Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

First ever anti-porn television commercial airing on MTV US
Indiantelevision.com ^

Posted on 06/09/2003 7:03:21 AM PDT by chance33_98

First ever anti-porn TVCs airing on MTV US

The Indiantelevision.com Team

(9 June 2003 1:00 pm)

MUMBAI: This is an ad campaign that should make the likes of Playboy and Hustler sit up and take notice. The 30 second television commercial (TVC) uses a sense of humour to address the sensitive issue of damage caused to minds by pornographic content. The commercial "Porn stunts your growth" is sponsored by the non-profit ministry of XXXchurch.com, which was founded by Mike Foster and Craig Gross, two ordained ministers.

The message that the TVC looks to put across is that porn screws up your life spiritually and relationship wise as well. The new commercial campaign will target a young male demographic and run in southern California during The Howard Stern Show, The Man Show, and on MTV.

While these shows and companies are using porn and sex to promote themselves, many companies like Wal-Mart, Pay Pal and General Motors are getting out of the sex business because of public backlash an official release informs.

The need for the TVC which will run till 16 June has come as a result of recent statistics which show that 60 per cent of website visits are sexual in nature and over 30 million people log on to porn sites every day (Yankelovich Partners Study).

XXXchurch.com has used websites, billboards, airplane flyovers, and now television commercials to get their anti-porn message out

The ministry’s website claims to have attracted over 25 million hits, with 50,000 new visitors every week, and has 40,000 men using their free anti-porn software, X3watch, which is available for download at the XXXchurch.com website.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: commercial; mtv; porn

1 posted on 06/09/2003 7:03:21 AM PDT by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Excellent!
2 posted on 06/09/2003 7:10:05 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
While these shows and companies are using porn and sex to promote themselves, many companies like Wal-Mart, Pay Pal and General Motors are getting out of the sex business because of public backlash an official release informs.

Does this mean no more El Caminos with astroturf in the truck bed?

3 posted on 06/09/2003 7:13:14 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
"...recent statistics which show that 60 per cent of website visits are sexual in nature and over 30 million people log on to porn sites every day (Yankelovich Partners Study)."

OK, I'll get it started.

Similar results have been noted by "STROKelstein and Associates".
4 posted on 06/09/2003 7:39:07 AM PDT by CaptSkip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I never got the astroturf. Any woman willing to put out on astroturf is nuts.

Mrs VS

5 posted on 06/09/2003 7:48:23 AM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
The ministry’s website claims to have ... 40,000 men using their free anti-porn software, X3watch

Here's a shot of their screen saver:


6 posted on 06/09/2003 7:57:07 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Why am I not surprised that you would defend porn?
7 posted on 06/09/2003 8:00:24 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
The commercial "Porn stunts your growth"

Soooooo its like not eating your vegtables?

8 posted on 06/09/2003 8:02:27 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Why am I not surprised you'd defend the Taliban.
9 posted on 06/09/2003 8:03:10 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
um...MTV IS porn...
10 posted on 06/09/2003 8:06:56 AM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
So, are you arguing against their free PERSONAL CHOICE not to be exposed to porn? I fail to see how that makes them the Taliban.

I could buy your argument if they were trying to force YOU to use the software, but such doesn't seem to be the case.
11 posted on 06/09/2003 8:13:05 AM PDT by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Why am I not surprised you'd defend the Taliban.

It takes a keen mind to equate freedom of speech with the Taliban.

12 posted on 06/09/2003 8:15:47 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
It takes a keen mind to equate freedom of speech with the Taliban.

You mean you don't want to ban public "indecency"?

13 posted on 06/09/2003 8:21:17 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Porn is the ultimate celebration of selfishness - and it is selfishness that is destroying this nation.
14 posted on 06/09/2003 8:24:22 AM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
"I encountered . . . in the local grocery store and the local drug stores the soft-core pornography, then began seeking out hard-core books.
"The most damaging kinds of pornography are those that involve violence and sexual violence. Because the wedding of those two forces, as I know only too well, brings about behavior that is just too terrible to describe.
"I take full responsibility for whatever I've done and all the things that I've done. The question and the issue is how this kind of literature contributed and helped mold and shape these kinds of violent behavior."

- Ted Bundy

15 posted on 06/09/2003 9:12:14 AM PDT by SquirrelKing (Mad enough to eat BB's and crap ten-penny nails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
This is a joke, right?: AOLTIMEWARNERVIACOMETAL, already are into downloadable, Barely Legal, Hustler Porn On Demand.

IT IS MTV'S SOFT CORE PORN WHICH IS MORE OF A CONCERN AND A PRECURSOR TO ADULT PORN

16 posted on 06/09/2003 9:20:10 AM PDT by Helms (Jacque Chirac: He's Got No Mojo, Only Hojo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
I never got the astroturf. Any woman willing to put out on astroturf is nuts.

Mrs VS

It's hard to believe any woman would put up with Clinton much less his El Camino with Astroturf.

17 posted on 06/09/2003 9:54:34 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
True.

Mrs VS

18 posted on 06/09/2003 10:01:36 AM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Great pic. Just another group of busybodies who want to regulate the lives of everyone else.

My wife and I enjoy our subscriptions to Maxim and Stuff magazines. Occasionally when we're in the mood we take a peek at some naughty websites. It hasn't ruined our committment to each other; in fact it has enhanced it.

19 posted on 06/09/2003 10:11:55 AM PDT by BlkConserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlkConserv
I have no problems with the ads as they're just that; ads. Don't like'em? Turn the channel. Nor does it look like they're using tax payer dollars. Lighten up Francis.
20 posted on 06/09/2003 10:15:55 AM PDT by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I agree with your comments but the sad truth is that porn is a billion-dollar industry.

Until Jesus returns to Earth or a dicator assumes power in the US, porn isn't going away.

21 posted on 06/09/2003 10:16:57 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
You mean you don't want to ban public "indecency"?

Public indecency is not protected speech, while opposition to it is-- as if you didn't know that (you did, didn't you?)

22 posted on 06/09/2003 10:22:00 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BlkConserv
Maxim magazine rocks. I just renewed my subscription.

I don't like all the other ones though, the market is now saturized. Besides, Maxim has some great stories. They did a feature story on the Moscow terrorist incident by the Chechnen rebels. Apparently a Canadian guy was there and gave a horrific eye-witness account. A great read.

23 posted on 06/09/2003 10:22:36 AM PDT by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BlkConserv
My wife and I enjoy our subscriptions to Maxim and Stuff magazines.

I have a female in-law who writes (minor stuff) for both those magazines.

24 posted on 06/09/2003 10:30:38 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Wow, that was an impressive comeback! lol

Seriesly, though, it has been shown that porn does do wierd things to brain chemistry. If it can be shown that it pushes a significan number of people into acting out wierd fantasies in a criminal fashion, it stops being a right.

Sort of like crystal meth--it can turn a hard working man or woman into a hollow, burned out junky with no motiviation other than getting the next high. I think we should be terrified of anything that can lobotomize conservatives and turn them into liberals, no? ;oP
25 posted on 06/09/2003 10:31:09 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Public indecency is not protected speech


26 posted on 06/09/2003 10:31:56 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
If it can be shown that it pushes a significan number of people into acting out wierd fantasies

That's the thinking behind the Taliban prohibiting the viewing of any female ankle.

27 posted on 06/09/2003 10:33:59 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
That seems a strained analogy, though. Equating beating people for only wearing hibab rather than a burkha with restricting hardcore porn is like comparing a supernova with a firecracker.

One should look at the reson for controlling dangerous substances, like meth, for example. One dose can powerfully addict the user. It destroys all motivation, along with a significant fraction of higher reasoning skills. It also smashes most inbuilt inhibition, making normal people into hopeless addicts very quickly. These addicts more often than not then go and commit criminal acts to sustain their habbits, since regular employment is impossible in their crippled state.

Similary for pornography, it has been shown that brain chemistry and funciton is altered significanly, though the full effects of those changes are only beginning to be documented. Furthermore, it is also easily proven that obsession with pornography can rapidly spiral out of control. Who doesn't know of a marraige or life that hasn't been thoroughly screwed up by such an addiction?

The thrust of my arugment is, once using or distributing a substance causes great harm to a large section of the non-using populace without any positive return, the right to it's usage must limited.

This is also the rationale, mind you, behind keeping tobacco legal. True, it does harm the user, but its effects on surrounding non-users are minimal except in the case of extensive overuse (several packs a day in a closed space over an extended period).

So although the burkha pic is cute and witty, it really doesn't address my main points at all. For most of our history the US had what would be considered "oppressive" decency laws, yet it never pushed us into the horror of tyranny as some suggest might happen. Could you perhaps elaborate on your argument a bit more?

Thanks,

c13
28 posted on 06/09/2003 10:47:15 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Nice picture. Here's an in-kind response:

That's the thinking behind the Taliban prohibiting the viewing of any female ankle.

It's a false dichotomy that you offer. Either cover up everything or nothing.

The problem with porn lovers is they don't understand what pandering is. Their particular lusts become more important than the innocence and safety of others. That is certainly selfish, but then that's what American hedonism is all about.

29 posted on 06/09/2003 12:46:16 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
It's a false dichotomy that you offer. Either cover up everything or nothing.

It's reducio ad absurdum.

Look, humans evolved with no clothes. Clothes wearing is a rather recent invention in our species history. Clothes originally provided protection from the elements. They also quickly took on matters of style and social heirarchy. "Dress codes" are all arbitrary -- from covered completely, to nothing at all, and to everything in between.

These are matters of taste, matters of religious mythology and superstition. There is no "correct" amount of clothes to wear.

30 posted on 06/09/2003 1:43:52 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Look, humans evolved with no clothes

A baseless assumption.

Clothes wearing is a rather recent invention in our species history.

If so, then so is any taboo including child molestation.

It's good to see you trying to be consistent with your evolutionist world view.

31 posted on 06/09/2003 2:05:46 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
It's reducio ad absurdum.

It could be reductio ad absurdum but it certainly is a false dichotomy. A tip of the hat in your direction for that candid admission.


32 posted on 06/09/2003 2:19:34 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
no-fun police on duty..............
33 posted on 06/09/2003 2:21:40 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (MY VOTE IS FOR SALE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
...recent statistics which show that 60 per cent of website visits are sexual in nature...

The other 40 percent are me...on FR...

34 posted on 06/09/2003 2:24:01 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
"It's reducio ad absurdum."

A tip of the hat in your direction for that candid admission.

Huh? Reducio is a valid argumentative attack on an arbitrary principle.

35 posted on 06/09/2003 2:42:05 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
"Look, humans evolved with no clothes."

A baseless assumption.

Honest -- no one has yet found a gene that generates clothing.

36 posted on 06/09/2003 2:43:50 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Reducio is a valid argumentative attack on an arbitrary principle.

It's REDUCTIO, not reducio, and reductio ad absurdum happens to be a listed fallacy. Do a Google search.

37 posted on 06/09/2003 2:53:25 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
reductio ad absurdum happens to be a listed fallacy. Do a Google search.

Heh heh, look a little harder.

38 posted on 06/09/2003 4:51:34 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
You guys can never admit you're wrong. It's just as well that the lurkers notice.
39 posted on 06/09/2003 5:48:10 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
You guys can never admit you're wrong.

Good grief, you didn't really think you'd get away with that by bluster alone. Here, read this:

"Use of this Latin terminology traces back to the Greek expression hê eis to adunaton apagôgê, reduction to the impossible, found repeatedly in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In its most general construal, reductio ad absurdum – reductio for short – is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd – and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue."

From here: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm

40 posted on 06/09/2003 6:06:31 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
For the first time, you spelled "reductio" correctly! Good job!

Sorry, j-, I just can't take you too seriously when, up till now when you did a web search, you have been misspelling the topic of contention.

Your use of reductio (q.v.) was entirely fallacious (q.v.) in its use.

Do another search: logical fallacies. You'll find reductio as you used it listed.

41 posted on 06/09/2003 6:21:02 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Your use of reductio (q.v.) was entirely fallacious (q.v.) in its use.

From source above: "[Reductio] takes three principal forms according as that untenable consequence is:

-- a self-contradiction (ad absurdum)
-- a falsehood (ad falsum or even ad impossibile)
-- an implausibility or anomaly (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum)

The first of these is reductio ad absurdum in its strictest construction and the other two cases involve a rather wider and looser sense of the term. Some conditionals that instantiate this latter sort of situation are:

– If that's so, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
– If that is true, then pigs can fly.
– If he did that, then I'm the Shah of Persia.

What we have here are consequences that are absurd in the sense of being obviously false and indeed even a bit ridiculous. Despite its departure from what is strictly speaking so construed – conditionals with self-contradictory – time to time conclusions – this sort of thing is also characterized as an attenuated mode of reductio. But while all three cases fall into the range of the term as it is commonly used, logicians and mathematicians generally have the first and strongest of them in view."

42 posted on 06/09/2003 6:45:05 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson