

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.





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.