First ever anti-porn television commercial airing on MTV US

Indiantelevision.com ^

[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.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

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.

[Dataman]

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?)

[ServesURight]

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.

[jlogajan]

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.

[Constantine XIII]

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

[jlogajan]

Public indecency is not protected speech

[jlogajan]

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.

[Constantine XIII]

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

[Dataman]

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.

[jlogajan]

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.

[Dataman]

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.

[Dataman]

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.

[WhiteGuy]

no-fun police on duty..............

[Billthedrill]

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

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

[jlogajan]

"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.

[jlogajan]

"Look, humans evolved with no clothes."

A baseless assumption.

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

[Dataman]

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.

[jlogajan]

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

Heh heh, look a little harder.

[Dataman]

You guys can never admit you're wrong. It's just as well that the lurkers notice.

[jlogajan]

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