cut vs uncut

Humm Thats a tough one especially on this site, Im uncut and have a girth of 6'' the head isint much smaller mabie 5 3/4''. I wonder if there have been any penis size surveys where foreskin status was noted. that would be hard to do here in the states because a verry verry small portion of men arent cut. thats a verry intresting question.

with the skin back behind the head, it may cause it to look thicker... but that woul just be added by the skin so it's not legitimate thickness

i thought i replied to this. . . guess not. i like being cut, and i think even if i was uncut, that i would consider the procedure, for me its an asthetic thing

I'm cut (I got circumcised when I was 25), and believe me, I have no regrets! I'm not saying every guy should run out and get circumcised, but for me, it works.

As for my head, I've heard guys say (back in high school) that being circumcised usually means the head grows wider/thicker because it isn't constrained by the foreskin. I kind of agree with that, although I have no scientific proof, just always seemed cut guys had larger, flaring heads.

Having foreskin chopped of or not makes no difference in the thickness of the cock.

I can't see that myself. Whilst some people grow into (most of) their adult pensis size in a couple of months during puberty, it still wouldn't be so fast that the associated skin cells couldn't multiply and keep up with the speed of the internal growth (not talking about flacid v erect, I'm talking about pre v post puberty penis size). After all, no other bit of your anatomy is squashed during growth because the skin is too tight, is it ?

What other parts of your body have erect and non-erect states? Don't know about what you've "seen" but I find that those two states tend to differ in size.

Gee, I guess I've been researching this notion for years without realizing it. Cut or uncut penis girth varies from guy to guy, I've been with uncut guys who were on the thin side and cut guys whose penis has been on the thicker side. I suppose I'll just have to keep on with my research.

Make sure you check in from time to time with updates, Agent Fratpack.

Based on your theory, I should have painful erections and should be pulling pubic hair up my shaft. Guess what?? It ain't happening!!
I was cut at birth and the skin on my penis is just as snug flaccid as it is when erect, guess it's that property we all know as elasticity. Skin stretches and then returns to it's original shape. So your penis gets big when erect and the skin stretches to compensate, then you lose your erection and the skin returns to it's original shape. As for girth, I think that's all genetics. I have seen cut and uncut that were nice and thick as well as pencil thin.

With respect Roberto, I think you miss my point. Cut or uncut, the change in size from tidily little pre-pubescent erection, to full blown, fully mature adult erection doesn't happen over night. The body has months (or in some case years) to add enough cells during this period to ensure there is sufficient skin to fit. I would contend that if the skin is tight on the cock that’s the way nature (or if you like, genetics) intended: cut or uncut. Yeah, cutting the foreskin takes up the slack, no doubt about it, but I would contend it doesn’t impede the growth of the corpus cavernosum/corpus spongiosum (the 3 tubes of tissue which make up the body and base of the shaft, trapping blood and causing the erection) one bit. I would ask you to compare the skin of any one of us who has naturally put on weight slowly (not the clinically obese, but folks like me carrying the odd dozen pounds more than we did in our teens), with those unfortunate souls who have piled on the pounds very quickly: usually as a side effect of medication. For the former group the skin is pliant, elastic and matt, because its growth has kept pace with the enlargement of the underlying tissue and for the latter group the skin is tight and shiny because it’s stretched taut over recently swollen tissue, and hasn't has the time to compensate.

it's worth bearing in mind that things like skin bridges and scar tissue - frequent side-effects of inept neonatal circumcisions - can complicate the issue, however.

Oh yes, without question. But mangled members aside....

Guys, It is not a normal thing I am talking about but it does happen that excessive skin is removed amongst other things, want to see what it looks like? Here:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched7ex.html

Damn my sense of morbid curiosity!