peruvianskys:
Am I the only one who thinks this whole sexualization of breast cancer thing needs to stop? Most people who get breast cancer are middle-aged to elderly women whose breasts are not particularly exciting. My mother had breast cancer and she hated seeing those "I <3 Boobies" things because it made her feel like her cancer didn't matter because she didn't have nice tits for people to want to save. And I can totally understand feeling like that. I think turning breast cancer into a sexual issue, even jokingly, sends a really shitty message that somehow we should care about women's health not because breast cancer kills people but because boobs are super neat, and that breast cancer is bad because it steals tits away from those who love to see them and not because it destroys the lives of women. It's better than nothing, but seriously, we can do a lot better.

I know that a porn site doing a "the more you look at boobs, the more we donate" thing is supposed to be humorous, but it really seems disrespectful and tacky to make it about tits instead of women, especially considering that, as I said before, most of the breasts that are destroyed by cancer are less than sightly.

I have to apologize but I truly believe that her take on the "I heart boobies" campaign is a self-conciousness issue. Not necessarily her fault considering what cancer can do to your body, but nevertheless a personal problem and not one with the campaign. I would consider it more flattering if taken with some good humour. Think about all the breast cancer victims that may have breasts that are maybe unnatractive but that get to see people supporting them as if they were. Wouldn't that be more of a morale boost?

Don't blame them. The heart is obviously in the right place and generosity is to be applauded. But the source in this case is seedy and disreputable. Being associated with a porn site is bad for publicity and public image and probably more damaging in the long run to a company/corporate image. In the case of a charity, it may put off more potential donors.

KingsGambit:
Don't blame them. The heart is obviously in the right place and generosity is to be applauded. But the source in this case is seedy and disreputable. Being associated with a porn site is bad for publicity and public image and probably more damaging in the long run to a company/corporate image. In the case of a charity, it may put off more potential donors.

I cant help but feel that the best solution would be to break the money up into a thousand smaller donations and donate them all anonymously from different sources. Then they can help minus the negative publicity.

xxcloud417xx:
Think about all the breast cancer victims that may have breasts that are maybe unnatractive but that get to see people supporting them as if they were. Wouldn't that be more of a morale boost?

What the fuck about that is a moral boost?

"Supporting them as if they were?" As in, caring about a woman as if they had nice tits? How fucking generous of you, leaning down to all those poor women cursed with unattractive tits and, through the goodness of your heart, pretending they're sexy enough to value as human beings. What a saint!

This is exactly the fucking problem with the sexualized approach. It rests on this shitty, shitty idea that a woman's value exists not because she is a living, breathing human being, but because she has lumps of flesh on her chest that you find it fun to masturbate to. It's all about dealing with women's health on your time, for your benefit, and your insulting and patronizing view that women might be cheered up to have their unsexy, cancer-ridden bodies grouped in with the women that really matter, the sexy ones, just underscores the inherent androcentric approach this bullshit thing is taking. I'm disgusted.

The Komen Foundation is pretty terrible and more concerned with branding than a cure or research. I bet you can guess how I feel on this subject

It was a yes or no question. Why is there even a third option...I don't...

Yes, it has the right to refuse the donation, it's a charity but it's not bound to accept every payment made. However, it really shouldn't, because their close-mindedness is hurting their cause. I hope someone else steps up to receive those donations, or that is a waste of good will.

I find it more disheartening how much people still look down on the porn industry.

I'm not saying it's perfect, or hasn't had a high number of bad bits to it, but the whole industry isn't this women objectifying destruction of humanity.

This whole thing just proves that charities are as tasteless as the industry they are so quick to put down.

BiscuitTrouser:
I cant help but feel that the best solution would be to break the money up into a thousand smaller donations and donate them all anonymously from different sources. Then they can help minus the negative publicity.

I thoroughly agree with you here. Donating to a charity is always good for anyone's public image, even for a pr0n site. Receiving money from a disreputable company is usually bad for public perceptions. But if the donator is willing to forgo the public acknowledgement of their generosity (ie. if their hearts are genuinely in the right place and their main goal is in fact raising money for the charity, and not being seen to have done so), then doing as you suggest is a rare win-win solution.

xxcloud417xx:

Father Time:

tippy2k2:
I don't know if this is going to be the accepted view or I'm going to get ripped for this but here it goes anyway...

The Susan G Komen Foundation should accept the funds and it is absolutely ridiculous that they are rejecting the funds because it's from a porn site. Beggars can't be choosers and there is absolutely no way that I'm going to donate to a charity that rejects funding from a group because they don't like it for some reason.

I know this doesn't apply to porn but hypothetically what if it was from an organization that sells something that causes the disease they're fighting?

Like a lung cancer charity refusing a donation from a tobacco company.

Well hypothetically that would be called lobbying (nothing hypothetical either, tobacco giants have tried this already). However, this isn't the case here until someone can scientifically prove that sex causes breast cancer.

I thought lobbying involved trying to befriend lawmakers or at least convince them to vote the way you want. Not sure how talking to a charity would qualify.

Snowblindblitz:
I find it more disheartening how much people still look down on the porn industry.

I'm not saying it's perfect, or hasn't had a high number of bad bits to it, but the whole industry isn't this women objectifying destruction of humanity.

This whole thing just proves that charities are as tasteless as the industry they are so quick to put down.

Someone else said that they may get less individual donors if they accept a donation from a porn company.

If I were them I'd say 'give it to us anonymously and tell your users that you're giving it to a breast cancer charity that shall remain nameless'.

I'm not sure if that would be possible though. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much about the rules governing non-profits, but I do know that if they did that pornhub would probably have to disclose the name of the charity to the IRS but since they're for profit they don't have to reveal their tax returns to the public. Non-profits do but I don't know if that means they can't accept large anonymous donations.

Although a large anonymous donation equal to the amount pornhub promised would be suspicious.

Hmmm... maybe I need to rethink this.

tippy2k2:
I don't know if this is going to be the accepted view or I'm going to get ripped for this but here it goes anyway...

The Susan G Komen Foundation should accept the funds and it is absolutely ridiculous that they are rejecting the funds because it's from a porn site. Beggars can't be choosers and there is absolutely no way that I'm going to donate to a charity that rejects funding from a group because they don't like it for some reason.

Unless the money is gained from illegal sources (which porn is obviously not), they should accept the money. I don't know if there will be any backlash due to this but I certainly won't donate to a charity organization that picks and chooses who they will accept money from.

My thoughts exactly. Besides, its from a porn site: Who else would clearly appreciate breasts more, save the women they're attached to?

peruvianskys:

xxcloud417xx:
Think about all the breast cancer victims that may have breasts that are maybe unnatractive but that get to see people supporting them as if they were. Wouldn't that be more of a morale boost?

What the fuck about that is a moral boost?

"Supporting them as if they were?" As in, caring about a woman as if they had nice tits? How fucking generous of you, leaning down to all those poor women cursed with unattractive tits and, through the goodness of your heart, pretending they're sexy enough to value as human beings. What a saint!

This is exactly the fucking problem with the sexualized approach. It rests on this shitty, shitty idea that a woman's value exists not because she is a living, breathing human being, but because she has lumps of flesh on her chest that you find it fun to masturbate to. It's all about dealing with women's health on your time, for your benefit, and your insulting and patronizing view that women might be cheered up to have their unsexy, cancer-ridden bodies grouped in with the women that really matter, the sexy ones, just underscores the inherent androcentric approach this bullshit thing is taking. I'm disgusted.

I think my hands are blistered from the round of applause I just delivered.

Texas Joker 52:

My thoughts exactly. Besides, its from a porn site: Who else would clearly appreciate breasts more, save the women they're attached to?

Possibly people who think breasts are not just sandbags on a woman's chest.

peruvianskys:

xxcloud417xx:
Think about all the breast cancer victims that may have breasts that are maybe unnatractive but that get to see people supporting them as if they were. Wouldn't that be more of a morale boost?

What the fuck about that is a moral boost?

"Supporting them as if they were?" As in, caring about a woman as if they had nice tits? How fucking generous of you, leaning down to all those poor women cursed with unattractive tits and, through the goodness of your heart, pretending they're sexy enough to value as human beings. What a saint!

This is exactly the fucking problem with the sexualized approach. It rests on this shitty, shitty idea that a woman's value exists not because she is a living, breathing human being, but because she has lumps of flesh on her chest that you find it fun to masturbate to. It's all about dealing with women's health on your time, for your benefit, and your insulting and patronizing view that women might be cheered up to have their unsexy, cancer-ridden bodies grouped in with the women that really matter, the sexy ones, just underscores the inherent androcentric approach this bullshit thing is taking. I'm disgusted.

I...um...I...wow.

I don't even know what else to say. This is just an awesome post, and you are awesome for writing it.

It's considered 'cute', I guess, to yell "Save the Ta-Tas!", but then why don't we yell "Save the Boners!" to support research for preventing prostate or testicular cancer? Ohhh, right, 'cause men are people.

OT: I despise the Komen Foundation and how they've decided that women who want to control their own bodies aren't kosher. So give the money to a group that actually gives a crap and tell Komen to go screw themselves.

Zachary Amaranth:

Texas Joker 52:
My thoughts exactly. Besides, its from a porn site: Who else would clearly appreciate breasts more, save the women they're attached to?

Possibly people who think breasts are not just sandbags on a woman's chest.

That was actually meant to be a lighthearted joke, but if serious is what you want, here ya go: The fact of the matter is, while I can understand the foundation not wanting to be associated with a porn site, for the very viewpoint that that's all porn sites see breasts as just what you mentioned (Which may be true, I wouldn't really know), accepting their donation does not automatically mean that they are aligned or associated with Porn Hub at all.

If the money could be used to forward a good cause, such as saving women the trauma and health complications that breast cancer causes, I would personally take the money, so long as it was not illegally obtained. Its preventing the health problems and physical, as well as the possible emotional trauma, that should be the priority, not saving boobs. While nice, yes, we should think about the whole person, not just whats attached to them.

I guess that teaches me to not lead with humor next time.

[EDIT]: Also, I need to remember to read over all of my posts thoroughly beforehand, so I don't go back with heavy edits because I missed this, or wanted to add that.

lacktheknack:

Ticonderoga117:
Do they have the right to refuse? Sure.
Are they doing the smart thing in doing so? Hell no.

This. I don't see how their reputation was going to be damaged by accepting money from PornHub, seeing how it doesn't appear there will be a charity to have a reputation in a short while.

Heh, maybe they'll keep afloat from impressed anti-porn donors. Probably not.

I doubt there are more than a handful of anti-porn folk ready to put their money where their mouth is, possibly because they're too busy watching porn to do anything else. >.>

No, they are a charity whose aim is to fight breast cancer. Refusing to do so because... what? they don't like porn? - is ludicrous, and unfair to the people who need the help.

Well, they seem determined to throw themselves off a cliff... I say let them. Donate the money to other cancer researchers.

peruvianskys:
Am I the only one who thinks this whole sexualization of breast cancer thing needs to stop? Most people who get breast cancer are middle-aged to elderly women whose breasts are not particularly exciting. My mother had breast cancer and she hated seeing those "I <3 Boobies" things because it made her feel like her cancer didn't matter because she didn't have nice tits for people to want to save. And I can totally understand feeling like that. I think turning breast cancer into a sexual issue, even jokingly, sends a really shitty message that somehow we should care about women's health not because breast cancer kills people but because boobs are super neat, and that breast cancer is bad because it steals tits away from those who love to see them and not because it destroys the lives of women. It's better than nothing, but seriously, we can do a lot better.

I know that a porn site doing a "the more you look at boobs, the more we donate" thing is supposed to be humorous, but it really seems disrespectful and tacky to make it about tits instead of women, especially considering that, as I said before, most of the breasts that are destroyed by cancer are less than sightly.

That's not entirely true, breast cancer can affect women as young as 18, maybe even younger, breast cancer is more prevalent in middle aged and elderly women, and women whos family members have has breast cancer are also at higher risk of getting it themselves. I am in a higher risk group myself.

That being said, I do agree with you about how it affects peoples lives and how people turn such a grave matter into jokes, it's heartbreaking to see how the public demeans the seriousness of cancer, breast cancer in particular. (to the wider audience) It's not funny guys, these peoples lives get destroyed by cancer, it's a severe financial struggle for treatment in any country. It can take months or years to beat it if it is detected early.

OP: The idea of raising money for breast cancer research is a noble one, but the site could have gone about it a better way, maybe they could donate the raised money directly to a breast cancer research group, get it directly to where it is needed, failing that, why not donate it to a cancer clinic to help someone who is stuggling to pay for their treatment get financial aid.

I'm sorry to hear about your mother getting breast cancer, i too know people who've had it and still have it.

mooncalf:
Take the money. Your enemy's enemy is your friend. Even if your friend has a suspiciously large stash of kleenex and moisturiser.

If it is insensitive and inappropriate to 'sexualise the issue', I still reckon don't throw the baby out with the bath water, because the very tangible consideration this fund is getting is that "You've got a problem and we are actually gonna go to the trouble and make an effort and do something about it."

They're using their strengths. A porn site might say "plz donate to breast cancer, women's *lives* are being ruined." and then what? The cynic in me thinks probably not as much actual coin - actual GOOD - would come of it. Make it a game however and you engage your audience, an audience they have and are leveraging to a charitable good - which is a gold star for that audience, too.

Seriously, how can we say that this is not absolutely a step in the right direction for both porn and the fight against breast cancer? Maybe not an ideal step, and certainly not a final one, but to me it is plain progress.

Got a problem with porn sites making tongue-in-cleavage donation drives? Ask why the rest of us aren't picking up the slack in our own ways, because there's no shortage of need.

.
25k can't hold a candle to the donations the organization receives from other sources that might take issue with porn site giving money to the charity. That's why they refused.

well a man has got to do what a man has got to do.

for the BOOBIES!*warcry*

also:

----------------------------------
well, they should still raise some money. maybe they will find another institute that will accept the money once it reaches a larger sum.

and i bet my ass that the Komen foundation will try to accept the money once it reaches more than 900,000 dollars.

It's a CHARITY, are these people serious? You're refusing money that could be put to good use for the victims of your cause and you're turning it away because you think some crazy will think that to mean... what... porn is good and wholesome?

I... don't even see the logic in it. Sod these people, I hope Pornhub like... find a patient and then personally pay their medical bills and stuff with the money instead.

It's porn. People do it, people watch it. It's one of the oldest industries on the planet. It's not a big deal.

Anyone with half a brain would accept a donation as long as they have no reason to believe the donation was acquired by illegal means.

Oh you wanted a different answer? I'm not in the camp of 'all charities are good and gracious organizations' I'm actually extremely cynical about them. 90% of them have corruption and self interests at heart. But this kind of blunder is just typical, don't want to associate with something because you think it's nasty, get more backlash than you would have just rolling with it. Bad calls.

Guys, I see A LOT of you saying how foolish it is, but bear in mind that some larger donors might not like having a porn site on the same list of donors as they are.

TheIronRuler:

EHKOS:
As you walk down a crowed, numbered street in New York City, consider this. Every one of the hundreds of people you see walking along, have sexual organs. 97% of these people have used them. We don't talk about it, but every pregnant woman is proof that she has had sex. Because of certain cultural and societal reasons we have made sex a touchy subject. But it's normal, and without it, none of us would be here. It's not that big of a deal. So stop complaining and take the damn money, I'm sick of people having to be so politically correct all the damn time.

.
It's not sex, it's porn they're having trouble with. Some feminists think that this is degrading to women, it objectifies them and their breasts. They think it has no place in raising money for a cure to stop a female only disease (sorry guys with breast cancer).

on the other hand, there is some kind of a civil war going on in the feminists ranks.

some of them think that sex is empowering rather than degrading.

more so since a lot of women in the industry do like what they do, they chose to be like that and they even direct some porn "to women" that are almost any different from men.

anyways, like i said before, once it reaches a larger sum they will take the donation.
and, yes it may or may not scare away larger investors but it seems like they have already lost a lot of investors to begin with.

and it is for something greater than a firms reputation. it is for a possible cure/prevention of the most common disease women have to face and fear. its for the greater good.

perhaps they will make a "watch big dicks for prostate cancer awareness month" donations in the future. or at least the internet will make them do such an awareness month now that they started this.

doggie015:

TheIronRuler:
Guys, I see A LOT of you saying how foolish it is, but bear in mind that some larger donors might not like having a porn site on the same list of donors as they are.

So we reject generous donations because some rich (son of a) [REDACTED] doesn't want to have their generosity outdone by a pr0n site?

i see what you did there

>I'll stick with my morals instead of accepting money to help people with cancer

Seems legit. I hope PornHub donates it to another foundation.

TheIronRuler:
It's not sex, it's porn they're having trouble with. Some feminists think that this is degrading to women, it objectifies them and their breasts. They think it has no place in raising money for a cure to stop a female only disease (sorry guys with breast cancer).

You're excused.

A woman has sex on camera. Somehow I think that finding that degrading is part of the so-called "slut shaming", which to me only confirms my belief that nobody can make 7 billion people get along and we shouldn't try to speak for each other.

Texas Joker 52:

That was actually meant to be a lighthearted joke

The problem with text is that it's not always easy to determine a serious answer from a non-serious one.

Regarding Susan G Komen, I think the foundation is downright awful for more than just this reason, so you don't need to tell me about how they should take the money. They probably would have wasted it on branding, though, instead of actually putting it to something good, so maybe some good will come out of this. There are other breast cancer foundations, less greedy ones which will put the money earned for breast cancer to things like research and education on screening procedures.

Every organisation has to spend some money on overhead and the like, but some of it should get through to the intended cause.

And if they donate it somewhere else....Maybe it will.

peruvianskys:

xxcloud417xx:
Think about all the breast cancer victims that may have breasts that are maybe unnatractive but that get to see people supporting them as if they were. Wouldn't that be more of a morale boost?

What the fuck about that is a moral boost?

"Supporting them as if they were?" As in, caring about a woman as if they had nice tits? How fucking generous of you, leaning down to all those poor women cursed with unattractive tits and, through the goodness of your heart, pretending they're sexy enough to value as human beings. What a saint!

This is exactly the fucking problem with the sexualized approach. It rests on this shitty, shitty idea that a woman's value exists not because she is a living, breathing human being, but because she has lumps of flesh on her chest that you find it fun to masturbate to. It's all about dealing with women's health on your time, for your benefit, and your insulting and patronizing view that women might be cheered up to have their unsexy, cancer-ridden bodies grouped in with the women that really matter, the sexy ones, just underscores the inherent androcentric approach this bullshit thing is taking. I'm disgusted.

So you would rather have them dwell on how unattractive their bodies look? Let's all follow your ideals here and be miserable then. Why the hell not?

Meanwhile, the ladies in the world that would like to feel sexy despite critical illness can just keep on doing so. I'm not a woman, but I know plenty of them that can see the nuances of the simple compliment within the campaign, and take from it positive feelings. My grandmother had cancer for 11 years and she was the kind of lady that would have loved the humour in this campaign and would have felt good about herself for it in some way.

Also, I suppose I should be apologizing for thinking breasts are sexy? Apparently that means I find only sexual value in women? You're trying to make it seem as if all men are one-dimensional and you're excessively wrong. That's like saying to a woman she thinks of a man as a sexual object simply because she comments on some guy's muscles as being sexy.

I find their hubris appalling. I just wish I could also find it surprising.

I lost respect for the Komen foundation when they thought that ditching Planned Parenthood was a politically useful idea. (I realize that politicians are widely considered to be boobs, but that's not the kind the Komen bunch is supposed to be working toward helping.) I lost more respect for them when one of their higher-ups tried to 'fix' the situation with further statements that just illustrated their foot-in-mouth capabilities. I lost yet more respect when I looked into it and saw how much the people in charge make working for a supposed charity.

This is sort of on that same level. I'm glad that porn was being used for a altruistic end, may as well be put to use. I really hope another organization steps up to put that money to good use, but (call me snarky) I'm rather glad that the Komen foundation isn't the group to do so. Maybe this way the money will go to actual research or something.