Breast Cancer Research Group Rejects Donation... From Porn Site

[Gahars]

You might not like the source, but hey, money is money and this is charity. It looks like this Breast Cancer research group should really self-check themselves before they continue to wreck themselves.

...What? I can't live up to these expectations, I'm only human!

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I really don't see too much of an issue with it. Money is money. I know that when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the proceeds of the Girls Gone Wild video for Mardi Gra went towards hurricane relief.

So it may not be a pleasant source but it's money and it's legitimate.

 

[BORTZ]

 

[J-Machine]

That site has too many visitors to ignore the obviously large donation they could give. I hope there is a breast cancer research charity out there with the balls to accept this money so the whole world can benefit from the online "prostatution" site's good natured deed.

 

[IBNobody]

Don't give money to the Komen group thinking that it will go to research. They only spend 20% of their budget on researching "the cure". A large chunk goes into paying the lawyers to sue anyone who uses an unauthorized pink ribbon.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't see why they would reject a donation. If there's one branch of the movie industry that particularily cares about the state of one's breasts, it's the (legal side of) pornography industry.

As they used to say in Ancient Rome, Pecunia non olet - money does not stink. If a porn site hosting porn featuring consenting actors and actresses wants to donate money for a good cause, good for them.

 

[Rydian]

According to the site, it's currently racked up 14,099,600 views in those categories this month. $4,700, and it's only the 6th of the month.

That said, I have heard bad things about the Komen group, but I haven't been able to find any actual reports of their deeds (any that specify which percentages go where, and other scientific facts), just heresay.

 

[IBNobody]

According to the site, it's currently racked up 14,099,600 views in those categories this month. $4,700, and it's only the 6th of the month.

That said, I have heard bad things about the Komen group, but I haven't been able to find any actual reports of their deeds (any that specify which percentages go where, and other scientific facts), just heresay.

http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/AboutUs/Financial/AUDIT_FINAL_FY2010.pdf

But the summary is on Wikipedia, with a nice pie chart...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure


The Komen group won't take money from porn, but they will take money from companies that have BPA in their products.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/09/breast-cancer-komen-bpa

BPA has been linked to cancer. Porn has been linked to masturbation. By rejecting the porn money and accepting the BPA money, the Komen group must believe that masturbation is worse than cancer.

 

[Foxi4]

The Komen group won't take money from porn, but they will take money from companies that have BPA in their products.
http://www.motherjon...ancer-komen-bpa

Offsets: Brest Cancer Edition.

It's a similar mechanism to carbon offsets - companies known to leave a large carbon footprint often by Carbon Offsets, meaning that they own a plot of land on which a forest is situated, "sucking up" the carbon they produced (or its quantity equivalent). That way, they're a part of the problem, but also a part of the solution.

 

[IBNobody]

Offsets: Brest Cancer Edition.

It's a similar mechanism to carbon offsets - companies known to leave a large carbon footprint often by Carbon Offsets, meaning that they own a plot of land on which a forest is situated, "sucking up" the carbon they produced (or its quantity equivalent). That way, they're a part of the problem, but also a part of the solution.

That's a valid analogy... Except that finding the solution (cure for cancer) would eliminate the multi-million-dollar organization that is searching for it.

 

[dickfour]

Rather than pornographers trying to make their business respectable they should get down to what they're good at; ruining young girls lives who are hooked on drugs with humiliating, dehumanizing double anal scenes which I love to masterbate to.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Plus, I doubt the porn industry is doing this for publicity. Have people not heard of charitable tax deductions?

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Honestly, I don't even look at the porn industry and "most" of the actresses in a bad light any more. Hell, most of them are probably 100x healthier than what any of us are. The ones that I'm a fan of, get tested regularly all the time, and even blog on sites about the importance of it. They have sex? So what. How many times have you seen a hot girl in a magazine ad who's barely clothed and you get that thought in the back of your head "damn, I wish I could see her naked". We've all gotten it.

The really bad stuff that you can tell girls are doped up on shit, yeah, that's not that great of porn. But on that site, I'm pretty sure you can't find much stuff like that. At least, I couldn't when I was a member on it.

 

[dickfour]

There's Sasha Grey and then there's Max Hardcore. I'd like to see the percentage of porn industry women who lead respectable lives and are helthy and are doing well at age 40

 

[ShadowSoldier]

There's Sasha Grey and then there's Max Hardcore. I'd like to see the percentage of porn industry women who lead respectable lives and are helthy and are doing well at age 40

Grey is retired, and Max Hardcore doesn't do porn anymore. Note that Hardcore didn't retire, he quit and realized he didn't want to treat women like that. Also, the most Grey has done was pot. With the company she was with, they wouldn't allow her to do more.

 

[Foxi4]

That's a valid analogy... Except that finding the solution (cure for cancer) would eliminate the multi-million-dollar organization that is searching for it.

Finding an answer to our current climate issues would take Carbon Offset companies out of business as well.

 

[rad140]

Don't give money to the Komen group thinking that it will go to research. They only spend 20% of their budget on researching "the cure". A large chunk goes into paying the lawyers to sue anyone who uses an unauthorized pink ribbon.

While perhaps true, the larger an organization, the larger their administrative costs. A non-profit or charity still has to pay the people who works of it.

If you look at their 2009-10 expenses, 20.9% did go to research, but 39%, 13% and 5.6% went to public health education, health screening and treatment, respectively. 10% and 11% went to fund-raising and administrative costs, which isn't too bad for an organization of its size. Nancy Brinker, the CEO/founder was paid $459,406 in 2010 and $417,712 in 2011. I don't know how that compares to other non-profit CEOs, but it did go down.

I find it hilarious that they won't accept money from a major porn site, but will partner with a gun manufacturer (which makes products that can kill people), KFC (which makes products that can make people fat) and market a perfume with potentially harmful chemicals.

Said porn site should just donate the money anonymously, and then brag about it afterwards. What is Komen going to do, not accept an anonymous donation?

 

[FAST6191]

That's a valid analogy... Except that finding the solution (cure for cancer) would eliminate the multi-million-dollar organization that is searching for it.

Finding an answer to our current climate issues would take Carbon Offset compaines out of business as well.

Cancer is quite easily cured..... if you catch it early enough and do not mind some unpleasant side effects. However catching it early enough, minimising side effects and improving accuracy of scans, ease of scans, availability of scans and increasing the point at which treatment is still viable is most of what this research (and other things they do) is about.

Re: Porn not respectable.... the are nasty people/companies in all trades as far as I can have seen and historically porn was pretty sketchy but they have really done a lot these last ten years (and others even further back).

As for the donation itself sadly we do live in a world where perception of charity is something they have to consider and if fools are going to object to pornography. It kind of sucks that back channels will have to be the method of choice but hey money is a fungible thing (earmarking nonsense aside).

Re lawyers- so does the Red Cross..... it is kind of necessary if you have a trademark.

 

[pistone]

That's just stupid
money is money, and the research needs it, but they just can't accept them coz of the "good name" ......

 

[narutofan777]

They get a lot of money from other donators so they will decline. That's what happens when you get rich, you become a picky ------