Moral Standards Crumble, Senators Fiddle

Videographed pornography and profiles in cowardice by Virginia's senior Democrats

The Emperor Nero is said to have fiddled while Rome burned. In the centuries since, that has become a metaphor for public officials occupying themselves with trivia while ignoring calamities.  Now the Democrat party is fiddling away while a well-organized attack on fundamental cultural values is causing moral standards to crumble.

There may be hundreds of examples of this, but a recent one illustrates it well.  In involves a local political race in Virginia. But the issues raised in this race illustrate problems that go beyond a local Virginia election contest.

THE HISTORIC HOUSE OF DELEGATES

First, context requires a short look at the political race involved. It is a contest to represent District 57 in the Virginia House of Delegates.  The House of Delegates has a storied history.  It traces its lineage back to the House of Burgess in 1619. Its members have included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and other historical figures to whom the country owes much. Members should be obligated to comport themselves in a manner that reflects dignity and honor upon such a historical body. 

THE CURRENT CANDIDATES

Enter would-be representative, Susanna Gibson. 

Ms. Gibson is the Democratic candidate for District 57 of the House of Delegates.  She is a nurse practitioner and lifelong Democrat. Her GOP opponent is retired businessman and building contractor David Owen.

BIG PORN AND THE PORN STAR CANDIDATE

In addition to being a nurse practitioner, Ms. Gibson has another job – she is a porn star (unless she has stopped since her sideline business was exposed). And make no mistake about it, Gibson is a cog in the “big porn” machine.” She and her husband live-stream sex shows for money.  An author’s note in appropriate here:  I have eschewed viewing any of her videos in preparing this article.  The descriptions of her activities below are taken from other reports (including the Washington Post, which initially broke the story, as well as some defending her), whose authors have apparently subjected themselves to watching.

GIBSON’S BUSINESS MODEL 

Gibson, a self-described “slut,” and her husband perform on a Big Porn platform called “Chaturbate,” which the Post described as a name derived “from the act of masturbating while chatting online.” The name gives you some idea of the site’s business model. The Gibsons have over 5700 subscribers to their “HotWifeExperience” channel. 

Chaturbate clients use their credit cards to purchase tokens.  They can then “tip” the performers with the tokens.  Chaturbate credits half of the price of the tokens used to the performers and keeps the other 50% for itself. 

Chaturbate’s “Rules” on its website specifically prohibit giving or accepting “tips” for “the performance of specific acts.” They warn, “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.” That prohibition likely is intended to insulate Chaturbate from charges of procuring prostitution.  More on that below. 

That ban, however, apparently is loosely monitored and enforced. Gibson flaunted it, seemingly without concern. In one video session she offered to allow viewers to watch her urinate in exchange for tips in tokens saying, “Y’all can watch me pee if you tip me and some tokens.” She claimed the money was going to an unspecified “good cause.” There are other examples of her offering to perform if subscribers paid up, but that one will suffice.

Apparently Chaturbate offers the option of restricting some performances to “private rooms” where customers can see more in exchange for bigger tips.  In a video that the Daily Wire reports was recorded after she had launched her campaign, she said to her husband, on camera, “I’ll let you f*** me in the a** doggy style in a private room if someone wants to pay. That’s the deal.” Or, “I just want a private room with somebody filming their c*** so I can come looking at it, Jesus Christ …. Oh God I want to f***ing get railroaded by all of you.” Understand, these offers were made in exchange for money paid via tokens. 

In another session she said that she claimed to be “ethically nonmonogamous” (whatever that is) but admitted that having sex with three men in one day may have been pushing even her ethical limits. “Don’t tell my husband he was the third. I would say ethically nonmonogamous, but I guess that three in one day was not.”

She says that she and her husband, David, are in an “open relationship.”  “Yeah, I f*** random strangers if you're hot,” she says. But she also says that her husband “doesn't like sharing.” But David adds, “Sometimes I have to though. She makes me.” 

THE DISCLOSURE AND GIBSON’S COUNTER-ATTACK

Gibson, who clearly knows a gutter when she sees one, launched a counterattack, arguing that sharing the videos of her sexual performances with non-paying viewers was “the worst gutter politics.” Showing and selling her sexual wares is fine, as long as people pay her for the exhibition. But after her videos predictably migrated to other web sites where they could be watched by viewers who had not paid her for the privilege, she accused the leakers of “commit[ing] 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.”  

She also made the frivolous claim to CNN that sharing the videos “is an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.” That frivolous invasion of privacy claim, however, is refuted by the Gibsons’ agreement with Chaturbate.  Its Rules provide this express warning and agreement (bolded font in original; highlighting added):

Warning Regarding Streaming Content. . . .  It is possible that other Community Members might, without your permission, unlawfully record, make copies of, store, re-broadcast, distribute, publish or otherwise share your broadcast online or through other media forms. You assume all risk for your broadcasts and hereby release and agree to indemnify and hold us harmless us for all actions arising out of such activities, including without limitation invasion of privacy, defamation, and/or intellectual property infringement. As noted in our Privacy Policy, all information and content you determine to share or stream through the Platform, including in "private" and/or password protected situations, is considered public information.

In its Broadcaster Guide, Chaturbate cautioned the Gibsons about how easy this is:

Is it possible someone might record my broadcast without my permission?

As noted in our Privacy Policy, unfortunately the answer is yes. With the nature of live streaming, it is possible for people to record your show if they have the right software or even just a phone pointed at their screen.

Considering the almost-certainty that her videos would be widely circulated, even Gibson’s defenders must acknowledge that she was, at a minimum, reckless in the extreme when she engaged in this conduct if she did not want her family, including her children, to learn about it. If anyone has humiliated Gibson and her family, it is Gibson herself and her husband.

Nevertheless, the current state of our culture is such that Gibson does not lack for defenders on the left who accuse critics of her “racy online activities” of “pearl clutching” misogyny that is meant to foster “patriarchal standards.” And as further evidence of the destruction of any moral standards, she and her Democrat supporters are not letting the crisis go to waste – they are using it as a fundraising opportunity. For example, Virginia Senate President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas (no relation), wrote, “Today, Glenn Youngkin’s team leaked videos of @SusannaSGibson to try to embarrass and humiliate her, and they failed completely. Now, we are going to make this the biggest fundraising day of her campaign.”

CHATURBATE’S BIG PORN OPERATION

Just who owns and runs Chaturbate is a bit murky. Its founders reportedly do not give interviews. The Chaturbate trademark reportedly is owned by Multi Media LLC, but ownership of the trademark does not necessarily indicate who owns and is profiting from the web platform on which the videos are hosted. Reportedly, Chaturbate is the fifth most popular pornographic site worldwide.    

According to SimilarWeb, the Chaturbate site had 445 million visits in August 2023. WorthofWeb calculates that as of the end of 2022, it enjoyed an average of 35 million visits each day that generate almost $200 million in annual revenue, and a reported worth of $1.75 billion. Big business indeed.

VIRGINIA’S CRMINAL PROSTITUTION STATUTE

Virginia’s Criminal Code § 18.2-346 provides that any person “who, for money or its equivalent,” performs or offers to perform “cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus upon or by another person; engages in sexual intercourse or anal intercourse ... with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify … is guilty of prostitution, which is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

Although prostitution often may involve situations where the person engaged in these acts is the same person who pays, this criminal statue is not so limited. An experienced Virginia defense attorney and former prosecutor has gone on record to opine that the plain language of the statute would therefore appear to apply to Gibson’s performance of the sexual acts shown in her videos. Her sexual acts were in exchange for the tokens, which were used on Chaturbate as the “equivalent” of money.

VIRGINIA’S COWARDLY DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS

Gibson’s defenders, through their silence, include Virginia’s Democrat senators Tim Kaine, and Mark Warner, as well as Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, who has said that she will run for governor in the next election. I contacted the offices of both Senators and Representative Spanberger by telephone and by email, numerous times.  All have assiduously avoided answering questions or criticizing Gibson’s candidacy, much less calling on her to withdraw from the race.

When the personnel in their offices learned that I was working on an article about Gibson’s candidacy, they clammed up and asked me to submit any questions in writing.  So, I did.  They did not answer.  I received no response when I followed up with a request for a reply of some sort. The questions that I sent to Kaine are included in the Appendix at the end of this article. Those to the others are identical with only the names changed. Basically, they ask if each recipient supported Gibson’s candidacy and to justify the reasons for such support.

Even though they all requested written questions, none answered a single question. Nor have any even explained why they will not respond. Based upon their refusal to condemn her candidacy, perhaps these Virginia senators and would-be governor agree with a Michigan-based lawyer for the porn industry, who, in a sure signal that the apocalypse is upon us, described her candidacy as “very refreshing.  

This author has company in his frustration at the refusal to provide any response.  Breitbard.com reports that Warner and Spanberger both refuse to say whether they support Gibson’s candidacy. Spanberger also failed to respond to an inquiry from the Associated Press.

For his part, in a chest-thumping show of faux non-partisanship, Senator Kaine self-servingly claimed that “I don’t mind criticizing administrations that are Democratic or Republican.” Nonetheless, despite his bravado, he is afraid to answer whether he had an “opinion on whether or not Gibson should continue her campaign.” When asked, Kaine evaded the question and regurgitated an evasive word salad that is available on YouTube.  Kaine just kept repeating that he was “very surprised,” “didn’t really know her,” and that, “you know, look, she hasn’t even asked me for an endorsement.” What a profile in courage!

It is fair to say that Kaine tried to protect himself by half-heartedly distancing himself from Gibson. But he refused to protect Virginia citizens and the dignity of the House of Delegates by calling on Gibson to discontinue her campaign or even by criticizing her candidacy in the slightest.  Kaine obviously did not want to take the heat from his fellow leftists of being “patriarchal.”  

These politicians will not go on the record to condemn prostitution and the trash on Gibson’s Chaturbate site.  The same is true of the Virginia Democrat party.  Given this failure, one must ask, ‘Is there anything a Democrat can do that they will condemn?’  Given their refusal to answer questions about this shameful affair, the answer presumably is “no.” They are too cowardly to say anything in support of any standards of decency and propriety.  The fact that they think that voters will not hold them to account for this failure is indicative of a continued crumbling of moral standards. 

Remember them for that.   

APPENDIX Questions Submitted to Senators Kaine and Warner and Representative Spanberger

If you like this, please consider sharing with your friends and to any of your social media accounts.