Virginia Candidate does Internet Porn, Upset People Found it.

[Greenman]

My bet would be that @Greenman is being sarcastic. Every conservative with a large range of moral values will realize instantly this woman is morally sick. No need to do any research. The problem will be that conclusion is reached instantaneously obvious for the wrong reasons. The fascination with porn isn't evil because it says so in some holy book written by sexually repressed men, it is just an indication of a lack of how people act who have sufficient self respect to be able to experience organic shame.

Shame is on the decline in this country.

 

[nakedfrog]

Particularly since 2016.

 

[Moonbeam]

Shame is on the decline in this country.

Decline is the inevitable mechanical result of avoidance of feeling. We were subjected to great pain to conform to artificial standards of moral authority by cons who used it for self benefit, the church, politicians, criminal organizations, etc or picked up on how malleable it made people after the fact. We would not have survived as children had we not caved. Moral decay was the only way to survive. The way out isn't to guilt trip but to forgive oneself for what had to be and feel the pain from the safety of adult awareness. We no longer need to hide. I believe that grief for oneself for what had to be is the path to self awakening.

 

[Moonbeam]

Shame is on the decline in this country.

The longing of repression is permission to indulge. "Please allow me to abase myself and call it the good."

 

[iRONic]

My bet would be that @Greenman is being sarcastic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Any idea what the feeling was that prompted you to say 'first time for everything'. Would have never expected 'don't give a fuck'. It has been my observation that people unhappy with themselves like to pass along their pain. One way to do that is to claim someone is of so little important to make them feel that way. A deeper conundrum, than the problem of feigned indifference is the problem of explaining the transparency of others without offending them.

 

[Vic]

Only conservatives can get outraged by a woman having sex with her husband.

 

[Moonbeam]

Only conservatives can get outraged by a woman having sex with her husband.

Personally, I can't see even conservatives having a problem with that. There are two issues that I see. One the quality of character that would seek to make the sex act itself a public spectacle and then the appeal to victimization when the publicity itself comes back to bite her in the ass. I would prefer the Democratic Party not to run people at that level of poor judgement for office.

 

[ch33zw1z]

She should've just owned it as an empowered woman and left it at that.

"yes, my husband and I made this video, we love each other and it was consensual."

Done.

I'd personally prefer to know about potential candidates kinks prior to election.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If it was a republican it'd prolly be far weirder shit.

Likely, and calling other people “groomers” and blaming the “woke agenda” for shaming their criminal behavior.

 

[darkswordsman17]

OP, I wish I could say your framing of what she's saying is the most willfully stupid thing I've seen guys on here say with regards to sexual agency, but it sadly is maybe like the 100th.

Its revenge porn because they're spreading it solely out of an attempt to cause her harm. Your argument is like if you have a friend that broke up with a woman and the dude shared sex content she recorded with him to her employer in an attempt to get her fired.

I'm sure the people who merrily voted for a man who boasted of sexually assaulting women and getting away with it will be very upset over this.

It involves a woman consenting to sex, so yeah they probably are.

She should've just owned it as an empowered woman and left it at that.

"yes, my husband and I made this video, we love each other and it was consensual."

Done.

I'd personally prefer to know about potential candidates kinks prior to election.

She kinda did. She's just rightfully pointing out that they're attempting to cause her harm by spreading this, which is literally defined as revenge porn in Virginia.

Only conservatives can get outraged by a woman having sex with her husband.

Not only that, but being capitalist about it as well. Just more hypocrisy from right wingers.

 

[HomerJS]

This thread highlights the integrity of people in the left. Most of us are saying we wouldn't support her not because of her past personal life but because she doesn't seem to be smart enough for the job.

 

[Zorba]

OP, I wish I could say your framing of what she's saying is the most willfully stupid thing I've seen guys on here say with regards to sexual agency, but it sadly is maybe like the 100th.

Its revenge porn because they're spreading it solely out of an attempt to cause her harm. Your argument is like if you have a friend that broke up with a woman and the dude shared sex content she recorded with him to her employer in an attempt to get her fired.



It involves a woman consenting to sex, so yeah they probably are.



She kinda did. She's just rightfully pointing out that they're attempting to cause her harm by spreading this, which is literally defined as revenge porn in Virginia.



Not only that, but being capitalist about it as well. Just more hypocrisy from right wingers.

Not the same at all. People found content on a public website that she publicly posted. It's much more like people finding out an actress did nude scenes in some C rate movie before she became famous and they get posted all over the Internet. The actress might regret doing those scenes, but it's not revenge porn.

People should think about future consequences prior to doing publicly available porn, if they aren't okay with everyone they know seeing the porn they probably shouldn't do it.

 

[Zorba]

She kinda did. She's just rightfully pointing out that they're attempting to cause her harm by spreading this, which is literally defined as revenge porn in Virginia.

Who exactly is they? Someone found it on a public website and told the press. So is it the press that you think should be charged with the crime, or the person that posted it to the public website (herself), or the person that noticed it was her and told someone else?

As far as I know, the GOP is not distributing the porn, it's just on public websites that house the porn of millions of other people as well.

 

[HomerJS]

OP, I wish I could say your framing of what she's saying is the most willfully stupid thing I've seen guys on here say with regards to sexual agency, but it sadly is maybe like the 100th.

Its revenge porn because they're spreading it solely out of an attempt to cause her harm. Your argument is like if you have a friend that broke up with a woman and the dude shared sex content she recorded with him to her employer in an attempt to get her fired.



It involves a woman consenting to sex, so yeah they probably are.



She kinda did. She's just rightfully pointing out that they're attempting to cause her harm by spreading this, which is literally defined as revenge porn in Virginia.



Not only that, but being capitalist about it as well. Just more hypocrisy from right wingers.

The way I understand the law is distribution without consent. They both consented to put it in the public domain.

 

[Zorba]

This thread highlights the integrity of people in the left. Most of us are saying we wouldn't support her not because of her past personal life but because she doesn't seem to be smart enough for the job.

I'd still support her in a second over whatever sewage monster the GOP is running against her.

 

[HomerJS]

I'd still support her in a second over whatever sewage monster the GOP is running against her.

I agree with you. In the primary I wouldn't likely vote for her but in the general definitely any Democrat.

Normally in the general I would give the Republican a look but we already had one outright lying on a position she promised the voters and she did the opposite once elected with no reasonable explanation given.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good discussion here, just noting this

 

[Brainonska511]

Who exactly is they? Someone found it on a public website and told the press. So is it the press that you think should be charged with the crime, or the person that posted it to the public website (herself), or the person that noticed it was her and told someone else?

It wasn't just any random schmo doing the tipping off - it was a Republican operative (who, of course, has their identity shielded). This candidate may have had consensual video sessions with her husband that she put online, but that doesn't mean she consented to those videos being distributed outside the initial live hosting medium. The whole province of this story sounds like a hit job, especially if those videos were made prior to her candidacy and then only appeared online after she announced.

 

[HomerJS]

It wasn't just any random schmo doing the tipping off - it was a Republican operative (who, of course, has their identity shielded). This candidate may have had consensual video sessions with her husband that she put online, but that doesn't mean she consented to those videos being distributed outside the initial live hosting medium. The whole province of this story sounds like a hit job, especially if those videos were made prior to her candidacy and then only appeared online after she announced.

Definitely a hit job. We are just debating if it meets the definition of revenge porn.

I'm not lawyer just play one online

 

[Fanatical Meat]

She should've just owned it as an empowered woman and left it at that.

"yes, my husband and I made this video, we love each other and it was consensual."

Done.

I'd personally prefer to know about potential candidates kinks prior to election.

Being honest I am more likely to support a candidate that’s cool with porn.


Now let me make fun of them
“How dare people watch content I made & charged them for”

 

[ch33zw1z]

Being honest I am more likely to support a candidate that’s cool with porn.


Now let me make fun of them
“How dare people watch content I made & charged them for”

Yea, I agree.

But the last part, it’s simply her opponents trying to disparage her. Sex shaming is an American past time, rooted in our puritan past. The GOP will obviously doesn’t care about this stuff, it’s all about virtue signaling

 

[eelw]

Who exactly is they? Someone found it on a public website and told the press. So is it the press that you think should be charged with the crime, or the person that posted it to the public website (herself), or the person that noticed it was her and told someone else?

As far as I know, the GOP is not distributing the porn, it's just on public websites that house the porn of millions of other people as well.

Sure they found it. But it’s been reuploaded with her name on it now.

 

[nakedfrog]

Who exactly is they? Someone found it on a public website and told the press. So is it the press that you think should be charged with the crime, or the person that posted it to the public website (herself), or the person that noticed it was her and told someone else?

As far as I know, the GOP is not distributing the porn, it's just on public websites that house the porn of millions of other people as well.

Someone found it on Recurbate, which to my understanding she did not upload it to, as they had been livestreaming on Chaturbate. Someone else recorded it and uploaded it to Recurbate, which is a paid service (which she presumably did not consent to). If they can show that someone was publicizing it with the intent to harass her politically, presumably that would be the person who gets charged. Possibly the person who provided the screenshots to the Associated Press? Maybe the person who uploaded it to Recurbate? They showed up on Recurbate a month after she announced her candidacy.

Apparently it's a thing...

https://www.reddit.com/r/CamGirlProblems/comments/py5p4l

The way I understand the law is distribution without consent. They both consented to put it in the public domain.

Did they, though? I'm not so sure that's the case.

 

[Zorba]

It wasn't just any random schmo doing the tipping off - it was a Republican operative (who, of course, has their identity shielded). This candidate may have had consensual video sessions with her husband that she put online, but that doesn't mean she consented to those videos being distributed outside the initial live hosting medium. The whole province of this story sounds like a hit job, especially if those videos were made prior to her candidacy and then only appeared online after she announced.

Do you have no idea how internet porn works? Live streams are archived and shared all over the internet. The republican operative just pointed the media to a public website with publicly available content on it.