Using graphic circ pics in intactivism

[intact]

Why don't we? The guy in Chicago uses a pic of two babies. Nothing special about that.
The people in la ciudad de San Fransisco use pics of jew stars and slogans, how come people don't put up a huge picture of a bloody penis being opened?

I'm asking because I think it might be illegal to have such pics shown, or there is some other reason. In my mind, no argument or yack can be used against some of these horrible pics out there of a tiny penis being cut open, bloody and all.

[Joseph]

I was under the impression that some intactivsts did use graphic pictures at protests. I don't think there's any problem, just that some people prefer not to use graphic pictures.

[MelancholyLogic]

Originally Posted by intact

The people in la ciudad de San Fransisco use pics of jew stars and slogans, how come people don't put up a huge picture of a bloody penis being opened?

I'm asking because I think it might be illegal to have such pics shown, or there is some other reason. In my mind, no argument or yack can be used against some of these horrible pics out there of a tiny penis being cut open, bloody and all.

Bay Area Intactivists has an assortment of high-quality, vinyl signs that are used so the assortment tends to stay the same. None of these have a graphic image as you suggest but I suspect that is only because no one has bothered to make one. However, we did have someone show up at SF Pride (both at the parade and in front of our booth) with a grotesque picture.

It's just a matter of individual approach. Each intactivist has a different idea of the most effective way to engage the public. Some feel that the very graphic pictures would only shock and drive people away instead of helping to start a dialog.

[admin]

Originally Posted by MelancholyLogic

we did have someone show up at SF Pride (both at the parade and in front of our booth) with a grotesque picture.

That's my friend Michael. That photo of a baby strapped to a restraint, screaming as his penis is clamped and sliced shows up a lot, like on the marches from the Capitol to the Whitehouse.

It sounds like the OP is thinking of an even more graphic close-up of genitals in painful vivisection. I think a shot close enough so you can no longer see the anguished screaming face is perhaps less effective.

I hate to coldly reason out how best to exploit the kid's suffereing, but hey it happened (to all of us). We may as well put the sad truth to productive use.

[MelancholyLogic]

Originally Posted by admin

That's my friend Michael. That photo of a baby strapped to a restraint, screaming as his penis is clamped and sliced shows up a lot, like on the marches from the Capitol to the Whitehouse.

It sounds like the OP is thinking of an even more graphic close-up of genitals in painful vivisection. I think a shot close enough so you can no longer see the anguished screaming face is perhaps less effective.

I hate to coldly reason out how best to exploit the kid's suffereing, but hey it happened (to all of us). We may as well put the sad truth to productive use.

Yes, Michael's sign had quite an impact. We generally don't go that route but I'm glad that someone was willing to do so. Ron, do you know of anyone who has access to a high-resolution copy of that image that Michael used?