The Porn Princess Rant, Re-Written

[Elder Iptuous]

A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.

Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.

Any help is better than no help.

Unless it's from a porn princess.

wut

... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.

I'm kind of confused.  It didn't seem to make much sense.

you pointed out that you take what help you can get.  SGK is better than nothing, and they have helped even if they have their deficiencies. so we should be thankful for that.  (that's what you meant, right?)
i was saying that, imo, SGK should heed that advice and take the help they can, even if it has deficiencies. i.e. take the money from pornhub.
obviously, it's a matter of working out the PR math, like Nigel says, but....

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.

Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.

Any help is better than no help.

Unless it's from a porn princess.

wut

... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.

I'm kind of confused.  It didn't seem to make much sense.

you pointed out that you take what help you can get.  SGK is better than nothing, and they have helped even if they have their deficiencies. so we should be thankful for that.  (that's what you meant, right?)
i was saying that, imo, SGK should heed that advice and take the help they can, even if it has deficiencies. i.e. take the money from pornhub.
obviously, it's a matter of working out the PR math, like Nigel says, but....

I'm not getting what part of "net loss" you don't understand.

Say someone says they'll help you move, but you know that in the process they'll A: use your ebay account to sell a bunch of stuff in your name, and B: piss off the other friends who offered to help, so that on moving day it's just you and the jackass and nobody else. Is that actually "help"?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And, with all that in mind, do you accept their "help", or do you say "fuck off, and quit using my name to sell your crap"?

[Elder Iptuous]

A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.

Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.

Any help is better than no help.

Unless it's from a porn princess.

wut

... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.

I'm kind of confused.  It didn't seem to make much sense.

you pointed out that you take what help you can get.  SGK is better than nothing, and they have helped even if they have their deficiencies. so we should be thankful for that.  (that's what you meant, right?)
i was saying that, imo, SGK should heed that advice and take the help they can, even if it has deficiencies. i.e. take the money from pornhub.
obviously, it's a matter of working out the PR math, like Nigel says, but....

I'm not getting what part of "net loss" you don't understand.

Say someone says they'll help you move, but you know that in the process they'll A: use your ebay account to sell a bunch of stuff in your name, and B: piss off the other friends who offered to help, so that on moving day it's just you and the jackass and nobody else. Is that actually "help"?

The bolded should indicate that i get what your saying.  i'm not getting why you think i'm not getting it.
my gut feeling is that they're wrong, but hey, i'm sure they've got a raft of bean counters and pollsters that have compelling arguments that show people will be turned off by SGK accepting money from this site and will decide to not donate to this particular breast cancer charity.

[Elder Iptuous]

looking at the website showing their 'boob bus'
http://www.pornhub.com/boob-bus
i don't really see them capitalizing on SGK.  i see them capitalizing on the breast cancer awareness meme.
i get the impression from tfa that pornhub somewhere mentioned SGK, at least. i would assume that in their explanation of how they would donate some portion of proceeds to breast cancer charity, they mention SGK specifically.  so.... if they never mentioned a particular charity (before or after the fact), would SGK have accepted the donation?  If the answer is no, then it seems to me that they are not as much concerned with 'net loss' as they are simply making a political or philosophical statement, which is totally their right to do, but would be shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

looking at the website showing their 'boob bus'
http://www.pornhub.com/boob-bus
i don't really see them capitalizing on SGK.  i see them capitalizing on the breast cancer awareness meme.
i get the impression from tfa that pornhub somewhere mentioned SGK, at least. i would assume that in their explanation of how they would donate some portion of proceeds to breast cancer charity, they mention SGK specifically.  so.... if they never mentioned a particular charity (before or after the fact), would SGK have accepted the donation?  If the answer is no, then it seems to me that they are not as much concerned with 'net loss' as they are simply making a political or philosophical statement, which is totally their right to do, but would be shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

Well, all I can really reply to that is that it's a good thing that a guy on the internet with a gut feeling is second-guessing their decision based on assumptions and incomplete information gleaned from briefly skimming an article.

[Elder Iptuous]

?
why are you being snarky at me?
did i presents something offensively?  if so, i'd like to know so that i don't come across as a dick unintentionally in the future.
did i hit a particular nerve with you?  if so, i'd like to not engage with you on sore topics; i respect you, and wouldn't want to lose any respect you may have for me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

OK, so I understand that you comprehend my statement about net loss, but disagree with SGK's decision because you have a gut feeling. I could be wrong, but my thought on that is that when second-guessing a decision a person or organization makes for themselves, it's wisest to reallllly examine why they might have made that decision, and ask whether your opinion is well-informed or if you're just talking out yer ass.

Also, to nitpick, no one is ever "in the wrong" for refusing donations. That wording implies that they have done something they could be liable for. No one can ever be held liable for refusing a donation.

As for the marketing angle,

In a surprise twist, the intended recipient, Susan G. Komen's For the Cure Foundation, has rejected their donation, stating that they "are not a partner, not accepting donations" from Pornhub, and "have asked them to stop using our name."

seems pretty clear that they were using their name.

They could easily have donated anonymously, perhaps directly to breast cancer research funds, had they wanted to, but clearly they were seeking publicity.

Making a political and social statement, by the way, ties DIRECTLY to the "net loss" I mentioned. Most of the MILLIONS of people across the country who donate to SGK are women, and many of them are frequent donors, albeit small amounts. Ever been in a grocery store and had them ask you if you want to round up for breast cancer? I did, just today, without even thinking, and it's hardly my favorite charity.

That particular statement, had they accepted the money, has the potential to significantly turn off many, many women. They stood to lose far more than the potential $30k Pornhub wanted to donate. Remember what happened when they threatened to defund Planned Parenthood? Just like in politics, alienating the body of populace you claim to serve is a bad, bad idea.

So those are just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head that SGK may have weighed the options and decided against accepting the donation and subsequent de facto affiliation.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

?
why are you being snarky at me?
did i presents something offensively?  if so, i'd like to know so that i don't come across as a dick unintentionally in the future.
did i hit a particular nerve with you?  if so, i'd like to not engage with you on sore topics; i respect you, and wouldn't want to lose any respect you may have for me.

Yes, I have to admit that I do find it baffling and perhaps a bit offensive that you are proposing that an organization whose stated mission is to cure breast cancer and therefore primarily serves women made a mistake in turning down a donation and affiliation with a porn website. I am confused because it seems like a pretty straightforward decision to me, because pornography does not support women, it exploits and objectifies women, and that would mean that an organization that is supposed to serve women would be directly financially affiliated with an industry that exploits and objectifies women. I can't for the life of me see how that could possibly be viewed as a shrewd maneuver in any way. Is it that you think women simply wouldn't notice?

FYI, the Komen ribbon is prominent on the screencap of Pornhub in the article.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Don't be too worried about my snark, there's literally no one else on the internet to argue with right now. I'm totally trying to build up to a good troll but it's slow going in these early stages... I have to be mostly innocuous but mildly grating for the first couple hundred posts, I'm only at like post nine, and NOBODY IS ONLINE.

[Elder Iptuous]

hmm. yes.  i think it would have gone largely unnoticed.
I could be wrong. i freely admit that i'm talking out my ass, and have not done any formal research on the matter. I'll refrain from further discussion until such time as i'm qualified.

(also, i didn't know that Komen owned the pink ribbon.  that surprises me. i thought they had the stylized one with the tapered ends and the little circle on top.  i would have assumed that the generic awareness ribbon colored pink would not be an ownable IP.  so, at least i learned something new.)

[Elder Iptuous]

Don't be too worried about my snark, there's literally no one else on the internet to argue with right now. I'm totally trying to build up to a good troll but it's slow going in these early stages... I have to be mostly innocuous but mildly grating for the first couple hundred posts, I'm only at like post nine, and NOBODY IS ONLINE.

thanks. that makes me feel better.
i'm quite a sensitive fellow. and aim to not get cross with the folks on this board, which is a feat, if you want to engage.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

hmm. yes.  i think it would have gone largely unnoticed.
I could be wrong. i freely admit that i'm talking out my ass, and have not done any formal research on the matter. I'll refrain from further discussion until such time as i'm qualified.

(also, i didn't know that Komen owned the pink ribbon.  that surprises me. i thought they had the stylized one with the tapered ends and the little circle on top.  i would have assumed that the generic awareness ribbon colored pink would not be an ownable IP.  so, at least i learned something new.)

If I recall, they originated it but failed to trademark it, so it may not be a direct legal transgression, but it's definitely a deliberate association and most likely if Komen took them to court, they would win.

It wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Seriously. I can't imagine how it could possibly have gone unnoticed. All it would take is ONE Redditor to point out the hypocrisy and it would have been all over the Internet with a boycott in progress before SGK could issue a statement.

[Elder Iptuous]

hypocrisy?
i thought they were simply engaged in the business of raising money to donate to breast cancer research.  i didn't know that they had any official stance on anything other than 'breast cancer needs more funding'.  if anything, i would say that their current stand is not in line with their stated goals.

so.... i'm not sure how long pornhub had this going on for, but obviously long enough that they had a bus touring around.
did we hear anything about it before SGK made a deal about rejecting the donations?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

hypocrisy?
i thought they were simply engaged in the business of raising money to donate to breast cancer research.  i didn't know that they had any official stance on anything other than 'breast cancer needs more funding'.  if anything, i would say that their current stand is not in line with their stated goals.

so.... i'm not sure how long pornhub had this going on for, but obviously long enough that they had a bus touring around.
did we hear anything about it before SGK made a deal about rejecting the donations?

Wait... I just explained how it's at odds with their mission. You don't see that? Are you serious?

Also, can you do your own research? I'll look this up for you THIS TIME, but after that please Google things yourself.

They started the campaign five days ago. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pornhub-komen-donation-breast-cancer-month_n_1939648.html

The "Save the boobs" bus is unrelated to this fundraising effort and did not attempt to make any connection to the SGK foundation.

YOU may not have heard of it before SGK rejected the donation, but the reason THEY heard about it and made their statement rejecting the donation before the funds were even offered to them was because it was already spreading over the Internet: http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/10/this-the-worst-breast-cancer-month-idea-ever.html