LoveFactor 麻美优子EX review

Images were selected by position and quality; individual human review is pending.

This text passed automated basic checks only; it has not undergone model or human review.

The source recommends 4 stars. EX retains the first generation's outer mold while revising both channels and adding upper soft filling. The sample does not fully preserve the earlier exterior shape.

Weight is 7.3 kg, overall length 16 cm and internal length 14 cm, in a seated closed-leg contour. The body is 0 on the reviewer's personal scale, similar to 麻美1 and 麻美2, with elasticity and low oil and odor. Composition is not independently verified. Upper rear filling is about -3; through the 0 outer skin the combined feel is around -2, not standardized hardness. Filling covers roughly the area above the rear entrance, not the whole rear, compared with GXP 魔方姬 construction.

The front replaces small balls with wave-like ridges. Features are small and mild, with a barely identifiable end cavity. Larger longitudinal rear waves lie near soft filling, giving gentle rhythmic friction and enclosure. The section shows larger channel proportions and greater complexity than the predecessor, with only localized filling.

The reviewer finds the filling transition less natural than GOSE 乙女银星 and LF 甜心特工 samples. EX textures are more novel, but the predecessor's tight small-ball design was functional; complexity need not help newcomers.

Compared with first-generation photographs from four years earlier, entrance surroundings are recessed, the front entrance lowered and an unusual projection lies between openings. Leg-waist junctions and the deep rear groove show deformation and crack-like marks, not all confirmed tears. Mold aging is suspected through comparison and an industry contact's comments, without inspection of this mold or proof of heat or demolding causes.

Recessing makes parallel alignment harder, leaves part of the contact range outside and encourages slipping. 麻美2's revised angle seems more practical to the reviewer. Lower weight than the old version cannot be explained confidently through unverified oil/TPE density assumptions.

New construction offers changes but shape and alignment issues offset benefits. Final recommendation: 4 stars, without numerical subscores or reliable lifespan.