PornHub's Cancer Research Donation Rejected

AeryFairy

AeryFairy

Anachronism
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Reaction score
3,607
Location
Manchester, UK
Earlier this week, Internet porn site, Pornhub, announced the launch of its "Save the Boobs" campaign: In observation of breast cancer awareness month, it would be donating one cent to Susan G. Komen for the Cure for every 30 videos viewed from the tit-specific categories on its website. According to the current counter on the website (which is obviously NSFW), over 22 million videos have been viewed so far, bringing the total for the first week alone to approximately $7,333. It would be perfectly reasonable to anticipate a rapid uptick in that number once the general public becomes more aware of campaign -- whack off to support breast cancer research? That's right up a slacktivist's alley!

However, in a stupid (although not altogether surprising) twist of events, Susan G. Komen was quick to announce that they weren't interested in Pornhub's filthy sex money. "We are not a partner, not accepting donations, and have asked them to stop using our name," the Dallas-based organization said Wednesday.
Click to expand...

Read full story: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2012/10/pornhub_wants_to_save_boobs_su.php
 
Not a fan of the Komen organization, but also not a fan of porn - IMO, it's exploitative and generally degrading no matter how uncool it may be to voice that opinion.

If the porn site(s) really cared about breast cancer research, they could simply donate without creating such a self serving campaign.

I don't know what I would do if I were running an organization like Komen - I might very well refuse to play along either.
 
You are perhaps a bit naive if you think that people watch porn videos for the purpose of donating money to breast cancer - they'd watch it regardless.

So by that stretch, I'd say that it's a pretty bad example of pinkwashing.
 
I'm not a big fan of Komen, but I agree with them here. "Saving" women by reducing them down to consumable parts to make a buck is gross.

I don't believe that blogger, "every penny counts"? Really? I disagree, donations from unethical sources may pay for a mammogram or two (or in Komen's case, another case of pink teeshirts), but it's still unethical money.

Envy: people are still going to buy pens, and chocolate, and coffee mugs, but the pink ribbon logo may sway a person towards that one. Same with porn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone and RabbitLuvr
I suspect Komen has no problem taking money from other businesses with a horrible track record towards women.
 
Kind of weird. I think the porn magnate's hearts are in the right place, but inappropriate, and they should take it a step further and tidy up their industry of the exploitation that is part of it.
 
Komen has had no problems with taking money from cosmetics companies (that use carcinogens in their products), yogurt companies (originally made with milk containing rGBH), soup (packaged in cans with BPH liners) and processed junk foods.
(Don't get me started on the false truths Komen willfully spreads about breast cancer...)

Komen CEO Nancy Brinker is paid a $400k salary, plus six figures in "expenses," despite the fact that she is a full-time employee somewhere else. (And wealthy via her husband.)

I believe if Komen hadn't come under scrutiny during the Planned Parenthood debacle, they would be more than happy to accept the money from PornHub.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
As I said, not a fan of Komen, never have been, for multiple reasons. I was just wondering what das_nut meant by "companies with a horrible track record towards women". I guess cosmetics companies specifically market to women, so one could say that their problematic products consitute a horrible track record specifically with respect to women, but most companies with problematic products don't have a better/worse record with respect to one sex or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RabbitLuvr
I suspect that if, say, a company like Walmart (with its associated gender/labor issues) wanted to donate to Komen Foundation, the Koemn foundation wouldn't object.
 
das_nut said:
I suspect that if, say, a company like Walmart (with its associated gender/labor issues) wanted to donate to Komen Foundation, the Koemn foundation wouldn't object.
Click to expand...

Walmart certainly has labor issues, but so do the majority of retailers and other employers whose workforce consists of minimum wage/close to minimum wage employees, and whose managers work incredibly long hours on a salaried basis, making them little more than minimum wage (and not all that rarely, less than minimum wage, were one to divide their salaries by their hours worked).

But you said "companies with a horrible track record towards women", and I guess I thought you meant by that something considerably worse than the track record of a significant portion of employers.
 
Walmart has been accused of gender-based discrimination. Isn't that enough?

Maybe I'm really cynical, or maybe I've read way too much alt lit, but it seems to me that way too many people make too big of a deal out of sex. I'm not, in any way, trying to dismiss or diminish sexual violence or coercion, but damn, we act as if porn companies are horrible exploiters of women (probably due to some PC-variant of **** shaming), and we minimalize non-sexual exploitation of the disadvantaged (in this case, women, who, as a whole, tend to be less empowered than the norm).

Maybe we aren't to the point where we can recognize exploitation of workers if it is non-sexual.
 
There are very, very few companies in the U.S. that haven't been accused of gender-based discrimination and/or haven't practiced it/continue to practice it. Walmart makes the news because (1) it's a huge company, and (2) it generally treats its workers abominably (but then, most retailers do).

If a charity were to refuse donations based on accusations of gender based discrimination, it might as well just have a policy to not accept any corporate donations. (The pool of nonacceptable corporate donations would be even greater if you exclude donations from firms that practice gender based discrimination but have never had a lawsuit filed against them - most professional firms fall within this category.)

I think porn companies are terrible exploiters of both the women and the men they use, but they also perpetuate a particular type of degradation of women in general which has ramifications beyond the workers they use in their films. Saying so has nothing to do with **** shaming, unless by "sluts" you're referring to the film makers and not the *actors*.
 
When was the last time we had a thread about the morality of porn? That discussion could possibly be separated from this one.

RabbitLuvr said:
Actually, it's an excellent example of pinkwashing. The company is using breast cancer as a means to promote themselves. If someone cares about breast cancer, and is going to watch porn, this campaign might sway them to watch on this site instead of a different one.
Click to expand...

Based on my experience with porn-users in general, I don't think that such a thing would sway them, because often enough, they would care more about what turns them on rather than if the company donates money to breast cancer or not. In addition to that, it's not the greatest example of company promotion because
1. Porn is viewed in a negative light by many, thus not applicable on a majority of the otherwise "potential customers"
2. Porn is not advertised publicly, and is instead often stumbled on by accident or by recommendation from someone that you know

kibbleforlola said:
Envy: people are still going to buy pens, and chocolate, and coffee mugs, but the pink ribbon logo may sway a person towards that one. Same with porn.
Click to expand...

Only if one assume that porn is a similar product to those that you mention, something that I don't think holds true.
 
Top Bottom
Back