Opinion
Susanna Gibson, a former Democrat Virginia House of Delegates candidate who filmed herself having sex with her husband on an online porn site while soliciting viewers for “tips,” believes that she’s the real victim.
The Washington Post reported in September that Gibson “performed sex acts with her husband for a live online audience” on a streaming platform known as Chaturbate.
The sex videos were then archived on another publicly available site, and in at least two of the clips reviewed by the Post, Gibson told viewers that she was “raising money for a good cause.”
The comments raised concerns that she was using live sexual performances to help fund her campaign.
Gibson went by the handle “HotWifeExperience” for those who watched her videos.
The report at the time described the Virginia House of Delegates race as being in a “highly competitive” district. And indeed, she lost the seat by a mere 2.8 points.
As such, Politico gave her a platform on which she could play the victim and essentially blame her loss not on the videos themselves, but on those who reported on them.
RELATED: Virginia Democrat Gave Viewers The ‘HotWifeExperience’ – Performed Sex With Husband Online For ‘Tips’
Democrat Who Filmed Herself Having Sex With Her Husband For Tips Says Republicans To Blame
Politico blatantly blames the videos of Gibson having sex with her husband online for tips as being the reason she lost the election.
And the Democrat was all too willing to play along, blaming “Republican operatives” for her going down in the election.
“My entire life was rocked on Sept. 11, when the article ran. It ran, implying that I performed sex acts online with my husband for money,” she said. “It was really written based on this Dropbox file that self-described Republican operatives shopped around.”
Implied?
As discussed, two of the videos had her stating she was “raising money for a good cause.”
“Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through ‘tokens’ purchased through the site,” the Post reported.
They even note that she was willing to perform more explicit acts in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
What “dark web” she is referring to is anybody’s guess. Chaturbate’s “rules and privacy” page explicitly states to users that “it is possible for people to record your show if they have the right software or even just a phone pointed at their screen.”
Which would be common knowledge to most.
Having made sexually explicit videos of herself online Gibson said, “When you find out that there are sexually explicit videos of you online … it is a feeling that I would not wish on my worst enemy.”
RELATED: John Fetterman, Who Just Mocked Lauren Boebert In Graphic Sexual Terms, Tears Up Over Being Bullied In Congress
Gibson Continues To Suggest That She’s The Victim Of A Sex Crime
In the interview with Politico, Gibson continues to push the idea that she’s a victim of a sex crime, something she argued at the time of the initial report.
“Content that is initially made in a consensual context, which is then distributed in a non-consensual context digitally, is a crime,” she insisted.
You’d have to be weapons-grade ignorant to think you could put out graphic sexual images online and not have one of the nearly 6,000 followers online recording it.
Gibson was livid following the initial report, and accused Republicans of being “willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family.”
Gibson and her husband are two consenting adults who were on a public forum that allowed them to make money by airing their sexual encounters. There is nothing illegal about that aspect.
Whether those “tips” were used in her campaign – that’s where the trouble starts.
Gibson insisted that she was the true victim of “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”
We’ll let the Washington Post themselves describe how somebody who admits to “swapping” partners, films herself having sex on a public site, and offers to perform certain acts for money, doesn’t seem all that concerned about “privacy.”
“The Post typically does not identify victims of alleged sex crimes to protect their privacy,” they wrote. “In this case, Gibson originally live-streamed these sexual acts on a site that was not password-protected. The couple had more than 5,700 followers there.”
“I think that it is unethical to make people’s private lives — especially their sexual private lives — public,” she told Politico.
Perhaps the woman who is willing to livestream sex acts while begging for tokens isn’t the proper source for explaining what is and isn’t ethical.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
