243

A candidate in a high-stakes legislative contest in Virginia had sex with her husband in live videos posted on a pornographic website and asked viewers to pay them money in return for carrying out specific sex acts.

Screenshots of Susanna Gibson on the website were shared with The Associated Press. The campaign for Gibson, a Democrat running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in a district just outside Richmond, issued a statement Monday in which it denounced the sharing of the videos as a violation of the law and her privacy. Gibson called the exposure of the videos “the worst gutter politics.”

“It won’t intimidate me and it won’t silence me,” she said in the statement. “My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 123 points 1 year ago

Seems fine. Sex workers are allowed to have political opinions. These were consenting adults. This wasn't infidelity, because it was a married couple. There's really no controversy here, unless you think sex is intrinsically a bad thing, in which case you're probably repressing yourself and everyone else

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago

Not to mention this is 2023. A candidate who is naked on the internet was bound to happen and we’ve been saying it for over a decade. Okay, it happened. Can we move on and discuss the outrageous problems we as a country and as an entire species are facing? That’s be great.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

When Mary Carey ran for governor of California, she didn't get many votes, but people treated her like a serious candidate. And she was (is?) a porn star.

[-] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

There were 153 people in that race and she came in 10th.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And yet she was still treated like a real candidate despite her history.

[-] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's what I'm saying, she got more votes than 143 people in that race. And at the time, it wasn't history, she was a working porn star.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
243 points (90.9% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4564 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS