Vito Quiles calls Sarah Santaolalla 'disturbed' after sexual orientation clash

Vito Quiles responds 'disturbed' to Santaolalla after orientation clash

The controversy erupted when Sarah Santaolalla stated she knows Vito Quiles's address, the men he dates, and his phone number, claiming she would never leak such information. The journalist responded by calling her "crazy" and "disturbed," denied being lgtb, and asserted deep respect for gaiity. The exchange turned into a mutual accusation regarding both their private lives, with other users joining in.

What each side said exactly

Santaolalla wrote that she knows where Quiles lives, who he dates, and his phone number, stating she has no intention of leaking it or harassing him. This remark was a response to accusations that she harasses people she dislikes. Quiles replied that the politician "continues to demonstrate a sick obsession" with him and concluded: "I deeply respect gaiity and believe choosing whom to fall in love with makes no one different. But I am not lgtb."

The exchange did not end there. In the same thread, an accusation emerged that Quiles had harassed women, a claim he has not acknowledged and which was made without providing evidence. The discussion shifted to personal grounds and remained stuck there.

The opposite effect intended

Notably, the attempt to damage Quiles based on his alleged sensual orientation ended up mobilizing voices from the lgtb community itself in his defense. One user stated clearly: "I do not know Vito Quiles's sensual orientation, but no one has the right to say anything about it if he hasn't disclosed it. And this right does not depend on his ideology." The paradox is evident: those aiming to expose the journalist's private life ended up receiving rebukes from those they supposedly sought to protect.

Some argue these attacks reveal double standards: those who preach tolerance are often the first to use sensual orientation as a weapon when convenient. Others consider the episode merely a personal feud between two media figures with little political significance.

Bertrand Ndongo enters the scene

The conflict escalated when Bertrand Ndongo intervened with a message directed at Santaolalla, suggesting that if she wants something with Quiles, she should say so clearly, adding derogatory references to her partner. He later posted another message mocking Quiles's alleged command of language. Ndongo's intervention gave the confrontation a new dimension: it was no longer just a clash between two people, but a spectacle involving multiple actors.

Accusations flew regarding who pays whom and the misuse of public resources. The conversation drifted into scatological and sensual territories far removed from the original political debate.

Who is who in this clash

Sarah Santaolalla is a political figure linked to the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) in Salamanca, according to the exchange itself. Vito Quiles is a journalist known for his social media activity and editorial line critical of the left. Bertrand Ndongo is a regular commentator in media and online, known for his direct and provocative style.

The discussion allowed some participants to highlight the phenomenon of politics-as-spectacle: figures building their public presence through personal clashes rather than proposals. Some see this as a symptom of degraded public debate; others view it as mere entertainment without consequences.

The background: sensual orientation as a political weapon

Beyond this specific clash, the episode raises a fundamental question: Is it legitimate to use someone's sensual orientation, real or alleged, as a tool for political attack? The majority view in the debate is no. Even critics of Quiles's editorial stance agree that his private life should not be bargaining currency.

The paradox intensifies when noting the attack came from someone identifying as pogre. This has led some to speak of a "boomerang effect": the attempt to discredit Quiles based on alleged gaiity generated solidarity toward him, even among those who disagree with his ideas. The conclusion drawn is that using sensual orientation as a weapon ultimately harms the wielder.

---

It remains to be seen if this episode will have real political consequences or fade away like many other media feuds. What seems clear is that the strategy of attacking someone based on their private life has stopped working, if it ever did. The most reasonable prediction, with all caveats, is that the clash will die down without clear winners but leave a residue: next time someone tries to use sensual orientation as ammunition, they will face the same backlash.