168cm fitness vs 168cm regular

[NDjdjjjjdj]

I prefer the AS dolls where you can see the “fitness” version - ie the “muscle” variant - from a distance.

[Roynotboy]

I prefer the AS dolls where you can see the “fitness” version - ie the “muscle” variant - from a distance.

Everyone has their preference. I prefer not to see see a totally ripped body but others may like that look. Cheers

[DoctorDuke]

Helpful to see the comparison photo set. Thank you. Of course I would "do" either one of these cuties. But I like the fuller thighs and bigger bust and ass cheeks of the fitness version 168cm. Is that the Alice face? Euro western look and very feminine.

Only concern I may have is that to me, the placement of the asshole and pussy are a bit too far up the pelvis toward the belly. In these revealing photos when both are lying back on the bed (which look really sexy!), seems like more correct design would be for the pussy to be where the anus hole is at on the center of the crotch and the anus moved back more up into the but crack area. Like the new 6&E AMOR dolls have this better hole placement. Maybe it doesn't matter for sex play access... I know the QITA 170cm model - while really beautiful and shapely body - has even worse hole placement (as seen in other posts).

[trs80]

Body types for 170/168 Qita.

This makes it look much more pronounced than the actual pics.

2650d0796274e1a237df5d4025d75f61_1569570046_1953.jpg (238.79 KiB) Viewed 1355 times

[jazzman]

Nice to see there is a 168 SB. I wonder if QiTA will post factory photos of the 168Small breast showing front side and rear standing views and actual weight