Styles? Never heard it stated that way.
I am American & uncut.
The variation of the cut has changed through history as a result of ignorance, religious practices, some (in)correct medical studies, and social stupidity.
Most people think that the circumcision typically seen on American men is the norm since & from biblical times.
It is NOT based on what my very Jewish doctors taught my parents and I.
Many people believe Abraham had not fathered a child because the ejaculates travel was hindered by his own skin. Then came "thus saith the Lord" with a practical remedy. Circumcision.
The original cuts then left most of the skin intact that covered the head (glans) only removing enough skin to leave the urethral orifice exposed as the skin still had it's purpose. That has changed through time to total removal of the foreskin that we see as the "normal" & accepted form of circumcision that we see today.
My parents decided to leave me intact as that is the way I was born & they are very much Christian. They believed then that being uncircumcised did not harm man. With proper care and cleanliness they felt I would never have a problem.
When doctors went to cut me at birth (without their permission) they put a stop to it. When I was 5 a new to us doctor decided I needed to be cut and told them he was going to do it. Again.... this was his decision without their consent. They put a stop to it and he told them them he would not care for an uncut child as it was a death sentence.
They always had a time finding a doctor who knew how to care for a child with foreskin. I always ended up with a Jewish doctor until leaving for college.
Their religious practices especially equipped them for my care. Most doctors will rip the foreskin during examinations as they are not accustomed to having patients with fully intact skin &/or typically subscribe to the "foreskin is bad" way of thought.
My family GP (Jewish Christian man) "Circumcision is a rite... NOT a requirement religiously if you're any form of Christian or even needed physically UNLESS there is an acute medical need" when I asked about why he never encouraged my parents or me to get the cut. He was actually put off by people's refusal to accept that it isn't a requirement outside specific medical need. He would also add, "You don't see Jewish boys dropping dead before the age of brit (13) for simply being uncut."
I will be likened to the original application where ONLY enough of my hood is removed to ensure the urethral opening is exposed when erect if I ever choose to get cut. I doubt I ever will though.
Not sure if that's what you mean, but it is my experience.
And flozen is right. It is a LOT of wanting what you don't have. Cut guys I've been with often have a known or newly discovered skin appreciation or outright fetish... especially when it's the first uncut one they've had. More meaningful conversations with some guys often include them telling me what they heard about how it feels, the fact that they want to experience it first hand, that they wish they could have chosen for themselves, and all the positives & negatives usually thrown about.
Even had one guy who refused me cause he just knew uncut dicks were "dirty". The bet was... if his was cleaner than mine then he would be the 1st guy to ever top me. Needless to say he enjoyed the skin.