Silverhippy - If you have some loose skin sitting behind the glans when soft, it is either a regular or a loose cut, depending on how much skin is there.
So why are you posting in this forum? It is not for you. Is it, nah, nah, nah, I've still got mine and you don't...
I am circumcised, and with a "loose cut" I still have almost all of my skin to play with, but I don't have to pull it back every day to clean off the smegma. Where I grew up (New England), almost every boy was circumcised, and the ones who were not wished they were (and one friend I grew up with had it done and proudly showed me the result).
Like sliding your skin back in the shower is such a chore. Besides I kinda like the smell of smegma - but hey, that's just me, Mr. Natural.
Many people mistakenly believe smegma to be remnants of semen caught behind the foreskin. In actual fact the part of the foreskin that is removed during circumcision contains a sub-dermal gland that exudes a waxy substance which acts as a lubricant & keeps the glans moist, the remnants of which take on the appearance of small amounts cottage cheese (hence the obviously descriptive term of 'cheese'), and not really that much of a problem at all. Smegma is not unique to the penis as women also produce a similar substance within the vagina.
If you are circumcised, the smegma dries as soon as it is secreted and drops off. You don't even notice it. If you are uncut, and don't skin back the foreskin and clean the smegma off for a week or so it smells gross. At least that is what women I have been with who have also been with uncut men say.
oh yes, an occasional cleaning is so much work that would should lose significant sensation as well as have scars from a procedure that is unnecessary there are always reports of how bad it is that don't get covered by American media becuase it's not popular, such as the sorrells fine touch study which found the parts removed were 4 times more sensitive then whats left the cancer argument has been proven bullshit, even the american cancer society recommends against circumcision and says there is no reliable medical evidence to prove it prevents cancer, same for the std argument, one study will say it has a benefit and multitudes of studies will show that there is no benefit, but guess what gets published in america, the dozen studies that showed no difference or the one that did? it's a cure that has been forever in search of a problem and for smegma, I got that before restoring, and it is fairly common for cut guys to get it in the folds of the skin behind the glans, the statistics I saw were 2/7 cut got it and 4/7 intact got it, besides even an unclean penis is much cleaner then a vagina (sorry girls) there is NO reason to put an infant or child through that kind of physical and emotional pain, during infant circumcision often NOTHING is given for pain, they just start cutting
For all you who think that circumcision helps keep down STD and AIDS rates think about this. For years the USA has had among world's highest circ rates, yet also enjoys among highest STD and AIDS rates. Yet for example, Finland, where circ is very rare and intact men are the norm STD and AIDS rates are very low. Ditto for Japan and others. Clearly circumcision has little do do with the results. As to sensitivity I have lived for most of my life as an intact man and was circed four years ago. The difference is simply unbelievable and the loss sickening. If all of you circed guys knew what you are missing you would be violently angry and likely cry yourselves to sleep every night. BUT, it is very important to be non-violent and non-argumentive with others about circumcision. Respect each other. Just give innocent young children the right to choose for themselves when they are old enough to understand. Circumcision is torture. Do not maim young kids, male or female.