There exist sex-negative feminists, but it is wrong to describe that as a feminist position.

For the better part of a decade feminists have been wildly anti-objectification, not anti-sex. It's an important distinction.

For example, most modern feminists are pro sex-work, but only under conditions that guarantee safety, autonomy, and health care for the sex workers. That's very different from how most sex work is done today. So a modern feminist might say that we should be doing more to protect the sex workers who are held in bondage by a pimp, and forced to walk the streets while simultaneously arguing in favor of well regulated, protected brothels or private sex work.

But the specific organization we're discussing is not feminist, they only disguise themselves as such.

It's interesting that you equate opposition to sexualization of women in media with sex negativity. One does not necessarily imply the other. You can be sex positive and believe that media sexualizes women to a problematic degree.

I never declared it doesn’t exist?

Let me respond with your attacking-style:

Just because you like it doesn’t mean it’s representative of feminism at large. It doesn’t mean it’s not a conservative think tank hiding behind a veil of feminism.

These days there seems to be a fair bit of sex-inconsistent feminism.

With something like OnlyFans, where there's money to be made, the 'sex work is real work!' slogan comes out. And there's a reluctance to criticise big porn sites even after claims of links to sex trafficking etc.

But at the same time, scantily-clad videogame characters designed to appeal to the male gaze are deemed unacceptable/objectifying/regressive. And 'sex robots' are seen as a horrifying prospect.

> There is a huge sex-negative feminist school of thought, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The specific organization we're discussing is not feminist. It's religious conservative, using some of the trappings of feminism.

I didn't mean that one cannot be a Christian and a feminist.

I meant that this person chooses Christian venues to voice her opinions, and shares with them non-feminist values such as being "pro life", etc.

Hers is not a feminist organization, and Collective Shout is perceived by some as a right-wing group seeking to also ban LGTB+ depictions in videogames (which is not standard feminist agenda). Like another commenter mentioned, Collective Shout receives funding from evangelical organizations. And really, you have to ask yourself: since when exactly payment processors paid any attention to what genuine feminist organizations had to say about anything?

At some point you cannot ignore the evidence anymore. At best you can point the non-empty intersection of conservative Christian groups and some sex-negative feminists who both seek to ban pornography, but this doesn't make them the same thing.

TL;DR this is a variation of "will somebody think of the children!?" pearl-clutching, and everyone should know by now it doesn't lead to anything good.