October 30, 2026:

It’s midterm election season, and we’re being bombarded with incessant political advertising as usual. I’m a sex educator, so I’m not going to write about the many interchangeable and unmemorable attack ads of the 2026 election—or the (rare) clever or controversial ones.

I am, however, compelled to comment on two Republican campaign ads that crossed the line from provocative to exploitative: One from Steve Hilton, who is running for governor of California, and another from Vivek Ramaswamy, the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate in Ohio.

Every election year around this time, I count my blessings because I live in a blue town, in a blue county, in a blue state, where we have few competitive races. And as a result, I rarely have to see political ads. These two only bubbled up because they were that bad. 

These ads are misguided in very different ways: One is disgraceful, the other merely creepy. But both show a remarkable lack of respect for women. 

As a sex educator, I spend a lot of time teaching adolescents and young adults about the importance of believing people who disclose sexual abuse, recognizing coercion, and respecting other people’s bodies. Both of these ads fail miserably in their handling of these issues.

California and the strange, pornographic lesbian fantasy ad

Steve Hilton was probably trying to be cute and clever with a lesbian-themed political ad his campaign released on Oct. 1. But people didn’t seem to find it funny. 

In the 52-second spot, two young women sit on a bed with a rainbow pride flag in the background. You can tell they’re supposed to be lesbians because of all of the stereotypes: One has pink hair and a septum piercing; the other has dyed hair and a pierced lip. 

“I can’t believe I’m doing this,” pierced lady #1 says.  

Pierced lady #2 replies, “Don’t be nervous. It’s not that bad.” 

Pierced lady #1 looks scared and asks, “What if my dad finds out?” 

“Just try it. Look, give me your hand,” says the other woman, a little more forcefully. “Close your eyes, and I’ll do all the work.”

The camera pans down to follow the women’s hands as they venture near their crotches. There, pierced lady #1 slowly—dare I say sensually—fills in the circle for Hilton on her mail-in ballot. 

Once it’s finished, she relaxes and admits she kind of liked it. 

“Now lick it,” #2 demands, sounding more and more like a dominatrix. 

The commercial ends with the words: “Just try it.”

Presumably, Hilton’s ad is meant to be a cheeky send-up of lesbian porn. But this is not a clever advertisement. It has the maturity level of a letter to Penthouse magazine—meaning, it’s basically a straight teenage boy’s sexualized, uncanny-valley vision of a lesbian relationship. It feels inauthentic and exploitative.

I watched it a couple of times to check myself. I am not immune to identity politics, and I had to wonder: Would I be equally outraged if a Democrat had put out that ad? Or a queer woman candidate?

It’s true that my perception of Hilton’s ad is colored by the fact that he’s a Republican, and a cis male, straight one (as far as we know). The GOP is the party that opposed marriage equality. Its members promote conversion therapy and vilify drag queens. They’ve tried to ban an ABC book about a puppy that gets lost at Pride.  

Hilton’s record on gay rights is at least a little better than that. Before coming to the United States, the U.K.-born Hilton helped push the Conservative Party to embrace same-sex marriage when he was a high-level advisor to the prime minister. 

Maybe he thinks this gives him the street cred to be allowed to use lesbians as the butt of his joke. I disagree. 

In his new role as a U.S. politician, Hilton has campaigned against trans rights, promising to end the “insanity” of allowing transgender athletes to participate in girl’s sports. Even if you have a good record on gay marriage, it is slimy and unethical to vilify some members of the LGBTQ+ community and then use others to sell your product. (Equality California, a leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group, endorsed Hilton’s Democratic opponent, Xavier Becerra.)

And frankly, this ad would still be a problem even if it came from a Democrat who was supportive of LGBTQ+ rights, because it depicts a coercive relationship. One of the women has fears. She’s worried that her parents will disapprove. She’s not sure she wants to do what her apparent romantic partner is asking. But the other woman keeps pushing. 

At a moment when U.S. society is having important conversations about both consent and voter fraud, this ad gets the messages about both wrong. Just as no one should coerce a partner into having sex, no one should coerce you into voting for a particular candidate. 

Ohio: Political ad uses Amy Acton’s abuse history against her 

The other ad that I feel compelled to comment on has, thankfully, already received a deluge of negative attention nationally. 

In mid-October 2026, Vivek Ramaswamy released a truly despicable attack on his opponent for Ohio governor, Amy Acton, spotlighting her family history. The 65-second ad features Acton’s estranged mother calling her daughter a liar multiple times. 

In a weak voice, filmed against a blurred background that looks like a family kitchen, Donna Arthur tells viewers that her daughter “has a serious problem” and has “lied her entire life.” 

“My daughter needs help, and she can’t help you if she needs help herself,” she adds. “People can change, but first they have to tell the truth. And my daughter still isn’t doing that. Don’t vote for people who lie.”   

I don’t think family is necessarily off limits in a political campaign. I remember an ad from the 2018 midterm election in which six of Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar’s siblings said they weren’t voting for him because they disagreed with his positions on immigration, health care, and the environment. 

That ad showcased genuine differences of opinion on matters relevant to voters. But Amy Acton’s estrangement from her mother did not stem from a disagreement over political views. 

Acton, now a physician, has talked publicly about her difficult and traumatic childhood. In addition to physical abuse, Acton says her step father raped her when she was between the ages of 10 and 12.  

In July 1978, a grand jury indicted Cledith Arthur, Acton’s step father, charging him with raping a person under 13. Acton’s mother lost custody of Acton and her brother. 

Donna Arthur later reportedly fled the area with her husband to avoid trial. Cledith Arthur became a fugitive in October 1978 after failing to appear in court when he was out on bail. Donna Arthur stayed with him until his death in 2004. 

So when Acton’s mother calls her daughter a liar, she is accusing a 12-year-old of lying about being raped. And by including Arthur in his new ad, so is Ramaswamy. 

Ramaswamy’s ad plays into the pernicious narrative that women lie about being raped. 

We see this all the time, especially when the victim knows her attacker. Grown women are asked whether it was just a misunderstanding or accused of “crying rape” over consensual sex they later regretted. College students are chastised for being drunk, and for “leading the guy on.” 

Children who disclose sexual assault may be spared the slut-shaming scrutiny of their own behavior. But that doesn’t mean they are believed. Children’s sexual assault claims can easily be brushed off as a figment of their overactive imagination. 

The fear of not being believed prevents adult victims from going to the police, and it prevents abused children from telling a trusted adult. That may mean the abuse continues for longer, and it may delay getting the victim the mental health care they need. 

As a child and a victim of abuse, Acton’s trauma should be off-limits—not cast as fiction and cynically exploited for political gain. 

A healthy public discourse around sexual assault should help to encourage everyone to come forward and to get help. Political ads like Ramaswamy’s do the opposite: They show victims, including children, that they won’t be believed.

What ads say about candidates’ views of women—and why that matters

As a sex educator, I’d be remiss not to point out that how a political candidate treats women is an important indication of how they’ll use their power and platform if elected.

President Donald Trump, for example, has publicly defended Ramaswamy’s ad against the onslaught of bad press. This should surprise no one: At least two dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct.

Some of their allegations were known well before his election back in 2016. They range from grabbing butts and kissing without consent to committing full-on rape. And in 2023 a jury in New York found Trump liable for sexually abusing author E.J. Carroll decade earlier. (Trump has repeatedly claimed that all his accusers are lying.) 

What’s additionally troubling about the Hilton and Ramaswamy ads are the political calculations behind the decisions to run these ads.

Hilton and the professional political operatives he hired to run his campaign seemed to think that Californians would respond positively to a straight man’s version of lesbian fantasy porn—one in which a woman’s sexual boundaries are pushed beyond comfort. 

In Ramaswamy’s case, there are reports that some advisors pushed back. But Ramaswamy and the team that made that ad believed that challenging women’s credibility would resonate with Ohio voters.

It looks like we could all use a little extra sex education this campaign season.

Source

Source link