LogFAQs > #976038156

Sorry if there's already a topic. Did a few searches and didn't see anything.

I had to asterisk out the names of the sites, because saying the name of well-known porn sites on Gamefaqs might cause irreversible harm to people who see it, but they're in the article.

A Democrat running for a crucial seat in Virginias 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 **********, a platform that says it takes its name from ''the act of masturbating while chatting online.''

******** videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the ******** stream were archived on one of those sites ********* in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

While still listed on *********, those videos were no longer available for viewing as of Saturday, after a Republican operative alerted The Washington Post about them. But the videos remained live on another non-password-protected site, which The Post viewed. At least two other publicly available sites displayed explicit still photos from the videos, The Post confirmed.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting ''tips'' for performing specific acts in apparent violation of **********s terms and conditions, which say: ''Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.''

In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is ''raising money for a good cause.''

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through ''tokens'' purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a ''private room,'' an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.

''I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,'' she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. ''One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.''

Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says ''thank you'' five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

Gibson takes the lead in addressing viewers on videos viewed by The Post, but in one case her husband, an attorney, chimes in with, ''Cmon, guys,'' to echo her entreaties for tips.

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 wont intimidate me and it wont silence me,'' she said. ''My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven theyre willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because theres no line they wont cross to silence women when they speak up.''

Daniel P. Watkins, a lawyer for Gibson, said disseminating the videos constitutes a violation of the states 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.

The Post typically does not identify victims of alleged sex crimes to protect their privacy. In this case, Gibson originally live-streamed these sexual acts on a site that was not password-protected. The couple had more than 5,700 followers there. Many of the videos remained available to the public on other unrestricted sites as of Saturday. Watkins said Gibson was not aware of, and had not authorized, the posting of ********** material on other sites.

Asked why Gibson had a reasonable expectation of privacy on **********, Watkins pointed to a 2021 Virginia Court of Appeals ruling that found it was unlawful for a man to secretly record his girlfriend during a consensual sexual encounter even if he did not show the video to others.

In that case, Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, the court found that consent to being seen is not the same as consent to being recorded, writing that there was a ''stark distinction between an image existing only in someones memory [and] a permanent file that may be shared or re-viewed indefinitely.''