VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still find it utterly mind-boggling that anyone would choose to film themselves engaging in porn, then soliciting tips for sexual acts - and THEN deciding to run for public office.

There is something seriously wrong with this person.

+1000
Not to mention, something seriously wrong with all these twits defending her. Mental illness seems to be rampant among LWNJs.

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still find it utterly mind-boggling that anyone would choose to film themselves engaging in porn, then soliciting tips for sexual acts - and THEN deciding to run for public office.

There is something seriously wrong with this person.

I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is that instead of owning it and being proud of being a sex worker she claimed that the disclosure victimized her.

The people who recorded and distributed the video did not ask for her permission. I’m sure it felt like a violation.

Boo hoo

So you’d be totally fine if someone recorded a video of you doing something in private and distributed it without asking you first?

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

You seem to miss the point about consent.

The only people who watched the video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how her Republican opponent wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

You seem to miss the point about consent.

The only people who watched the video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how her Republican opponent wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Yes, she tied them to their chairs and made them watch. Of course, Boebert didn't do it for the money, so it's wrong. If she had charged, it would be sex work, and that's OK.

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

You seem to miss the point about consent.

The only people who watched the video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how her Republican opponent wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Yes, she tied them to their chairs and made them watch. Of course, Boebert didn't do it for the money, so it's wrong. If she had charged, it would be sex work, and that's OK.

So everyone needs to leave the theater (or lose reproductive rights) because Republicans can't respect the wishes of others?

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

THIS ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still find it utterly mind-boggling that anyone would choose to film themselves engaging in porn, then soliciting tips for sexual acts - and THEN deciding to run for public office.

There is something seriously wrong with this person.

I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is that instead of owning it and being proud of being a sex worker she claimed that the disclosure victimized her.

The people who recorded and distributed the video did not ask for her permission. I’m sure it felt like a violation.

Boo hoo

So you’d be totally fine if someone recorded a video of you doing something in private and distributed it without asking you first?

DP. It’s interesting that *this* is your concern - and not the incredibly bad judgment of the person in question. Also, who “recorded and distributed” her porn? Someone pointed out that it was on the website. That is not illegal. Clearly this is someone who enjoys the exposure, pun intended. Completely gross.

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

You seem to miss the point about consent.

The only people who watched the video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how her Republican opponent wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Boebert behaved inappropriately and obnoxiously. She didn’t perform any “sex acts,” you utter moron. And there is a separate thread about her. This one is about Susanna Gibson, the Democrat who engages in online pay-for-porn. It’s pretty hilarious that you’re trying so desperately to deflect.

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

You seem to miss the point about consent.

The only people who watched the video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how her Republican opponent wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Boebert behaved inappropriately and obnoxiously. She didn’t perform any “sex acts,” you utter moron. And there is a separate thread about her. This one is about Susanna Gibson, the Democrat who engages in online pay-for-porn. It’s pretty hilarious that you’re trying so desperately to deflect.

But my candidate did it for money! That makes it ok!

[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: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.

We are talking about access. It only became available outside of that private online room because some third party recorded it and distributed it. Everyone who has watched it chose to watch it.

It wasn’t in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

Republicans don’t understand consent. They want to force themselves on everyone else.

What can I tell you. She consented to the terms of use to broadcast her pornography. She has no case against the platform nor anyone who recorded because she agreed to the terms. I believe she doesn’t understand what consent means.

The conversation has moved past that.

The point was that everyone who has seen her has done so by choice.

It wasn’t shown in public in front of others, including children, without their consent.

But what about...

PPs were struggling to understand that fondling people in public is worse than private online activities.

Your official position, "My candidate is less of a scum bag than your candidate?" Again, I don't thnk you understand that "private online" is an oxymoron.

You still struggle with consent.

The only people who watched her video were those who sought it out. Adults or kids whose parents gave them unlimited internet access.

The people, including children, who saw Boebert performing sexual acts did not choose to see that. She forced that on everyone around her.

Similar to how the R candidate wants to force his extremist religious views on everyone in VA, against their will.

Apparently, Boebert was on stage in the brightly lit theatre now. It's amusing how you tie yourself into a pretzel to push the view that your candidate is less of a shill and, therefore, worthy.

Boebert was in a packed theater, drawing attention to herself by talking loudly, taking selfies, vaping against theater rules, et cetera.

DP. I can't stand Boebert, but your sad attempt at trying to draw some kind of parallel between the behavior of these two women is... well, pathetic. One was doing online porn for money. The other was behaving obnoxiously at a theater - fully clothed. I actually can't stop laughing at your desperation.

You realize Boebert was an escort, right?