• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The dudes from Simplepickup motorboat girls for breast cancer awareness.

Status
Not open for further replies.
They didn't raise any money.

I repeat. They didn't raise any money.

They had some money.

They said they would give that money to BCRF if a bunch of girls let them motorboat them.
You might be able to make that argument about their original $2000, but the money generated from the views was money they didn't have which they earmarked for donation. It's unlikely that a less risque and controversial video would have generated more views (after all, sex sell...or gets clicks), so their choice of action/video seemed to have been good in that regard.

If they really cared about the cause, they would have donated the money without the crass video
Let's say I grant that premise. So I grant that they could have had purer motives. But I fail to see how them not being 100% altruistic means they did something bad. Sure they could have just donated those two G's without the video. But they could also have just spent that money on booze. Or they could have lit it on fire. So I take them choosing to use it for a good cause as a good thing overall, even if they got something they wanted out of the deal. No one got hurt, people had fun, those guys got to motorboat some boobs, and money was (attempted to be) donated to a worthy cause. Seems like a win-win all around. Or could have been.

Both of them were devastated when they lost their breasts and are still extremely insecure because of it.

I'm not going to speak for all women who went through breast cancer(I can tell you now if I got it I would be pretty upset about this video) but I will say for two victims I know they wouldn't be happy.
I'd suggest that an alternate way to look at the video is people striving toward a goal of making sure women never have to go through what your friend's mom and her sister went through ever again. Yes, they want to save "boobs" but they also want to save women (and men) the pain of dealing with breast cancer and losing one's breasts. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing to aim for. Even people who have had mastectomies might be able to get behind that.

I mean, if I posted a video of me poking a baby Pillsbury doughboy style and the baby laughing hysterically and then enacted a drive to "Save the giggles" from some disease or other, would parents who have lost children or couples who are unable to have children going to think it's directed at them or that it somehow means they're lesser people or that I'm being insensitive to their situation?
 

MIMIC

Banned
Because the people whining and complaining probably haven't even donated a fraction of what these guys attempted to, towards the cause. I think that's probably most-insulting. You want to protest a donation? Fine. Match what they were going to donate so that at least it's not a lost effort. Then you've not only made a stand on morals, but you've also still aided the cause in the same way these guys were attempting to.

This is kind of a disingenuous post. The foundation ITSELF rejected the money and you still had a problem...and they're the ones doing the research.

But to add: it should come as no shock that the money was turned down. In the context of breast cancer research, the video was lewd and inappropriate. The fact that they don't want to be associated with them shouldn't be surprising. It's a little myopic to ignore HOW the money is obtained and instead focus squarely on the fact that there IS money. In some situations, if you ignore HOW the money is obtained, you go to jail.

(and no, I don't think the women were sexually assaulted, violated, or anything like that. I want nothing to do with that discussion)
 

Wazzy

Banned
I asked one of the victims of breast cancer I know and she was disgusted that this video exists. No assumption from me anymore.

I'd suggest that an alternate way to look at the video is people striving toward a goal of making sure women never have to go through what your friend's mom and her sister went through ever again. Yes, they want to save "boobs" but they also want to save women (and men) the pain of dealing with breast cancer and losing one's breasts. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing to aim for. Even people who have had mastectomies might be able to get behind that.

I mean, if I posted a video of me poking a baby Pillsbury doughboy style and the baby laughing hysterically and then enacted a drive to "Save the giggles" from some disease or other, would parents who have lost children or couples who are unable to have children going to think it's directed at them or that it somehow means they're lesser people or that I'm being insensitive to their situation?
Then their video should represent trying to save women and men's lives rather than women's breasts. Not only that but these guys are well known for being skeevy weirdo's regarding breasts. They have quite a few video's of them shoving their face into breasts. I don't like this idea that you have to appeal to men while trying to teach awareness of breast cancer.

As for your example trying to compare this to another situation, that doesn't work. They're not exploiting the disease by poking a child and making it giggle. Not only that but there's nothing negative associated with doing that while there is with a guy shoving his head into women's breasts.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
The guys should have donated the money regardless, too bad.

Personally, while it did indeed a crass thing to do, in the end I think it's money that can do a lot of good.

Shame.
 
I have very lax sexual morals compared to many other people. So relatively? Yeah.

exactly. even in this very thread we see posters who have asked cancer patients their thoughts on this video and on one side you have those who think this way of "raising" money is deplorable, and others who are fine with almost any means of raising money ( so long as its legal ) and as long as the money goes towards research and finding a cure. Even though I have made my firm stance on this issue clear, I can see both sides depending on your personal views.

I don't think anyone here would argue this is the best method to raise money for breast cancer awareness, but depending on how you weigh out the good with the bad based on your personal beliefs and convictions determines your stance on this issue.
 
I don't think there is any good being done on the objectification of women. Even if you think the explicit actions as good, the implicit actions will always be negative. Especially given the histories of cancer and hysterectomies, or other form of permanent scaring from biopsies or cancer/tumor removal.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Can we rename Internet Feminism to something like Basement-Virgin First-Semester-Women's-Issues-Major Sex-Fearing Bubble-Person Prudism? That has more of a ring to it.
 

Tabby

Member
If you were the girl, I'd imagine hard to say no because you'd just seem like a douche saying no to cancer

I don't know. Makes me sick, feel like they're just taking advantage of this whole thing just to motorists some girls.
 
Can we rename Internet Feminism to something like Basement-Virgin First-Semester-Women's-Issues-Major Sex-Fearing Bubble-Person Prudism? That has more of a ring to it.

I think we need to start out with basic anatomical biology first. :(
And then ease into "hey, they are people just as I am" second.
 
lots of jealous guys in this thread for not thinking of this first.

hint folks, these girls did ti on their own volition, and some seemed happy about it.

it's their own body, let them do what they want. if they wanna let guys motorize their boosb for whatever reasons, good for them
 
If I had testicular cancer, I wouldn't care if someone raised money for it by kicking dudes in the nuts. It's money going to a good cause. The outrage is no less moronic. I don't know what the dollar value is on morals and values, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere between $0 and $0.01. PEACE.
Harming someone's testicles for testicular cancer seems kinda counter productive
 
I asked one of the victims of breast cancer I know and she was disgusted that this video exists. No assumption from me anymore.
Why exactly was she disgusted? That's what's important here. I mean, my mother would be disgusted at two gay guys kissing. It doesn't (by itself) mean that we should care that she's offended.

Then their video should represent trying to save women and men's lives rather than women's breasts. Not only that but these guys are well known for being skeevy weirdo's regarding breasts. They have quite a few video's of them shoving their face into breasts. I don't like this idea that you have to appeal to men while trying to teach awareness of breast cancer.
Their video was about trying to save women's and men's lives. It was about donating money to a charity which tries to do just that. So what if they got their rocks off in the process?

As for your example trying to compare this to another situation, that doesn't work. They're not exploiting the disease by poking a child and making it giggle. Not only that but there's nothing negative associated with doing that while there is with a guy shoving his head into women's breasts.
No, but they are exploiting our innate desire to protect babies as well as how cute babies are to us. And why exactly is there a negative association with shoving one's head into a woman's breasts (if consensual)? I mean, take out the charity element for a moment. What if these guys just went up to women and paid them directly to motorboat them for a little bit. Granted, they'd have probably gotten fewer yeses (because there is a definite stigma around taking money for anything sexual), but for the women who did allow it, do you look down on them as whores or something? Or do you look at the guys as skeevy?
 

Core Zero

Member
Can we rename Internet Feminism to something like Basement-Virgin First-Semester-Women's-Issues-Major Sex-Fearing Bubble-Person Prudism? That has more of a ring to it.

Why do you feel the need to make these drive by insult posts? I see it frequently and it adds nothing to the discussion, except to dismiss points of view you dislike without actually engaging.
 

Wazzy

Banned
Why exactly was she disgusted? That's what's important here. I mean, my mother would be disgusted at two gay guys kissing. It doesn't (by itself) mean that we should care that she's offended.
I'm sorry but that's a silly comparison. One happens to be a victim of what she's disgusted at while the other is homophobia.

It matters because she was a victim of breast cancer. Should we never care what rape victims think if they're offended by something representing rape inappropriately?

As for why she was disgusted, she thinks the focus on saving boobies is wrong and offensive. Who gives a shit about saving boobs? It's the lives that matter.
Their video was about trying to save women's and men's lives. It was about donating money to a charity which tries to do just that. So what if they got their rocks off in the process?
No, their video was about motorboating and saving boobies rather than people's lives. Sure, what they're donating to is for trying to save lives but that's not the video's focus.


No, but they are exploiting our innate desire to protect babies as well as how cute babies are to us. And why exactly is there a negative association with shoving one's head into a woman's breasts (if consensual)? I mean, take out the charity element for a moment. What if these guys just went up to women and paid them directly to motorboat them for a little bit. Granted, they'd have probably gotten fewer yeses (because there is a definite stigma around taking money for anything sexual), but for the women who did allow it, do you look down on them as whores or something? Or do you look at the guys as skeevy?
Because they're making it all about breasts while also getting something out of it. It's not a matter of being consensual because the women they're doing this to could have had a multitude of reasons for agreeing. Maybe they didn't care or they felt pressured to do it for breast cancer or maybe they thought they would be called prudes. People are assuming all of these women did it happily with no problems.
 

rvy

Banned
Can we rename Internet Feminism to something like Basement-Virgin First-Semester-Women's-Issues-Major Sex-Fearing Bubble-Person Prudism? That has more of a ring to it.

EviLore pls.

You're just asking for people to jump you now. Checking for balls in a breast awareness thread, come on.

People are assuming all of these women did it happily with no problems.

Other people are assuming the opposite and writing fucking thesis based on it. Here's the fact, the women in the video consented. Why they consented should be fucking meaningless and nobody else's problem but their own. Yet here we are. What ifs back and forth. If you're over 18 and can't decide if you gonna let some dude motorboat your tits for raising money, then you're in for deep shit as far as life goes.
 

Scrabble

Member
I'm sorry but that's a silly comparison. One happens to be a victim of what she's disgusted at while the other is homophobia.

It matters because she was a victim of breast cancer. Should we never care what rape victims think if they're offended by something representing rape inappropriately?

As for why she was disgusted, she thinks the focus on saving boobies is wrong and offensive. Who gives a shit about saving boobs? It's the lives that matter.

No, their video was about motorboating and saving boobies rather than people's lives. Sure, what they're donating to is for trying to save lives but that's not the video's focus.



Because they're making it all about breasts while also getting something out of it. It's not a matter of being consensual because the women they're doing this to could have had a multitude of reasons for agreeing. Maybe they didn't care or they felt pressured to do it for breast cancer or maybe they thought they would be called prudes. People are assuming all of these women did it happily with no problems.

Well the kind of promotion and awareness you seem to advocate for isn't going to go away as a result of this video. We will still have useless pink ribbons and pamphlets that are most likely going to get thrown away, this approach using sex appeal is only an alternative method towards reaching the same goal. If this method brings in more attention, which all signs point to yes, than I see it as a positive thing.

Also there is still this underlying stigma of the consenting women in the video being victims, when nothing points to that being the case. Your right in that they could have agreed for such and such reason or another, or maybe they just agreed because they don't see the big deal and everyone is having a good time? Why is that option almost never a possibility? There doesn't have to be some ulterior motive as to why the women agreed.
 
Other people are assuming the opposite and writing fucking thesis based on it. Here's the fact, the women in the video consented. Why they consented should be fucking meaningless and nobody else's problem but their own. Yet here we are. What ifs back and forth. If you're over 18 and can't decide if you gonna let some dude motorboat your tits for raising money, then you're in for deep shit as far as life goes.

People who assume they unwillingly consented are also disrespecting a woman's choices which is equally disturbing.
 

Wazzy

Banned
Other people are assuming the opposite and writing fucking thesis based on it. Here's the fact, the women in the video consented. Why they consented should be fucking meaningless and nobody else's problem but their own. Yet here we are. What ifs back and forth. If you're over 18 and can't decide if you gonna let some dude motorboat your tits for raising money, then you're in for deep shit as far as life goes.
Unless I'm mistaken, I have yet to see someone write a thesis saying what these women were clearly feeling. I know people have said some reasons they might have accepted are they felt pressured but I haven't seen many or even anyone say what you're suggesting.

Peer pressure and the way people view you are huge factors in many people's decisions. Let's not act like it's as simple as she consented therefore its only her fault. When someone has the ability to make you look bad(not saying they would just that this could be what someone is thinking) it's not as easy as just saying "nah. PEACE".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this IS what they were thinking, just that it's a possibility and anyone dismissing arguments with "they consented so you're wrong" don't exactly know how they felt either.
 
All that straw.

Having perused countless social justice blogs on Tumblr, I would say that outside of "basement virgin", all of those descriptors are relevant, tangible aspects of contemporary online feminism.

I always find myself in the awkward position of supporting feminism's aims while finding the overall movement rather silly and self-marginalizing.
 

Pau

Member
Having perused countless social justice blogs on Tumblr, I would say that outside of "basement virgin", all of those descriptors are relevant, tangible aspects of contemporary online feminism.

I always find myself in the awkward position of supporting feminism's aims while finding the overall movement rather silly and self-marginalizing.
I guess I don't see that since I'm not on tumblr, but most feminists I know are pretty sex positive and hardly prudes. That doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to talk critically about sexuality, and there's definitely more to the conversation than one side that's super perverted and another side that's just full of prudes. I think those kinds of comments try to shut down legitimate conversations about how our culture sees and depicts sexuality.
 

Wazzy

Banned
I guess I don't see that since I'm not on tumblr, but most feminists I know are pretty sex positive and hardly prudes. That doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to talk critically about sexuality, and there's definitely more to the conversation than one side that's super perverted and another side that's just full of prudes. I think those kinds of comments try to shut down legitimate conversations about how our culture sees and depicts sexuality.
Exactly.

I'm pretty sure most of us in here getting called prudes are a lot more sexually confident and open about sex in general than what people think.
 

spirity

Member
What a hollow victory, for anyone who thinks it is one. And I -know- some people will have cheered.

Hopefully they'll donate the money anonymously.
 

thekad

Banned
Exactly.

I'm pretty sure most of us in here getting called prudes are a lot more sexually confident and open about sex in general than what people think.

Nope.

Anyone who calls motorboating sexual assault is the opposite of open about sex and just in general has problems.
 
I guess I don't see that since I'm not on tumblr, but most feminists I know are pretty sex positive and hardly prudes. That doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to talk critically about sexuality, and there's definitely more to the conversation than one side that's super perverted and another side that's just full of prudes. I think those kinds of comments try to shut down legitimate conversations about how our culture sees and depicts sexuality.

Exactly.

I'm pretty sure most of us in here getting called prudes are a lot more sexually confident and open about sex in general than what people think.

You can be "open about sex" or "sex positive", in some respects, while still being considered prudish, in a sense, if you shame others' sexuality/experience of sexuality as symbolic of some grand societal or ethical ill.

This is certainly tasteless, but it's not really anything more than that.
 

Sibylus

Banned
Accuse me of being humorless, but I think the issue is important enough to warrant it standing on its merits alone, and not as what looks like cover for a dumb joke.

Can we rename Internet Feminism to something like Basement-Virgin First-Semester-Women's-Issues-Major Sex-Fearing Bubble-Person Prudism? That has more of a ring to it.
It's more of an ad hominem, but you're a confessed bubble person, so there shouldn't be much of an issue.
Is any of this devil-may-care putdowning at all necessary?
 

Wazzy

Banned
Let's hope he was trolling. Actually, I hope all of you are trolling, for your own sake.
I never said all posters in this thread so your generlization doesn't apply. Your original response seemed to indicate that me and many others had made similar claims which is completely false.

I would also appreciate if we kept the discussion civil and not start resorting to calling us trolls just because we disagree.
You can be "open about sex" or "sex positive", in some respects, while still being considered prudish, in a sense, if you shame others' sexuality/experience of sexuality as symbolic of some grand societal or ethical ill.

This is certainly tasteless, but it's not really anything more than that.

I think it's very hard to label someone a prude if they're "sex positive" and "open about sex" but I guess that's just me.
 

Stet

Banned
So now $7000 more than the people feigning outrage have donated to any charity in their entire lives :lol

$6,000,000,000 every year is donated to some kind of Breast Cancer Charity.

Literally only 0.000116% of that has been lost due to these funds not finding an audience.
 

Unbounded

Member
I never said all posters in this thread so your generlization doesn't apply. Your original response seemed to indicate that me and many others had made similar claims which is completely false.

I would also appreciate if we kept the discussion civil and not start resorting to calling us trolls just because we disagree.


I think it's very hard to label someone a prude if they're "sex positive" and "open about sex" but I guess that's just me.

It's possible to be "sex positive" and "open about sex" in one instance, and "prudish" in another completely different situation.

Just because one may or may not have been sexually open regarding one topic doesn't suddenly make it possible/impossible for them to act prudish in another.
 

Wazzy

Banned
It's possible to be "sex positive" and "open about sex" in one instance, and "prudish" in another completely different situation.

Just because one may or may not have been sexually open regarding one topic doesn't suddenly make it possible/impossible for them to act prudish in another.

Ah sorry, I wasn't clear in explaining what I meant. I was referring to being called prudish in regards to anything sexual related.

You're completely right in that someone could say, be sexually open while being prudish towards something such as swearing.
 

Stet

Banned
So? Every little bit counts.

Of course it does, but that $6,000,000,000 figure means that:

1) The loss of $7,000 is not nearly as important as SimplePickup's response makes it out to be; and
2) Assuming that the people who found the video problematic haven't donated anything is silly, because obviously tons of people donate.
 
I'm sorry but that's a silly comparison. One happens to be a victim of what she's disgusted at while the other is homophobia.

It matters because she was a victim of breast cancer. Should we never care what rape victims think if they're offended by something representing rape inappropriately?

As for why she was disgusted, she thinks the focus on saving boobies is wrong and offensive. Who gives a shit about saving boobs? It's the lives that matter.

No, their video was about motorboating and saving boobies rather than people's lives. Sure, what they're donating to is for trying to save lives but that's not the video's focus.



Because they're making it all about breasts while also getting something out of it. It's not a matter of being consensual because the women they're doing this to could have had a multitude of reasons for agreeing. Maybe they didn't care or they felt pressured to do it for breast cancer or maybe they thought they would be called prudes. People are assuming all of these women did it happily with no problems.
You shouldn't be basing your opinions off anything one person says on a matter. There could be thousands of breast cancer survivors that have no problem with the video, but your whole opinion hinges on the opinion of one person you asked and now you feel that your opinion is right because one breast cancer survivor agrees with you.
 

thekad

Banned
$6,000,000,000 every year is donated to some kind of Breast Cancer Charity.

Literally only 0.000116% of that has been lost due to these funds not finding an audience.
Sweet, your willingness to not contribute at all and just sit on your ass typing on a message board is vindicated now.

I never said all posters in this thread so your generlization doesn't apply. Your original response seemed to indicate that me and many others had made similar claims which is completely false.

I would also appreciate if we kept the discussion civil and not start resorting to calling us trolls just because we disagree.

I didn't call anyone a troll. I said I hope
y'all are trolling because otherwise I would have to pity you.
 

Stet

Banned
Sweet, your willingness to not contribute at all and just sit on your ass typing on a message board is vindicated now.

I've donated to many charities, run for many charities, and worked on ad campaigns for many charities, but a tax receipt shouldn't be a pre-requisite to find something wrong with the way someone else is self-aggrandizing their own donation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom