"YUP! THAT LADY DID DA INTERWEBZ PORNZ!!"

And now she's running for office. The incels are determined that THIS. MUST. NOT. STAND. So what??

It’s my sense that at some level a number of the people who are perpetuating the insanity in our culture today will eventually figure it out. But I’m quite skeptical in believing that they will be able to figure out how to undo the damage that they’ve done by the time they figured out that they did it.

• Craig D. Lounsbrough

No matter how fast artificial intelligence spreads, global stupidity will always be ahead of it.

• Nkwachukwu Ogbuagu

Here’s a question we probably haven’t pondered in this space before:

Does having done pornography on da Interwebz- or being a sex worker of any flavor- automatically disqualify one from running for public office on moral grounds? Should one be forever tainted with the stain of SEX!!!!! because of what they did with their body in the past (or may still be doing)?

I suspect this question will garner all manner of responses, but I believe that what one may or may not have done with one’s body is of no concern regarding a person’s fitness to hold public office.

Where was the outrage when Melania was First Lady??

(Look, if Donald F*****g Trump can be President, don’t tell me that defective morality should be a disqualifying factor, ‘kay?)

It’s just sex, y’all. Everyone does it…and those who aren’t doing it want to be doing it. Why? Because it’s fun, and it’s also a basic human thing.

I think if you want to run for office and do Internet porns, great! But if a Republican operative points a reporter to the porns — to which you had more than 5000 online subscribers — that’s not a “dirty trick” or “revenge porn” or even, in the candidate’s response, a “sex crime.” If you want to run for office presumably shortly after making internet porn with your husband (the Ben Shapiros of the world, who are running fucking riot, say they were made as recently as last year, but I’m not going to search out their proof), then the answer to “THAT LADY DID INTERNET PORNS!” should be “YUP!”

OK, perhaps you or I wouldn’t make porn for da Interwebz with our spouses (NO ONE needs to see that much of me). But if Susanna Gibson has the body, the inclination, and the desire to supplement her income by filming her and her spouse rutting like elks in heat, why not? It probably pays better than being an Uber driver.

Of course, those moral majoritarians on the Far-Right have their panties in a wad (and their boners in a very uncomfortable position). So an incel in Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s office paused his porn watching long enough to forward a copy of Ms. Gibson’s “performance” to the Washington Post.

Sadly, the Post treated Ms. Gibson’s second job as if it was a legitimate, newsworthy story.

[T]his wasn’t a private tape between Susanna Gibson, running for Virginia’s House of Delegates, and her husband that got leaked onto the internet for “revenge,” even if the Republican operative who pointed a Washington Post reporter to them intended to harm her campaign. That’s just not what revenge porn is — disseminating private act….

There’s just no expectation of privacy when you’re having sex in front of 5700 people. Gibson’s not running for EMT, she’s running for public office, and it was going to come up. Do you and I care if she fucks her husband for an audience for pay? No, we don’t! We’re almost certainly with this adult entertainment lawyer, quoted in WaPo!

“I think it’s fantastic you have someone running who has an open sex life. It’s actually very refreshing,” added [Corey] Silverstein, who is based in Michigan but practices around the country and the world.

I’d have to agree with Mr. Silverstein. America is FAR too uptight about sex. Conservatives treat sex as if it’s dirty, nasty, and should be discussed only in hushed, shameful tones. Sex is a normal and natural part of the human experience and only as dirty and nasty as we choose to make it.

So now Ms. Gibson is doing what any astute politician would do in such circumstances- FUNDRAISING!!!

There’s certainly no expectation of privacy if you’re having sex with your husband in front of several thousand people on da Interwebz, nor should there be. By the same token, there’s certainly nothing to be ashamed of, and Ms. Gibson has no reason to be embarrassed.

Despite the efforts of Conservative incels to shame her, she probably looks better with her clothes off than they do. And she’s not ashamed of her body or having sex with her husband in a public forum. Is that something most of us would do? Eh, probably not, but that hardly makes Ms. Gibson a woman of loose morals. Nor does it disqualify her from running for and serving in public office.

It just makes her…well, let’s call her an entrepreneur.

Double standard? WHAT double standard??

Conservative men have for far too long succeeded in shaming women. It’s time that came to an end. And it’s time they were sent back to their spank bank, where they can resume watching the porn they’re using to shame women for making.

But again, I think if you do sex work and then run for office, the proper answer isn’t “oh no you outed me,” the proper answer is FUCK YEH I DID! You can’t have secret stuff when you’re running for office. You can have out loud, fuck yeah, let’s do this stuff when you’re running for office. So let’s do it!

Do sex work and run for office. I love it! But “do sex work and run for office and nobody’s allowed to tell anyone you did sex work or that’s ‘revenge porn’ and ‘a sex crime’” seems to me like one of those times our side is out of touch. It’s either shameful — we don’t think it is! — or it’s not. But if it’s not shameful — and see above, RIGHT THERE, we don’t think it is! — then the Ben Shapiros of the world can wank themselves silly. It’s no skin off our palms.

There’s nothing wrong with sex work. Women make porn or do other forms of sex work because they’re satisfying a predominantly male demand. If men suddenly stopped consuming porn, visiting prostitutes, or patronizing strip clubs, women would have to pursue other avenues to support themselves.

But that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, even as men continue to shame women for providing them with the very sexual services they’re willing to pay handsomely for.

The Washington Post reviewed videos in which Ms. Gibson performed sexually with her husband, an attorney, and it seems as if the videos are much like anything else one might find on a pay-per-view site. The couple had sex, and people paid to watch.

RICHMOND — A Democrat running for a crucial seat in Virginia’s House of Delegates performed sex acts with her husband for a live online audience and encouraged viewers to pay them with “tips” for specific requests, according to online videos viewed by The Washington Post.

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”

Ms. Gibson’s reaction to Republicans “outing” her was understandable, if a bit off-base:

In a written statement, Gibson called the exposure of the videos “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”

“It won’t intimidate me and it won’t silence me,” she said. “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.”

Daniel P. Watkins, a lawyer for Gibson, said disseminating the videos constitutes a violation of the state’s revenge porn law, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to “maliciously” distribute nude or sexual images of another person with “intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.”

“We are working closely with state and federal law enforcement,” Watkins said.

Left unaddressed was how the state’s revenge porn law would apply to Ms. Gibson when the sex acts she performed with her husband were live-streamed to an audience on a non-password-protected site. Her audience at the time was around 5700 people.

(Wow…who knew having sex could be a lucrative spectator sport?)

It’s difficult to see how Republicans providing videos to the Washington Post could constitute an “illegal act” when 5700 people visited the site and viewed the couple having sex. It’s not as if they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I’m not saying Ms. Gibson shouldn’t be upset that a Republican incel “outed” her. The sad thing is that the person who provided the information to the Post did so anonymously. It seems they didn’t want to be drawn into the controversy, but they had no problem attempting to shame Ms. Gibson.

That’s a world-class display of cowardice, don’tchathink?

And it’s not as if Ms. Gibson and her husband were breaking any laws. According to the previously mentioned Corey Silverstein,

a prominent adult entertainment industry lawyer, said there is nothing illegal about streaming sex acts online as long as the participants and viewers are consenting adults — even if they are paid to perform specific acts.

“There is absolutely no law that they are violating — none,” he said. “In this case, you have two adults who are engaging in consensual sex, and they’ve decided they want to broadcast that, and they’re doing so in exchange for tipping. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it.”

As a married couple, Ms. Gibson and her husband were consenting adults. Not only is there nothing illegal about what they did, there’s nothing embarrassing or shameful.

The anonymous coward who reported Ms. Gibson to the Post was trying to shame and embarrass her. Unfortunately for him, she wasn’t having any of it- because there’s nothing to be ashamed of. Perhaps the incel was jealous because she was getting something he wasn’t.

Hmm…d’ya think Jill Biden or Michelle Obama ever did photo shoots like this?

If a sex worker runs for office, she should be evaluated like any other candidate, not denigrated because she f***s her husband on camera for money on da Interwebz. Indeed, perhaps voters should admire her entrepreneurial sense and initiative- not to mention her willingness to think outside the box…or without her clothes.

Besides, if they pay attention, they might learn a thing or two they might want to try out on their own significant other.

It’s just sex, y’all, not a commentary on Susanna Gibson’s fitness to hold office.

(All of my posts are now public. Any reader financial support will be considered pledges- support that’s greatly appreciated but not required to get to all of my work. I’ll leave it to my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their monetary support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.)