Lovefactor 麻美 second generation and 麻美 EX: channel design versus whole-body handling

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.

Packaging, material and stability

The second-generation 麻美 includes the body, 2 lubricant portions, 2 pairs of underwear and foam support. Its sample foam had a small bottom crack but remained supportive. EX had similar contents, but worse box damage and severely broken foam; particles entered through a vent beside the bag. Both had a milky polymer smell and accumulated oil inside the bag, more noticeably in EX. After 8 hours lying flat, both left clear oil traces; EX's soft areas were oilier and stickier. Broken support should not be relied upon for storage, and prolonged uneven loading should be avoided.

The second generation leans forward with its rear raised. A solid rear section shifts the centre of gravity backward, making placement unstable without support. EX retains the first-generation shape and firm material near the upper legs, helping it remain raised. Its half-sided soft filling, however, sags and spreads, with an abrupt feel at the firm/soft boundary and poor grip on the soft area. Minor entrance gate defects were observed; edges and joints require care when stretching.

Air-displacement records

Starting at 30 ml, the test records second-generation front 42−30=12 ml and rear 37−30=7 ml; EX front 40−30=10 ml and rear 50−30=20 ml. EX's larger rear space accommodates long ridges but reduces close surrounding contact. These are volume differences from the test, not pressure measurements.

Second-generation channels

Both are slightly offset toward the same side, relatively short and straight, with thin lining. The front moves from fine rings to 3 pairs of differently sized and shaped spherical bumps. Smaller details are weak, gaps are substantial and contact uneven, sometimes accompanied by obvious air movement noise. A spherical end replaces a separate cavity, making the endpoint distinct but leaving less allowance.

The rear uses continuous rings that progressively narrow, ending with a thicker, tighter ring. Transitions and moulding are relatively consistent. Its orientation is more natural than the front, which tilts toward the lower abdomen. Combined with rearward balance, this complicates positioning.

EX channels

The front is also offset, but the rear is more regular. Both are slightly longer than the second generation while remaining medium-length straight channels. Lining is thicker and more complete, with clearer material contrast. Symmetrical irregular ridges lead to a front end cavity with a narrow connection. The rear's 4 curved spiral ridges run continuously and were praised for moulding and direction, but the interior is roomy rather than closely enveloping.

Soft filling, firm support, grip and channel orientation are not well integrated. Internal design alone does not establish a successful whole-product upgrade.

Cleaning and assessment limits

The second generation's straight channels are relatively manageable, but front bump roots and the small end space need attention. EX's front is simpler to maintain than its rear, where long ridges and gaps retain liquid. Clean each area, dry thoroughly and inspect material joints.

Numerical dimensions, weight, channel length and score tables appear only in source images, with no directly quotable text values; none are guessed here. The written assessment credits the second generation's continuous rear rings and EX's long ridges, while identifying body shape, angle and material integration as constraints on both.