“Erika Kirk will continue his legacy, and will be a fearless advocate for the most elite airpower force in the history of the world whose warriors keep our nation safe, strong and free.”
Do you think Erika Kirk could even describe to you how airplanes fly with a basic grade school explanation?
Stop. It’s 2026, we don’t need to do this sex shaming bullshit anymore. Giving blowjobs doesn’t make you a bad person. Being good at blowjobs doesn’t make you a bad person. Don’t lump Erika fucking Kirk in with people who are simply good at blowjobs. Erika Kirk is a bad person because she’s profiting off of her husband’s death. Erika Kirk is a bad person because she’s continuing her husband’s legacy of hate and bigotry. Blowjobs have nothing to do with it, and you’re muddying the waters by making that the focus.
This. If anything, blowjobs should be encouraged. Because they’re nice.
Much as I agree with this post, I don’t think emphasis here is on blowjob but on doing sexual favours to increase your influence. Also not claiming that it is right, though I agree she clearly seems to be enjoying the influence her husband’s death provided to her.
The original comment is putting “performs oral sex” in the same moral category as “uses dead husband’s bigoted beliefs and influence to put herself in positions of power in an authoritarian government”. That’s asinine. I don’t feel the need to tolerate such stupid opinions. Sex work is real work, and performing sex acts between consenting adults is not immoral.
I agree that sex work is real work and sex between consenting adults is always moral. However performing sexual favours to obtain something that you don’t deserve (for instance a position that should be given based on other merit) is immoral, not because of the sex but because of a reason not so dissimilar to nepotism. Our situation here is akin to me saying “nepotism is bad” and you saying “but looking after your relatives is not immoral”. Again I don’t know why “blowjob” was chosen there specifically, presumably because of all the gossip about Trump and blowjobs that have been circulating since day one, but at least on my end I did not focus on that aspect. And again I am not at all claiming that Erika has done anything of the sort which I guess is besides the point I am trying to make here.
Implying that a woman has obtained a position of power by performing a sex act is misogynist. Implying that Erika Kirk obtained her new position by performing a sex act distracts from the actual facts: she’s using her husband’s death and influence to obtain power. I appreciate the nuance you’re trying to bring to the conversation, but you’re sort of falling into the trap the original commenter laid - you’re letting yourself get distracted from the fact that Erika Kirk is terrible because she’s an evil human being, not because she’s a woman who may or may not perform sex acts.