This letter is being sent to Chris Pegula of Los Angeles, father of  three and originator of Diaper Dude America. He failed miserably to accurately address circumcision in his newly published book, “From Dude to Dad.”:

Dear Mr. Pegula,

I recently picked up your book “From Dude to Dad: The Diaper Dude Guide to Pregnancy.”   It is a readable and well-thought-out book.

Alas, you are completely ill-informed on circumcision. I was embarrassed to read the woefully constructed three pages dealing with the topic because you put forward the typical tripe that trivializes the role of the foreskin, a valuable structure of male adult sexuality with 16 primary functions and more.

The foreskin is nothing to joke about or to dismiss as some sort of residual skin. It is rich with some 20,000 nerve endings that are taken away in circumcision.   Your urinary tract infection (UTI) pretext for circumcision is a particularly weak one because UTI’s are so rare and can be easily treated.  It is said in 100 boys, there is typically just one who will have a UTI. Why would we subject 100 boys to circumcision to prevent one boy from getting a UTI, that is easily taken care of in treatment? By the same reasoning, we should cut out the breast buds of all girls because invariably some of them will otherwise get breast cancer.

Circumcision is medically unethical because it is done without informed consent of the victim and it violates the pledge medical professionals take, “First Do No Harm.” Circumcision is painful, even with anesthetic , and when pain-killers wear off, that nasty wound is met with the vicious burn of urine and feces. The child winds up with a ring scar that brands him as circumcised for life. Then comes a glans that is hung out to dry for the rest of his life. (The glans is an internal structure that emerges only for cleaning, urination and sex and is otherwise protected from rubbing and injury by the foreskin with its ridged bands, frenulum, Meissner corpuscles, tiny muscles and so much more). Eventually the male’s partner will experience richer coitus from the gliding action of a foreskin that rolls and unfolds in her vulva, preventing chafing and giving great sensation.   Circumcision is penis reduction. Why would any thinking male want that?

You truly exposed yourself with these bizarre statements:

“The question of circumcision is for you and your baby momma to decide and no one else.” Yes, why not let the owner of the penis decide? Why the rush? Maybe it is the impelling pressure of the nurses, doctors and circumcision industry that derive billions of dollars. Did you know hospitals actually sell foreskins to other industries? Did you know Oprah Winfrey promotes a cream that uses the foreskins of newborns to protect women of wrinkles? Doesn’t that sound like peddling in purloined body parts? What boy would grow up to appreciate he lost his foreskin, with all its value, so some dame could apply an expensive cream to her countenance? How perverse that you might be talking to a woman whose face is smeared with the makings of a helpless baby’s prepuce!

Another of your weird comments:

“I will freely admit that seeing my boy get circumcised was the single most disturbing event I have ever witnessed.” Okay, and what about your son meeting the first violence of his life — sexual assault. A stranger chopping his most intimate, gender-identifying structure? His body altered forever to comply with some adults’ false presumption that it would be for his own good, but probably guided by peer/family pressure. You should have been disturbed. There is a name of a subculture of people called “Regrets Parents” who seek personal healing from the tremendous pain of realizing too late that they allowed their son(s) to be cut and would never have consented if armed with information that circumcision is harmful and wrong.

As a father of an intact son and grandfather of two intact grandsons, I challenge you, Chris Pegula, that there could be what you call “hygiene risks.” At least you didn’t try to perpetuate the nonsense of “looking like one’s father” or “getting teased in the showers.” Did you know a considerable number of circumcisions require repair surgeries, including fixing botched jobs and dealing with skin bridges? Did you know that conservatively there are 117 deaths of male infants annually, triggered by circumcisions that lead to excessive bleeding or unintended consequences? You failed to mention that circumcision was really introduced in this country in the 19th century to curb masturbation?   You write that, “It wasn’t until 1870 that the medical community could wrap its collective heads around circumcision and cut away the nonsense.” However, you don’t explain. The nonsense was circumcision itself. And it certainly did not become popular that early.   The true medicalization of circumcision was more a 20th century abomination, especially with hospital births where doctors could impose their marketing pressures on captive, uninformed parents and contrive such compelling reasons as better hygiene. (My foreskin can be thoroughly washed with my daily shower’s water in 10 seconds. What’s the issue?)

Perhaps your most absurd comment was this: “The last thing you want to do it (sic) is leave it up to your kid to decide when he is an adult. Oooh, I just got a horrible pain between my legs when I wrote that…” This is precisely the tyranny of ignorance that keeps the unethical practice continuing today.

Your statements only serve to sentence yet more young males to circumcised status. They may only grow up and live in the same oblivion that you live in and think they’re OK without 15 square inches of penile skin with what it can do and what it can feel like. But some of these males will be alert to the violations and compare it to the rape of their bodies by a stranger with the support of clueless, uninformed, misinformed parents who did not protect them. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. Who would want that?

I invite you to joined tens of thousands of men who have used some of many techniques to grow new penile skin and get back lots of skin (even full coverage) albeit it lacking the specialized components that only the original foreskin had. It is truly an exercise toward wholeness that is worth it.  I suggest you check out, “Unspeakable Mutilations,” also a new book, written by Lindsay Watson and documenting the pain and resentment of many men who felt betrayed by parents, harmed by the medical community and marginalized when they speak out against the medical indignity.

Dr. George Denniston with Doctors Opposing Circumcision concludes:

The solution to this ethical and human rights dilemma is simple: Do not perform circumcision on infants. By ceasing to perform infant circumcision, nothing is lost. Any adult male may, with fully informed consent, have circumcision whenever he wishes.

  As the public becomes aware of the accumulating scientific evidence, circumcision is declining, and with the current attention to unnecessary cost, insurance plans are ceasing to pay for circumcision. Most hopefully of all, caring physicians are reviewing this operation in the light of their own ethical standards and are refusing to perform infant circumcision.

So, Dude, go for more information and get informed. We dads who respected our sons’ rights to wholeness know that many, many have changed their minds and have come to see the tyranny of medical traditions can be rejected. You have made a grave mistake with your words, but you can be redeemed. Even the late famed icon of baby advice, Dr. Benjamin Spock, changed his mind and called for leaving baby boys intact.

For more information, I suggest you go to:


Should you revise your book for second editions, please revise that segment so that young males can be protected from the repulsive, invasive, uninvited act of genital cutting. In the final analysis, circumcision is a cruel rip-off.

Lawn Griffiths