The only time anyone cares about this type of stuff is when it’s a woman. Trump can rape as many as he pleases and republicans love him. But what can I say, they’re all fascists anyways, they love to treat women as slaves.

The only time anyone cares about this type of stuff is when it’s a woman. Trump can rape as many as he pleases and republicans love him. But what can I say, they’re all fascists anyways, they love to treat women as slaves. Its was wrong in Trumps case. And wrong in this case. Laughable that just because its someone on the left - that this is anti-woman rhetoric by the right. The sex trade is degrading and anti-woman. The attempt to normalize by the left is just sad. The double standard here is on the left.

Its was wrong in Trumps case. And wrong in this case. Trump: Sexually Assaults 25 women and is in Epstein's flight logs Gibson: Has sex with her husband and people can pay to watch and suggest things they do THESE ARE LITERALLY NOT COMPARABLE BY ANY MEANS This what's known as a false equivalency Laughable that just because its someone on the left - that this is anti-woman rhetoric by the right. I mean, it is anti-woman. It's the GOP Policing what women can do with their bodies, because they feel that they should control what women can do with them. All the while DISTRACTING from the actual issues for the race The sex trade is degrading and anti-woman. The attempt to normalize by the left is just sad. The double standard here is on the left. The sex trade is degrading and anti-woman, however THIS ISN'T THE SEX TRADE. Susana is not being trafficked, she is not being forced to fuck someone she doesn't want to in order to make ends meet, she doesn't have a pimp Who profits from this: Susanna Gibson Who consented to this: Susanna Gibson The problem with the way Sex work has been done up to this point is that women were what is being sold but not the one who is making the money, their labor being exploited by someone else whether it be a pimp on the streets or a Porn Exec in an office. But now with the rise of stuff like OnlyFans, the women themselves are being put in charge of the work they do; they are not being forced to do scenes they don't like or do get paid like 5% of the profit: now they control what they post, who they collaborate with, and they reap all the benefits. So again I must ask the questions that you keep avoiding: Why is this important? And what is the problem?

LOL. Laughable that you don't think this is the sex trade. Your fringe definitions are not mainstream and don't make it right. Attempts to normalize this only hurts women. If the Democrats keep her on the ballot it's only going to hurt the party across Virginia and they will regret it. It could well cost them other seats.

We are gonna have to go bit by bit again...... LOL. Laughable that you don't think this is the sex trade. Your fringe definitions are not mainstream and don't make it right. Well the funny thing is that the Term "Sex Trade" is not really a term in and of itself with a definition. Putting "Sex Trade" in Google gets u results relating to Sex Trafficking (Which doesn't apply here). The only place that has a definition is Cambridge University which defines it as activities that involve providing sexual services for money, such as prostitution. Which in and of itself is not bad, the issues relating to the industry is the exploitation of women, which would be completely avoided by allowing women the ones who control their own autonomy in the field as opposed to allowing it to remain a male dominated industry by shaming any instance of women having control Attempts to normalize this only hurts women. How dare I want to give women control over their bodies, how shameful of me.... If the Democrats keep her on the ballot it's only going to hurt the party across Virginia and they will regret it. It could well cost them other seats. Assumption, but considering u are not only NOT a Dem but are also endorsing her opponent in the race why do you care?

It would be a major blunder to pull her off the ballot for something minor like this in her personal life. It would send a strong anti-choice message which is counterintuitive to what the Dems at least claim to support. I’d really like to know how any of this should disqualify her. Additionally, imagine thinking that having consensual sex for money is on the same level as being an egregious rapist. This just in—I happen to believe in freedom and consent and not government overreach into our personal lives and RAPE.

I was hoping that this mentality would be over once at least the millennials would enter the scene, but we still have stuff like MGTOWs and Incels that will make this a thing for the future

I feel like Majewski is someone who shouldn't be throwing rocks at glass homes.

At one point, she floated the idea of ordering room service and opening her hotel room door naked once the food was delivered. Of course she would only do it for 500 tokens or whatever. That's at least indecent exposure.

At one point, she floated the idea of ordering room service and opening her hotel room door naked once the food was delivered. Of course she would only do it for 500 tokens or whatever. That's at least indecent exposure. Is it illegal to be naked in your hotel room?

Huh? Yes, intentionally exposing yourself to another person without their consent is illegal in Virginia. Good grief.

Huh? Yes, intentionally exposing yourself to another person without their consent is illegal in Virginia. Good grief. Noy only in VA, but almost everywhere.

Huh? Yes, intentionally exposing yourself to another person without their consent is illegal in Virginia. Good grief. Keep in mind she didn't do it.

BBB....BB....BUT SHE COULD HAVE. ERGO SHE IS EVIL!!!!!!