is it "That's different!"?

No one physically forced you to get a vaccine. You wouldn't be charged with a crime if you didn't get one. F off.

Yet.

Such hysterics. Grow TF up.

Women are real people who deserve the same rights as others. Life, liberty, and happiness for starters.

You don't have unlimited personal rights.

I have the right to control my own body.

No, you don't. The law has clearly established that in numerous ways.

The law violates my personal rights.

True. There are quite a few people in prison. Their right to liberty has been abrogated by laws. Are you suggesting laws are invalid if they violate your personal rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban Richmond.......

A Virginia Democratic candidate running for the commonwealth’s House of Delegates is being accused of performing sex acts with her husband in front of an online audience and encouraging viewers to send them "tip" money.

Nurse practitioner Susanna Gibson, who is running in a competitive race in suburban Richmond for the House of Delegates in the 57th district, reportedly used a platform called Chaturbate to stream sex acts with her husband.

Gibson, a 40-year-old mother of two, is said to have posted more than a dozen videos that were archived on a site called Recurbate in September 2022, which is after she officially entered the race, and the most recent videos were archived on Sept. 30, 2022, The Washington Post reported Monday.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-democrat-candidate-posted-sex-acts-husband-online-soliciting-tips-report

How old are her two children?

Did she drop out yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

I am not sure you understand the words you are using.

I’ll spell it out for you since you seem a little slow. One person was physically in a public place with children present. People there didn’t consent to see them fondling each other.

The other was online in a private group of consenting adults.

Republicans struggle with the concept of consent. You think you can do whatever you want to others without their consent.

I'm slow? I am not the one suggesting an online stream with paying strangers is private. Again, your argument here is whataboutism. My candidate is slightly less of an immoral shill?

As a member of society, your personal consent to every law is not required. You can't pick and choose which ones you like. It's not a menu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's gonna lose. Her poor kids will never be able to live this down. Imagine going grocery shopping and everyone knows this about you.

I feel bad for her but at the same time she CHOSE to run for office and should have known that online sex tapes were gonna be used against her. She tried to have her cake and eat it too. Shows a serious lack of judgement and David Owen is inoffensive R.

A poll came out showing her 11 points down which is just bleak. Nearly 80% of voters are aware of the scandal as well.

+1 but I don't feel bad for her at all. What kind of truly stupid person would do this?

But her response has been to claim she and her husband are the victims here.

Are they victims?

You can say that they should have known better, but technically they were victimized. Someone recorded without their consent and then distributed it.

They had no reasonable expectation of privacy when they self published their live streams, FIFTEEN TIMES. They have no case. I would still vote for her if I was in her district bc I’m worried about abortion laws. But she and her husband are both idiots.

Yes, they were idiots for doing it and for not thinking people would record without their consent.

I’ll take a harmless idiot over a monster who wants to take away my rights and who wants to hurt LBGTQ kids.

That's the spirit! Vote for my candidate, a harmless idiot.

Vote for the candidate who will protect women and LGBTQ.

I guess if you’re homophobe misogynist then she’s not the candidate for you.

Ah, the false, binary choice argument. Got anything else?

Either you want to protect women’s right or you don’t. It’s not complicated.

So, you're a single issue voter. I am too.

So, you don’t value women’s autonomy. Noted.

Women have no special, privileged status that makes them exempt from the government's laws and regulations.

They are real people who deserve the same rights as others. You don’t care if they lose their lives and liberty.

Yes, you have just as much right to your body as I do to mine. Does that include vaccines or is it "That's different!"?

No one physically forced you to get a vaccine. You wouldn't be charged with a crime if you didn't get one. F off.

Yet.

Such hysterics. Grow TF up.

Women are real people who deserve the same rights as others. Life, liberty, and happiness for starters.

You don't have unlimited personal rights.

I have the right to control my own body.

I’m sure you can find docs who will paralyze you or blind you if you paid enough? Is that what you want to be able to control?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

I am not sure you understand the words you are using.

I’ll spell it out for you since you seem a little slow. One person was physically in a public place with children present. People there didn’t consent to see them fondling each other.

The other was online in a private group of consenting adults.

Republicans struggle with the concept of consent. You think you can do whatever you want to others without their consent.

I'm slow? I am not the one suggesting an online stream with paying strangers is private. Again, your argument here is whataboutism. My candidate is slightly less of an immoral shill?

As a member of society, your personal consent to every law is not required. You can't pick and choose which ones you like. It's not a menu.

Yes, you’re slow. I do not consent to having Republicans performing sexual acts in front of my kids. I do not consent to you forcing your religious beliefs on me. I do not consent to you making medical decisions without my (or my doctor’s) consent.

The extremists in the SCOTUS went against the will of the people. Most people in VA don’t want more restrictions on abortions.

Stop trying to force yourself on everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's gonna lose. Her poor kids will never be able to live this down. Imagine going grocery shopping and everyone knows this about you.

I feel bad for her but at the same time she CHOSE to run for office and should have known that online sex tapes were gonna be used against her. She tried to have her cake and eat it too. Shows a serious lack of judgement and David Owen is inoffensive R.

A poll came out showing her 11 points down which is just bleak. Nearly 80% of voters are aware of the scandal as well.

+1 but I don't feel bad for her at all. What kind of truly stupid person would do this?

But her response has been to claim she and her husband are the victims here.

Are they victims?

You can say that they should have known better, but technically they were victimized. Someone recorded without their consent and then distributed it.

They had no reasonable expectation of privacy when they self published their live streams, FIFTEEN TIMES. They have no case. I would still vote for her if I was in her district bc I’m worried about abortion laws. But she and her husband are both idiots.

Yes, they were idiots for doing it and for not thinking people would record without their consent.

I’ll take a harmless idiot over a monster who wants to take away my rights and who wants to hurt LBGTQ kids.

That's the spirit! Vote for my candidate, a harmless idiot.

Vote for the candidate who will protect women and LGBTQ.

I guess if you’re homophobe misogynist then she’s not the candidate for you.

Ah, the false, binary choice argument. Got anything else?

Either you want to protect women’s right or you don’t. It’s not complicated.

So, you're a single issue voter. I am too.

So, you don’t value women’s autonomy. Noted.

Women have no special, privileged status that makes them exempt from the government's laws and regulations.

They are real people who deserve the same rights as others. You don’t care if they lose their lives and liberty.

Yes, you have just as much right to your body as I do to mine. Does that include vaccines or is it "That's different!"?

No one physically forced you to get a vaccine. You wouldn't be charged with a crime if you didn't get one. F off.

Yet.

Such hysterics. Grow TF up.

Women are real people who deserve the same rights as others. Life, liberty, and happiness for starters.

You don't have unlimited personal rights.

I have the right to control my own body.

I’m sure you can find docs who will paralyze you or blind you if you paid enough? Is that what you want to be able to control?

A woman’s right to control her own uterus and life isn’t some fringe concept. The vast majority of doctors support women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Exactly. Giving an adulterous handjob while getting your fake boobs groped in front of a public theater full of children is a lot worse than a private subscription-only website for adults. Extra low-class points for cussing out the theater staff and flipping them the bird when the staff asked her to take it elsewhere.

Whataboutism. That's your official position?

I think it's being pointed out to you that your "outrage" over this person engaging in legal private sexual activity in a private legal venue in front of consenting adults is pretty pointless if you are not outraged and starting threads about someone who engaged in outrageous sexual behavior in a very public venue, in front of children, and without the consent of anyone present. Too damn bad that you don't like any of this being pointed out to you. Complaining about "whataboutism" in this case isn't going to make it any better for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Exactly. Giving an adulterous handjob while getting your fake boobs groped in front of a public theater full of children is a lot worse than a private subscription-only website for adults. Extra low-class points for cussing out the theater staff and flipping them the bird when the staff asked her to take it elsewhere.

Whataboutism. That's your official position?

I think it's being pointed out to you that your "outrage" over this person engaging in legal private sexual activity in a private legal venue in front of consenting adults is pretty pointless if you are not outraged and starting threads about someone who engaged in outrageous sexual behavior in a very public venue, in front of children, and without the consent of anyone present. Too damn bad that you don't like any of this being pointed out to you. Complaining about "whataboutism" in this case isn't going to make it any better for you.

Her activity wasn’t private. The terms of use she agreed to in order to broadcast and get paid for her pornography make that abundantly clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Exactly. Giving an adulterous handjob while getting your fake boobs groped in front of a public theater full of children is a lot worse than a private subscription-only website for adults. Extra low-class points for cussing out the theater staff and flipping them the bird when the staff asked her to take it elsewhere.

Whataboutism. That's your official position?

I think it's being pointed out to you that your "outrage" over this person engaging in legal private sexual activity in a private legal venue in front of consenting adults is pretty pointless if you are not outraged and starting threads about someone who engaged in outrageous sexual behavior in a very public venue, in front of children, and without the consent of anyone present. Too damn bad that you don't like any of this being pointed out to you. Complaining about "whataboutism" in this case isn't going to make it any better for you.

Her activity wasn’t private. The terms of use she agreed to in order to broadcast and get paid for her pornography make that abundantly clear.

It was private up until until someone recorded it and distributed it without her explicit consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her kids.

But you don't have any concern about Boebert's kids? Or the kids who were in the movie theater where she was giving some random dude a handjob?

It is absolutely hilarious that you are seriously trying to equate these two situations. Fully clothed woman acting obnoxious in theater vs woman performing explicit porn acts - for money. You sure are desperate to distract!
DP

In person in public vs a private online room.

Yes, there is no comparison that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Exactly. Giving an adulterous handjob while getting your fake boobs groped in front of a public theater full of children is a lot worse than a private subscription-only website for adults. Extra low-class points for cussing out the theater staff and flipping them the bird when the staff asked her to take it elsewhere.

Whataboutism. That's your official position?

I think it's being pointed out to you that your "outrage" over this person engaging in legal private sexual activity in a private legal venue in front of consenting adults is pretty pointless if you are not outraged and starting threads about someone who engaged in outrageous sexual behavior in a very public venue, in front of children, and without the consent of anyone present. Too damn bad that you don't like any of this being pointed out to you. Complaining about "whataboutism" in this case isn't going to make it any better for you.

Her activity wasn’t private. The terms of use she agreed to in order to broadcast and get paid for her pornography make that abundantly clear.

It was private up until until someone recorded it and distributed it without her explicit consent.

The platform she used to broadcast her pornography requires her to consent to the company’s terms of use. Her “explicit consent” wasn’t needed because of her agreement. You can search upthread for the exact language.