To think me taking a picture with no makeup on

[softlysoftly]

isn't going to cure breast cancer?

Correct me if i'm wrong of course.

I thought the original message was that it takes less time to check your breasts than to put your make up on in the morning?

Not patronising, just sick of the flak I've got from self-congratulating posers (NOT those who whole heartedly donated but the people who backtracked once they were questioned)

I donated before it was questioned also.

And let's not forget that if you think it's because you questioned that people donated, you would have had nothing to question if people hadn't started posting.

It's all relevant. At the end of the day a huge amount of money has been raised. Does it matter how? Or who get's credit for people donating. I think it matters that it's happened, forget about how.

Most of the people on my friends list who did it are people who never, ever post selfies. It was my first ever, too.

I have a friend who is being treated for cancer, and she was really fed up with this selfie stuff. Several of her posts were well written, and well argued, but people took offence. Of course. As I never wear makeup, and don't post selfies I posted to say that, also that I was well aware of the terrible toll that cancer takes, so I wouldn't be joining in. To which I got a tirade of abuse, & some emotional blackmail - "maybe you'd like to donate then" I suggested that instead of a one off donation (and lets be honest where does the money go) that people sent their cash to smaller, local cancer support groups, or Macmillan, helped in a local charity shop, spoke about cancer when with their friends. I didn't get any further posts.

The person that called me a bitter cunt for questioning the non-donating selfies, didn't donate because "I've done my bit by taking my make up off for a selfie ya bitter cunt"

Some of you sound like you have much much more mature friends on your Facebook than I do!

I agree the discussion/debate has raised the (majority) of the money and that's a good thing.

I can not get past the fact that vacuous posers hijacked it and caused great upset to people fighting the disease.

That is what has got thousands like me so ducking pissed off.

But it's OK cos shitloads of money was raised.

Prudish autocorrect... Fucking

I understand you're pissed off with people who called you names, and rightly so. But you directed your comments at all 'selfie-takers', telling us it was nothing more than a gimmick. That was the bit I found patronising.

OK, I was wrong on that count for the people who were genuine, I apologise.

I stand by everything else.

Sorry I'm on several threads of the same topic and losing track of what I've posted on what thread so I can understand that some of my posts will come through as patronising etc because they don't follow on from what I've previously said elsewhere iyswim!

Lj I think you've hit the nail on the head, the way people have experienced this thing probably depends on who your Facebook friends are. Mine are mostly mums in their 30s and 40s. If I had a bunch of 20-somethings who didn't donate and called me a cunt, yeah, that would taint things a bit.
Twinkly, same thing, I'm glad to say I missed most of the vacuous posers.

The backlash started around midday Tue. It is reported that the donations started coming in faster on Wed. Anthony Nolan Trust reported a surge around early evening wed.

Yes, of course some people did donate beforehand, and they are to be congratulated for it, but not all did - in fact most early photos didn't we say 'for cancer'. Nominations only picked up when people added that and donations only picked up when people started arguing about it.

It's good that money has been raised, but previous efforts (handbags, bra colours, holiday destinations and cartoon profile pics didn't make a thing - maybe because people didn't get so pissed off about them).

Oh FFS does it matter, when Cancer Research UK are saying they've had a huge rise in donations over the past few days because of this selfie thing? They're making money to spend on cancer research. Which part of that isn't brilliant?! No-one is forcing anyone to do a make-up free selfie. If you want to, then ace. If you don't, that's fine. But while you're deciding, chuck a few quid towards a cancer charity. They'll be well grateful!

Maybe the way people see this very much depends on the type of friends they have on FB.

My FB is full of people who do not normally post selfies, and the type of people who would donate to causes when awareness is raised, and who may well be donating money to causes even without awareness too. None are posting and then looking for compliments - not seen any with long lists of compliments tbh.

Maybe if your FB is full of much younger people, or maybe more shallow people then you are more likely to get the vanity type posts instead of those with the messages and awareness links.

Yep I think that's it diddle

I have a wide range of ages and intelligences on my friends list, the more mature people who don't generally do selfies, arnt making a big deal about taking thier make up off and have made a point that they have donated havent wound me up.

Its the younger (and some of the older) ones who have done this.....

"Omg look at my ugly mug, I can't believe I've done this but I'm saving a life by doing so!"

Or just "make up free selfie, I nominate...."

If it raises awareness that's good, but half the post on my FB are still very artfully shot and fishing for compliments.

I've just been nominated. I'm going to ignore it, though I know I'll get comments about it.

The thing is, I give money already to charities that I want to give money to. I'm all for raising awareness for charities, but that doesn't mean it is obligatory to donate. The tone of some things I've seen online suggests that people are seeing it as obligatory, and that you are tight, miserable etc if you don't donate.

Maybe I'll post screenshots of my direct debits to other charities...

Itswarmer it matters to the people who have been upset by this and previous "campaigns" that traded their suffering for a laugh.

As LtEve states, the donations went up AFTER the arguing started.

So it does matter when loved ones have been hurt by the initial game.

That kind of surge will also happen when something spreads around exponentially (or goes viral), LtEve. I maintain that the main things that set this one apart are a) the no makeup selfie idea appealed more and b) lots of people shared a text number for making a £3 donation.

But we'll never know, I suppose.
And for the poster who said 'where does the money go' and recommended donating to small local charities, Cancer Research UK is the second largest funder of research into cancer IN THE WORLD. The US Govt is the first. You can't tell me that's not making a difference to survival rates.
(But agree completely that sharing donations out round lots of charities is a great idea.)

I linked to the Cancer Research donation text method and got harangued because some of the money goes on marketing.

But without marketing, how can they get their message out there - not every campaign will go viral

I'm not doing it because no one ever sees me without make-up, not even my mother, and I don't want to frankly but I have sent the text. The thing that is annoying me is that the only reason the majority of the women on my list have done it is so they get 30 replies telling them how good they look without make-up, how young & fresh & beautiful (trust me they don't, I have never seen my friends looking so bloody rough, ill, old and just plain god damn awful! REALLY wish they'd put the slap back on! They look like men!) and if anyone has dared say they look rough or some comment about make-up making an unbelievable difference they have got all hurt & shocked & upset! Well what did they expect? I'm not posting a photo because I know I look as rough as a badger's arse without make-up and I know I'd be gutted when my honest friends say so. I'm all for raising money & awareness but this is a very self serving way of doing it, it's all very "stroke my ego" and that doesn't sit well with me. Charity is about doing things for others, not trying to get your mates to say you're beautiful. If they did a selfie in silly clothes, or selfie in a car, selfie pulling a silly face or even something relevant like selfie in a bra I'd be more inclined to join in & support it, but not make-up free. Unless they are going to use my photo to scare cancer into remission I'm not doing it. I did something actually helpful & donated & posted a status asking others to donate too.

The £1m it raises will go a good way to funding research tho

Twinkly I can see where you're coming from.
I do agree that it's mad to object to charity money being spent on marketing. I imagine those who object have no comprehension of how a big charity works.

I kind of know that logically it isn't the case but I always kind of hope that TV companies, magazines, radio etc don't charge for showing charity advertising, or only charge a token basic amount to cover costs, but I doubt it's the case.

What annoys me is the other day I got a letter from the Red Cross. Now that's a printed letter, an envelope, a return envelope, 2 coasters, a pen, a bookmark & 2 cards. How much did that all cost?? 5?? 10???? Totally over the top & unnecessary and they send me this stuff at least once a year. Not personally addressed to me, a general mailshot to everyone so how many of these are they sending out??? I'm sorry but I refuse to donate to them if that's what they are going to spend it on.