“If it bleeds, it leads.”
It’s an old adage that the most shocking and controversial of storylines tend to be ranked first by news editors and cable news producers, figuring, correctly, that ordinary folks won’t bother looking up (or reading a story) if it’s only about mundane things like a church’s charity bake sale or local high school’s volleyball game, but they’ll drop everything to see pictures of some poor innocent soul who was victimized by a criminal.
We just observed the anniversary of 9/11/01 last week, which was the epitome of a head-turning live-action news event that no filmmaker could’ve dreamed up in a million conference room brainstorming sessions on topics that would get folks interested. It’s true, and kind of sad, that its human nature to want to be flabbergasted at how horrific things can get.
What about sex? There’s plenty of it in media, and the vast expansion of the internet instantly generated more than its share of shady entrepreneurs seeking to make bucks off of someone else’s obsessions. But what if the sex provider is a public figure, “performing” like a deranged trained-seal in a circus while begging viewers to toss them contributions? Where’s the FEC when you need them? In an opinion piece titled “So What if a Candidate Livestreamed Sex Acts with Her Husband?”, Jack Shafer wrote at Politico Magazine last week:
“[N]ever before Gibson’s case has a politician’s hot video action spread on the internet. While the Post story might seem to spell the nurse practitioner’s political ruin, we shouldn’t be so hasty to write her off...
“[R]ather than skulking away in shame and dropping out of the race, Gibson has gone on the offensive, protesting the ‘leak’ of the sex performance and prospecting previously undiscovered legal territory by calling the distribution of the videos ‘an illegal invasion’ of her privacy and a ‘sex crime’ against her...
“Before Ronald Reagan, it was inconceivable for a divorcee to run for president. Today, nobody cares. At one time, to have been discovered smoking dope or taking cocaine would end a candidate’s campaign. Not so now. As the old taboos have fallen, so will the new ones. Today, it might be tough for an adulterous candidate to win office and near-impossible for a married candidate who has had sex online with their spouse to succeed in politics. Past returns are no guarantee of future results in either finance or politics, but the day a video exhibitionist who solicits tips wins office may be before us soon.”
It turns out that day may arrive less than two months from now as Virginia holds elections for state legislative offices (Virginia is one of a few states where citizens vote in odd years). Shafer relayed the sordid details of Democrat Virginia House candidate Susanna Gibson’s talent for drawing campaign donors through rather unconventional and voyeuristic tactics. It isn’t just that Susanna livestreamed her own marital sex acts, it’s that she sought to profit from them for, in her words, “a good cause”. In other words, without the audio portion of the woman’s interpretation of “Susanna does Richmond”, the incident might’ve been kept under wraps, so to speak, because we would’ve never known about her fundraising plea.
I haven’t seen Susanna’s actual videos and the snapshots that were available from a casual search of Google images didn’t reveal anything more than PG-13 content, yet it’s clear that the Democrat politician intended to employ her good looks and finely-toned physique so as to compel sex-deprived suckers and perverts on the internet to “coin up” and toss her a token or two for her campaign coffers.
One wonders if voyeur-extraordinaire Hunter Biden was watching Susanna, too, though the presidential son’s infamous laptop is no longer in his possession. And, here’s betting that any subsequent computers Hunter purchased contained a parental lock that leads directly to father Joe’s staffers to monitor.
No one – other than the people who triggered the media response to Gibson’s kinky presentations – can say for sure what Republicans hoped to gain from exposing yet another Democrat revealing her personal prurient side. And I’m not saying Democrats alone have that type of sick obsession; no doubt many GOPers have weaknesses, too. I’ve never delved into the subject, nor do I wish to know. What happens behind closed doors is, well, behind closed doors.
But again, if it was a Republican who spilled the beans on Gibson’s creative money-raising scheme, I’m not sure what they expected from it. Democrat voters don’t care – at all – about their politicians’ sex lives, even if the trash would be considered outside the bounds of decent society. How many Democrats, for example, have spoken out against things like “Drag Queen Story Hour” at public libraries, and who were the public figures always standing against offensive book bans in schools and also parental objections to blatant sexual content deemed inappropriate for children?
If you haven’t seen it, Louisiana Senator John Kennedy’s committee hearing performance last week is definitely worth viewing. Kennedy read from the actual words of a couple books at the center of the controversy over sex bans – one was called “GenderQueer” – and, if you never thought you’d hear the grandfatherly Kennedy utter those trashy words, now is your chance to see why he did it. Definitely “R” rated – and these fine works of literature were available in school libraries.
Would Democrats be okay with having underaged actors act out the scenes depicted in those books the way they appear to be just fine with a pleasing-to-the-eye 40-year-old nurse starring in her own sex theater production with her husband and beaming it to a semi-public pay-per-viewing audience? If the books are suitable (according to liberals) for libraries, why wouldn’t the subject matter be acceptable in video or picture form, too?
It's hypocrisy, isn’t it?
Well, at the heart of the matter, as I stated above, Democrats don’t care about the sex lives of party candidates, and, here’s speculating that they’d wager their voters don’t care, either. The subject first came into view (pardon the pun) during Big Bubba Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign and then was repeated time and again during his presidency, where DNA evidence and eyewitness testimony proved he’d been doing naughty things with females who weren’t his wife in the Oval Office, of all places.
Even before that, it wasn’t any secret that legendary (to them) president John F. Kennedy was a notorious Lothario and probable possessor of a sex addiction. Marilyn Monroe, anyone? I don’t remember seeing JFK’s out-of-view deeds inserted into the musical, “Camelot”. And then there was presidential brother Teddy Kennedy, whose reputation for carousing and drinking dwarfed anything else the family had to offer.
Did these human body functions and appetites sway any Democrat voters away from the perpetrators? It’s even arguable that Big Bubba Bill Clinton’s popularity increased once he’d been publicized to being open to playing around a little (or a lot). It’s just an observation, but don’t Democrats perk up when they see that one of their own challenges the bounds of decency?
In this sense, I don’t see Susanna Gibson’s cringe-worthy behavior harming her at all. As she’s already done, Susanna depicts her outing as a scumbag as a badge of honor and objections only come because she loves abortion or something. Or as an affront to women in general. This is how the feminist movement progressed and degraded. Gibson’s hairstyle and makeup show she’s used her good looks to sell herself – to a mostly male audience, no doubt.
Is that what dedicated feminists are supposed to do these days? Shouldn’t men only be interested in ladies for the content of their characters and smarts rather than blonde Barbie-doll hair, slutty looking gold hoop earrings and precisely done makeup that a beauty pageant contestant would be proud to wear? Whatever happened to bra burning and clinging to the notion that men only wanted women to be feminine to oppress them? Shouldn’t Gibson have enhanced her monetary appeal by offering her husband to fix him a snack and bring his slippers after they’d finished up?
No, Susanna Gibson sold her looks and willingness to please men so she could devote it to a “good cause”. What’s that, Mrs. Gibson -- political office? Abortion advocacy? “Climate change”?
Remember how, in the 80’s movie “Revenge of the Nerds”, the pencil-in-the-pocket crowd sold an illegally taken topless photo of a pretty sorority cheerleader pasted into a pie crust (and covered by whipped cream) to raise money for charity at their Homecoming Carnival? Are the two scenarios really all that different? Sex for money? Or is it merely a different iteration of the world’s oldest profession?
There’s no need to point out that the standard changes when Republicans are involved. Democrats love it when the opposition party’s candidates or leaders are caught with their proverbial pants down, particularly if it’s Donald Trump, who was even brought up on criminal charges in New York City for a purported dalliance with a porn star stemming from 2006.
Democrats are only proud of deviant sexual escapades made public if it’s one of their own committing the acts. Character doesn’t matter a hoot to Democrats! Bring on the video! Turn up the sound, will ya?
It’s probably safe to say that exhibitionist fundraiser Democrat Susanna Gibson (of Richmond, Virginia) didn’t plan on her online sex-extravaganza/campaign fundraiser hitting the national news, but once it did, she didn’t seem offended by the publicity. Democrats will stop at nothing – and censure no one – when winning a political office is at stake. Expect more sleaze in the future.
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
January 6 Committee
Liz Cheney
Build Back Better
Joe Manchin
RINOs
Marjorie Taylor Green
Kevin McCarthy
Mitch McConnell
2022 elections
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election