Susanna Gibson, a Democrat running in one of seven tossup House seats in the closely divided legislature, denounced the “illegal invasion of my privacy.”

A Democratic candidate in a crucial race for the Virginia General Assembly denounced reports on Monday that she and her husband had performed live on a sexually explicit streaming site.

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner running in her first election cycle, said in a statement that the leaks about the online activity were “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”

The Washington Post and The Associated Press reported on Monday that tapes of live-streamed sexual activity had been recorded from a pornographic site and archived on another site. The New York Times has not independently verified the content of the videos. The Democratic Party of Virginia did not respond to a request for comment.

Ms. Gibson, 40, who appears on her campaign website in hospital scrubs as well as at home with her husband and two young children, is running for the House of Delegates in one of only a handful of competitive races that will determine control of the General Assembly. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House, and Democrats narrowly control the State Senate, but both chambers are up for grabs in November.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can we just agree that if someone does something for fun or profit that isn’t illegal or unethical they can just be free to go about their business? I’d share plenty of explicit content of my wife and I were it not for bullshit like this. (Also these days we’re old and plain enough that no one would give a fuck, but anyway word would eventually get back to family and coworkers because too many people hate folks just enjoying themselves and sharing.)

    Doxxing someone over sex is soliciting harm to them - inciting others to “punish” them for legal, consensual behavior. There is nothing wrong with what they did, but there is something wrong with trying to use it to hurt them, despite the fact that in a reasonable world no one would care beyond idle curiosity.

    • missveeronica@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My comment was about how she feels this is an invasion of privacy not about the legality of the situation. She posted these on the internet with her own free will for money. She didn’t have a problem posing for them.when it benefited her. Now, though, it’s a problem.

      Personally, I have no problem with her wanting to explore her sensuality. Good for her. I stop feeling sorry for her when she then declares it an invasion of privacy.

      • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did she do it for money? 🤔 I was under the impression that Chaturbate was a site for exhibitionists that wanted to sex chat, show themselves, have sex just for jollies.

        • missveeronica@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          According to the article from the nytimes, she raised money by asking for tokens in exchange for their suggestions to perform sex acts.

          Edit: or was it wapo? I read it somewhere that she was accepting money in exchange for sex acts.