Mothering Forum banner

Our wives of restorers group in the press

842 Views 4 Replies 4 Participants Last post by  Girl Named Sandoz
Yahoo! Foreskins! Porn?
Yahoo! faces criticism after nixing online board discussion of circumcision

Friday, March 31, 2006

YAHOO! IS FACING criticism from members of Foreskin Restoration, an online discussion group dedicated to circumcision issues, after the search engine giant shut down the group's message boards.

The discussion group, created in 1999, addressed ways men could regain the foreskin they lost in circumcision. Specifically, the group targeted "men who are interested in, currently using, or have used any of the various non-surgical foreskin restoration."

Group members said it's unclear why Yahoo terminated the discussion group in February. But they said Foreskin Restoration, which included pictures of flaccid and erect penises, might have been deemed pornographic.

"There's really no way to tell because they just shut it off," said group member Tom Major, 63. "I think if anyone causes any waves, they just get rid of it and don't think about it any more."

Meagan Busath, a Yahoo! spokesperson, declined to comment on the group's closure. She said all users must abide by a "Terms of Service" agreement that, in part, precludes vulgar, obscene or "otherwise objectionable" content..

But users said moderators were careful to maintain a clinical tone, partly because the Foreskin Restoration board was located within Yahoo Health Groups and thus accessible by minors.

"To be dumped for being a medical group for discussing medical issues, it's pretty horrible," said group member John-Paul Morrison, 42. "They wouldn't do that to women who've had mastectomies."

ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN Academy of Pediatrics, an estimated 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually.

The practice, which entails removing all or part of the foreskin, has been advocated as preventive medicine. The AAP says evidence shows there are potential benefits to newborn male circumcision.

But an AAP statement issued in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2005 stops short of recommending routine circumcision.

"In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child," the policy says.

Dr. Philippe Chiliade, medical director at the Whitman-Walker Clinic in Washington, D.C., said there is some evidence that circumcision might help prevent HIV transmission.

However, he said that evidence comes from studies performed in developing countries, and the benefit could be less pronounced in industrialized nations.

FORESKIN RESTORATION ATTEMPTS to recreate the lost skin. The practice sometimes involves surgery, but is commonly performed through various home techniques.

Morrison, who lives in Costa Rica, said he became interested in foreskin restoration after watching a television program that debunked myths surrounding circumcision. He discovered the Foreskin Restoration discussion group, learned more, and soon embraced the practice.

"I thought there was nothing wrong with me for 41 years, and now I discover, wow, I was screwed up bad," Morrison said. "It's like being color blind. If you never see the color, you don't know what you're missing."

Morrison, who is gay, said restoring his foreskin substantially enhanced his sexual pleasure.

"I'm such a better lover for it because I can feel what I'm doing," he said. "It has turned me from a bottom to a top. It's an incredible difference.."

"Restoration has been a godsend," he said. "And then Yahoo! discovers us, thinks we're pornography, and gets rid of us."

Major, who lives near Wilkes-Barre, Pa and sells foreskin-restoration devices, said the Foreskin Restoration group's former members are trying to continue their discussion.

But he said the Yahoo! group's closure scattered members. Some have joined other online discussion groups, while others participate in listserves or chat rooms that address the topic.

Yahoo! maintains about 10 other groups that discuss foreskin restoration, including one dedicated to wives of men who are attempting the restoration process.
See less See more
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
That's b.s. (removing that group) since there's tons and tons... literally THOUSANDS of porn groups that actually ARE fetishes (like "bears" or "jocks" or "heavy women"). Meanwhile that circumfetish group masquerading as a "health" group, Nurses4Circ, continues to go on. The moderator once known as "Betty" a "Nurse" w/ "3 circumcised sons" has switched to his true male identity and now goes by "Ben". I joined this group to gain access to their message archives and got a private e-mail from "Betty" w/ a bunch of URLs to online photo albums (Webshots, SmugMug, etc.) displaying the misery of circumcised baby boys and toddlers.
Ah, yes, I was a member of that group. It was the largest restoration site on the internet and had over 2,000 members. The information and photos posted there were of an informational nature and were the same as you would find on a medical website. It was certainly no more pornographic that what can be found on the Yahoo! site for hypospadias/epispadias.

This just illustrates the lenghts our opponents will go to to squelch our message. I can imagine that some young circumcised man discovered the issue of circumcision and restoration and his parents discovered that he had been visiting sites such as MDC and Yahoo! Foreskin Restoration and tried to get them shut down. Of course, sites like MDC refused but Yahoo didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and crumbled and some stupid parent thinks he/she is safe from having to answer the really hard questions that will be presented to them. Well, surprise! The issue can no longer be hidden and the men who were victimized will find hundreds of other sites and the questions will still pop up. Those who want the issue to go away can't hide any more. The issue can't be hidden any more.

We will have to contend with feeble attempts like this for a long time. There are organized groups out there who are trying to get the message censored. They have had limited success in their endeavors and last year got 3 forums shut down but for every success they have, several more sites pop up that are spreading truthful information. The thinking on male circumcision is rapidly changing. Almost any where a discussion on circumcision pops up, the intactivists hold sway and the pro-circumcisionists are quickly debated and defeated. It just surprises me that they are so persistent against such overwhelming odds.

The group that consistently shows up at parenting sites like this is very small, no more than a dozen members. They are well known and their tactics are well known. Sure, they have a few successes. They get a few sites like Yahoo! Foreskin Restoration shut down but those sites and their members simply move to a safe place. They recruit a few of the naive and stupid but the vast majority see right through their misinformation and promotion of the myths. The vast majority see that the information they present is just too extreme and false. They see that with their extremism, they have something more in mind than the best interests of parents and their sons and their messages are discounted quickly. That fact is evidenced by the rapidly falling circumcision rate in North America.

We will have to contend with this but it is not an insurmountable obstacle. We know that Yahoo can't be trusted now. We know that we can't trust Yahoo to remain neutral. We know that they can be swayed into an unfair decision and we know that we must avoid doing business with Yahoo. There are other sites that will step up to the plate where Yahoo crumbled and that's where we will go. Mostly, we are sending a message to those shrill few who endeavor to deceive us that we can not be defeated.

See less See more
Can you imagine all the men in America who got to read about restoring the foreskin who never imagined it was possible? The news publicity on this is free advertising for the nocirc cause. That's the great thing about being on the right road, even the detours are helpful in the end.
The article sounds biased towards the "benefits" fo circ to me.

The first half of the article appears to be dedicated to making circ sound as beneficial as possible [grasping at straws in mentioning the extremely flawed and biased HIV study which was only published online, never in a peer-reviewed medical journal because of its flaws].

And why mention someone's sexual orientation (hetero or gay). It's not relevant to the topic, imo.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.