EXE 叉形间隙: a soft front, firmer rear and suction after expelling air

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

Codex checked this text against the source; independent human review is still pending.

The original headline recommended 4 stars. In the body, the experience graphic showed 3 stars, while the accompanying text stated 3.5. The author preferred stronger stimulation, so their score need not represent someone who favors soft contact. This is a personal account, not standardized material testing.

Accessories and body

The sample included a bottle of lubricant, a bottle of care powder, a small towel and the unit. Accessories may vary by batch, and their inclusion does not establish compatibility with other materials. The body weighed 400 g and resembled R20一代 in shape, but felt considerably softer. A similar exterior does not establish identical materials.

The opening was relatively easy to enter. The author thought it was not particularly prone to splitting, without long-term verification. The straight channel helped with cleaning, but turning it inside out was not recommended. Some oil release occurred. The matte exterior was usually not very tacky; the author used a little care powder without specifying a universal dose or compatibility testing.

Internal design

The channel was 15 cm long, broadly divided into a soft front and a firmer red rear section. Folds in the middle provided the main texture. The end had a constriction and a small cavity. The longer channel may not offer the same contact for every user, but suction became noticeable after air was expelled.

The front gave soft, substantial enclosure, although the entrance was relatively loose. The firmer rear produced clearer texture feedback. Because the overall material was very soft, stimulation was less forceful than the design might suggest. The author compared the experience with R20一代 but found it substantially less intense than both R20一代 and 工口姐姐2代. They also referred to the firm inner and outer feel and strong intensity of 布袋研究所2代 in its hardened edition.

Experience and limitations

The reviewer considered intensity moderate and suction good after expelling air. They attributed this to the straight channel and cavity, but did not measure suction force. The soft, relatively loose front could allow lubricant to be thrown out during seated use.

The source thought the thick channel reduced the risk of puncturing the base, but it does not guarantee immunity to damage. Strengths were soft enclosure, the front-to-rear firmness difference and noticeable suction after air removal. Drawbacks were the loose entrance, lubricant loss in seated use and limited intensity for those wanting stronger stimulation.

Ratings

Experience: 3 stars in the graphic, 3.5 in the text; durability: 4; cleaning: 4; intensity: 3; tightness: 3. The softness graphic showed 2 stars, although the prose clearly described a very soft body. This inconsistency is retained rather than replaced with a new, unsupported score.