[W:146] Candidate Performed Sex Online with Husband for Tips

[Top Cat]

The sex video shouldn't matter. Democrats rejoiced over Bill and Monica.

Biggest crock of shit I have ever seen.

 

[Top Cat]

What documentation do you have to support this statement?

He pulled it our of his dark place.

 

[Cryptic]

People also pay for porn depicting specific acts, with some performers specializing in that genre. The sex act itself wasn't the service sold. It was the act of watching the performance, whether live or recorded.

I can accept that definition. But.... at the end of the day, no matter how its spun, the idea of commercialized sex remains.

Though its currently 2023, and the public's sense of sex scandal has diminished greatly, my guess is that the totality is just too far and as @dcsports illustrates, calls into question judgement:

- Commercial porn production - and- repeated sequels- and- porn produced after announcement of running for office -and- apparent belief that it would not get out.

In the end, the voters can accept a spin of: Ohh- no, that was made years ago under coercion from my cash starved bad boyfriend. Or.... "Yikes, hubby and I acted on a one time impulse. We thought we were only sharing to a small group of two other couples as a .... uhmm...."therapy".

But, the porn apparently also features her directly offering to perform certain additional acts- but only if more cash is offered. Thinking Its just too much in the end.

 

[Cryptic]

Jeez, all she has in her arsenal regarding the porn production is to blame Republicans for revealing her ohhhh so private moments that she live streamed for cash.

Why not take a different tack and try to bury the issue: Yawn, its 2023, pornography is legal. My husband and I are adults- so what?

Virginia Democratic candidate denounces sharing of sex tapes: ‘It won’t intimidate me’

A Democratic candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday denounced the “illegal invasion” of her privacy after videos surfaced showing that she and her husband performed sex acts…

thehill.com

I wonder if there are cash skeletons in her closet that could impact electibility: She is a nurse practitioners- wears traditional doctor's white coat on her ads, but OK. Full nurses with advanced training are paid well. Husband is a lawyer.

Yet, in the videos she is seen repeatedly soliciting more cash for additional acts- even had to end one stream to convince her husband to "up the ante" act wise. Evidently, she was even warned by the site that direct solicitations for cash are against site rules.

The totality brings into question what the couple's finances are and what else would she be willing to do for cash.

 

[poweRob]

So are porn stars, porn is not considered prostitution but is the same thing.

 

[poweRob]

Both should be legal, and under current Virginia Law who the hell knows, they're throwing so much authoritarian nonsense at the wall hoping it sticks.

If you'll notice, the GOP is running almost everything on mostly lying about other people's sex. Abortion, lies about trans people and pedophilia that is actually more off a problem with their folks. That and guns... they don't have any actual policy to run on.

 

[poweRob]

Jeez, all she has in her arsenal regarding the porn production is to blame Republicans for revealing her ohhhh so private moments that she live streamed for cash.

Why not take a different tack and try to bury the issue: Yawn, its 2023, pornography is legal. My husband and I are adults- so what?

Virginia Democratic candidate denounces sharing of sex tapes: ‘It won’t intimidate me’

A Democratic candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday denounced the “illegal invasion” of her privacy after videos surfaced showing that she and her husband performed sex acts…

thehill.com

I wonder if there are cash skeletons in her closet that could impact electibility: She is a nurse practitioners- wears traditional doctor's white coat on her ads, but OK. Full nurses with advanced training are paid well. Husband is a lawyer.

Yet, in the videos she is seen repeatedly soliciting more cash for additional acts- even had to end one stream to convince her husband to "up the ante" act wise. Evidently, she was even warned by the site that direct solicitations for cash are against site rules.

The totality brings into question what the couple's finances are and what else would she be willing to do for cash.

It's rather astonishing how enamoured cons are with liberal genitals while they don't give a shit about conservative genitals in the slightest.

 

[Cryptic]

It's rather astonishing how enamoured cons are with liberal genitals while they don't give a shit about conservative genitals in the slightest.

Its not really about genitals, its about judgement and..... by extension..... possibly intelligence. Lets subtract the genitals out. The totality points towards either:

A. A lack of cognitive ability (despite appearing in doctor's white coat with a very shiny stethoscope) -or-
B. Desperate for cash.

- 40 year old who is very familiar with the internet commercializes something via the internet.

- She then appears to be surprised when she learns that material posted online might say, be viewed by increasingly larger audiences.

- Strangely, she then declares that the commercialized material is actually "private". Blames political opponents for pointing out her commercialization of the material.

- She sells the commercialized material repeatedly and does so after running for an important political office and knowing that some people- though by no means all, may find the commercialization to be in poor taste.

 

[roguenuke]

I think prostitution should be legal, but married people having sex on camera is not prostitution.

 

[poweRob]

Its not really about genitals, its about judgement and..... by extension..... possibly intelligence. Lets subtract the genitals out. The totality points towards either:

A. A lack of cognitive ability (despite appearing in doctor's white coat with a very shiny stethoscope) -or-
B. Desperate for cash.

- 40 year old who is very familiar with the internet commercializes something via the internet.

- She then appears to be surprised when she learns that material posted online might say, be viewed by increasingly larger audiences.

- Strangely, she then declares that the commercialized material is actually "private". Blames political opponents for pointing out her commercialization of the material.

- She sells the commercialized material repeatedly and does so after running for an important political office and knowing that some people- though by no means all, may find the commercialization to be in poor taste.

Still don't care. Should I care?

 

[Cryptic]

Still don't care. Should I care?

I think so- well, if you are concerned about the Democratic party.

Electing people who are either A. Not very bright -or- B. desperate for cash would not seem to be in the interest of the party.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Evidently, the porn performers were offering to do uhmmm..... "more intense" acts in a private room for more tips.

Thus, not all acts were going to occur whether or not tips were received. Rather, certain requested acts would only be performed if sufficient tips were received.

And??

They are married. Married people have sex. In their case, it looks like they are exhibitionists, thus had sex on camera on a site where such acts occur and where no one would visit unless they wanted to see such acts.

That is not the same thing as being a congressman under federal investigation for child sex trafficking. That is not the same thing as a sitting member of congress giving her date a handjob in front of God and everyone at a musical. That is not the same thing as a senate candidate that gets banned from a mall because he was a man in his 30s preying on underage girls.

Moreover, the biggest difference is that this statehouse candidate is not a hypocrite about it, while those others are.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Not the same thing, but not that much different. In the end, both show erratic behavior that can turn off voters- even if they are turned on by pornography or the thought of having sex with a porn star.

My guess is that the totality is going to cost her:

- She and hubby were "going live" on multiple occasions after she announced her run for office. They were also going live commercially- and willing to up the intensity for more cash (pay per entry private viewing room for the good stuff).

I think it was poor judgement from a PR standpoint for someone that is seeking public office to also engage in cam shows. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with what she did, but rather it will almost certainly cost her votes.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The key thing is that it doesn't involve illegal activities or official ethics issues, as some other incidents have. It involved consenting adults who recorded themselves. No one underage. No one was drugged. No interns or office staff. Not in a public building or place of work. She hasn't provided false testimony, filings, or statements to the public. So that's all good.

I think this is really an issue of judgement for the voters of her district to consider. Not only that she broadcast sex acts, and performed sex acts for tips, but also was stupid enough to do think it wouldn't come out.

I agree with this assessment.

 

[poweRob]

I think so- well, if you are concerned about the Democratic party.

Electing people who are either A. Not very bright -or- B. desperate for cash would not seem to be in the interest of the party.

Having sex doesn't make on "not very bright".

 

[dcsports]

Having sex doesn't make on "not very bright".

What about having sex, on camera, for money, and thinking it won't come out when you run for elected office?

 

[Cryptic]

And??

They are married. Married people have sex. In their case, it looks like they are exhibitionists....,

Sex has nothing to do with it. Rather, the core concept is judgement and by extension, intelligence. The couple seems unable to grasp that:

- Legal products of any sort (in this pornography for solicited tips) offered for sale on the internet or any commercial venue, are not "private". That legal video images uploaded to one site for legal sale may appear on a variety of other sites.

- That Virginia's Revenge Porn laws may, or may not apply to material that was willingly uploaded for profit driven consumption. That offering pornography for sale (certain acts were offered only if sufficient cash was provided) can impact an important campaign.

Other indications of dimwitteness include a poorly thought out business plan. She did not follow the rules for the site they were using (direct solicitation of cash for specific acts) is not permitted.

Likewise, she did not appear to have not fully thought out what legal material they were willing to sell and what they were not (needed to end one session to see if hubby agreed to up "the ante" act wise if sufficient payment was received).

The totality in regards to a lack of cognitive skills disqualifies her- not the sex.

 

[Cryptic]

Having sex doesn't make on "not very bright".

I agree. What makes them "not very bright" is:

- Not realizing that legal products up loaded for sale in the internet (in this case porn for solicited tips) are not "private" makes one very dimwitted.

-Not understanding that Virginia's Revenge Porn laws may not apply to legal porn offered for sale.

- Not understanding that legal video material offered for sale on the internet may appear on a variety of other sites (whether fairly, unfairly, or sort, of kind of fairly)

 

[poweRob]

What about having sex, on camera, for money, and thinking it won't come out when you run for elected office?

Naybe a bit short sighted. It says nothing about ones intellect.

 

[poweRob]

I agree. What makes them "not very bright" is:

- Not realizing that legal products up loaded for sale in the internet (in this case porn for solicited tips) are not "private" makes one very dimwitted.

-Not understanding that Virginia's Revenge Porn laws may not apply to legal porn offered for sale.

- Not understanding that legal video material offered for sale on the internet may appear on a variety of other sites (whether fairly, unfairly, or sort, of kind of fairly)

Still not a condition of intelligence. All's this is saying is that you seem to be very down with OPP.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Sex has nothing to do with it. Rather, the core concept is judgement and by extension, intelligence. The couple seems unable to grasp that:

Did you have any problem with Trump paying off two mistressess mere weeks before the 2016 election?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Sex has nothing to do with it. Rather, the core concept is judgement and by extension, intelligence. The couple seems unable to grasp that:

- Legal products of any sort (in this pornography for solicited tips) offered for sale on the internet or any commercial venue, are not "private". That legal video images uploaded to one site for legal sale may appear on a variety of other sites.

- That Virginia's Revenge Porn laws may, or may not apply to material that was willingly uploaded for profit driven consumption. That offering pornography for sale (certain acts were offered only if sufficient cash was provided) can impact an important campaign.

Other indications of dimwitteness include a poorly thought out business plan. She did not follow the rules for the site they were using (direct solicitation of cash for specific acts) is not permitted.

Likewise, she did not appear to have not fully thought out what legal material they were willing to sell and what they were not (needed to end one session to see if hubby agreed to up "the ante" act wise if sufficient payment was received).

The totality in regards to a lack of cognitive skills disqualifies her- not the sex.

Copyright laws apply to content streamed or uploaded through adult sites.

 

[Cryptic]

Copyright laws apply to content streamed or uploaded through adult sites

I imagine they do.

But.... the applicability of copyright laws can vary according to the terms of contracts. My guess is that adult sites have many different types of contracts. For example:

-All material uploaded becomes property of the site.
- Creators keep ownership, but site can display the uploaded material for "X" amount of time.
- Uploaded version becomes the "producer's cut" and is owned by the site. Creators, however, retain ownership of other "cuts".
- Producer retains ownership of the material and can remove it at any time. If material is not removed....

Gibson evidently broke the rules of the site by actively soliciting more cash to see the "good stuff". As a result, neither she, nor her attorney husband, may of been inclined to read the site's fine print regarding contracts and who owned what under what conditions.

 

[Cryptic]

Did you have any problem with Trump paying off two mistressess mere weeks before the 2016 election?

No.

But, I do have a huge problem with his attempted coup on 1/6.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Sex has nothing to do with it. Rather, the core concept is judgement and by extension, intelligence. The couple seems unable to grasp that:

- Legal products of any sort (in this pornography for solicited tips) offered for sale on the internet or any commercial venue, are not "private". That legal video images uploaded to one site for legal sale may appear on a variety of other sites.

- That Virginia's Revenge Porn laws may, or may not apply to material that was willingly uploaded for profit driven consumption. That offering pornography for sale (certain acts were offered only if sufficient cash was provided) can impact an important campaign.

Other indications of dimwitteness include a poorly thought out business plan. She did not follow the rules for the site they were using (direct solicitation of cash for specific acts) is not permitted.

Likewise, she did not appear to have not fully thought out what legal material they were willing to sell and what they were not (needed to end one session to see if hubby agreed to up "the ante" act wise if sufficient payment was received).

The totality in regards to a lack of cognitive skills disqualifies her- not the sex.

You really seem obsessed about this couple’s videos. I didn’t watch any of them. Did you watch at least one of them?