[the reply to continue the barney between me and Dave Trouser]
because it's fucking simple. Genetics, i.e. your DNA, is what decides what your cellular structure will be. Simple as fucking that. Your Genetics decide what sex you'll be, what colour hair you'll have, what colour eyes you'll have, the number of limbs you'll have, your height, your skin tone, etc.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:29, archived)

I know what genetics do, dear.
But since attractiveness is decided by the observer - how can you say that genetics decide that?
Also, porn lovers, such as yourself, are only after tits and fucking. Now, genetics can give a girl large breasts, but since MOST PORNSTARS HAVE FAKE TITS, genetics aren't relevant in terms of the apparent "attractivness" of a pornstar, and so genetics cannot, and do not, decide the success of a pornstar.

You know what does - you see enough of it - large tits (regardless of being natural), willingness to do anal sex and take a load in the face.

That's nurture, not nature. The personality traits also come from abuse from parents most of the time too.

Your argument has nothing to support it!
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:38, archived)

Apart from
No, tits and fucking are not the only things I look at when watching porn, I've already mentioned the natural tits market. I'm sure you've also heard of the market for big tit magazines - both natural and unatural. And fucking christ this was just a simple fucking passing comment when I saw a pic of a girl with gigantic breasts on another forum, now dragged into a fucking argument, online, between two people who don't fucking know each other - with one so sure the other is a "sexist pig" and "a sorry excuse for a human being"

Fuck me, you criticise for judgemental behaviour, then go right ahead and do exactly the fucking same.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:43, archived)

err what?
No, tits and fucking are not the only things I look at when watching porn

There's also legs, eyes, hair, bootie, beaver, shoulders, hands, those little dimples at the base of the spine...
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:46, archived)

He brought up "successful pornstars".
None of those things affect success. Willingness to do certain things does. That, and big fake tits.
It's nothing to do with what he or you like.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:50, archived)

but has a lot to do with what the majority like.
Ergo, if it sells, they are successful. The more it sells, the more successful they are. Pretty, in the eyes of the majority, doing porn, will sell.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:54, archived)

"Pretty, in the eyes of the majority, doing porn, will sell."
Once again, nothing to do with genetics. Or are you now saying they all look the same?
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:58, archived)

DUM DUM DUM we're back here again.
It's her genetics that have given her the look, before any surgery or anything, that will make her appealing to the majority of porn fans. She has the porn look. Her genetics gave her the base look of massive tits, blue eyes, a reasonably pretty face - which will appeal to the porn fan majority.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:04, archived)

It's the makeup, silly.
You'll find that this majority you speak of will find the pornstars decidely unattractive without the makeup on.

Saying someone "has the genetics for porn" is basically saying you think everyone can be a pornstar - which completely rules out genetics, given that you've also gone on about the different niche markets too.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:10, archived)

But the only actresses to be truely successful
in porn are those who are in the mainstream, which is only a small percentage of the entire porn market. And no, it's not the makeup. She has good symmetry of her facial features, something that is proven to boost attractiveness. Her nose isn't fucked up, and her ears aren't perpendicular to the side of her head, for two examples. Genetics decided these things for her.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:15, archived)

She's not a pornstar though, and doesn't look like a mainstram pornstar either.
Mainstream stars don't have symmetry either - in a moving video, you won't notice, and in stills, they're photoshopped for symmetry.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:25, archived)

So if she has symmetry, they won't need to photoshop.
All the more reason she could be more successful.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:28, archived)

Do you really think there is ANY professional porn that is not retouched for skin-tone and "corrections" of skin folds?
You're kidding yourself.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:00, archived)

You're kidding yourself. Only magazines and stills for covers etc
are 'shopped.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:03, archived)

Pfft, that's hilarious.
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. That is so untrue it makes me wonder if you believe in the tooth fairy.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:07, archived)

You seriously think all videos are modified?
hahahahaha. And this comes from you, who "doesn't analyse porn" correcting me, who apparently does analyse porn..

Contradictions ahoy!

Well, it's silly o'clock, I've got stuff to do, and we're getting back to one word per line replies. Round of applause for Dave Trouser everybody, he has successfully won this arguement, and successfully trolled me into it to begin with. Wasn't difficult, I'm sure he'll agree.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:13, archived)

I already said that videos weren't - proof you can't read.
There was no argument to win - you had nothing but noncesense to type at us.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:15, archived)

or big natural tits, I understand that not all port stars are 90% silicone
Have you overlooked that the intial comment was possibly nothing more than a mildly humourous reference to her massive hooters?
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:54, archived)

Your original comment stated that big tits made her a potential porn candidate. You can't deny that.
You saw a 15 year old girl's tits, and thought of porn.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:48, archived)

Actually I was implying the whole package, not just the tits.
The barbie doll face and body, and to boot the gigantic tits. So yes, I can deny it.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:49, archived)

No you weren't you liar.
You picked her becasue of the tits, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it at all.

What you're now saying, is that any girl you find pretty, could make a success in porn, based just on that observation.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:55, archived)

"The whole package, not just the tits"
The tits are included in that, you know? Yes, they were the primary reason, but the rest of it went swimmingly in with them. If it were a very ugly girl, say morbidly obese, with gigantic tits, I would not have posted it. So fuck off, I am denying it.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:57, archived)

,,,,
Rule 34 dear boy!

ANY girl, no matter how talented, untalented, gifted or deformed, can be successful in porn. Only the degree of success varies.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:57, archived)

I don't think this retard and his "rules" is going to kelp Jenk's argument.
You just ruled out genetics in one line. Well done.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:01, archived)

Selective reading again, Dave?
"the degree of success varies"
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:06, archived)

If it sells it's successful.
You said that one. Since there are hundreds of types of porn, genetics has fuck all to do with anything.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:12, archived)

Making a profit means it is successful.
But to make a fortune is a different story.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:17, archived)

Making a fortune had fuck all to do with looks though!
Top pay is decided by actions not appearance. Your "majority" never see the stars before surgery or makeup. They see the makeup, silicone and photoshopped results. You are completely deluded on this.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:21, archived)

Actually they do.
Tera Patrick, as an example, was making a fucking mint out of porn before she had any surgery. She was even drafted by Wrestling companies and TV shows. She's plastic as fuck now, but she was already one of the top stars long before she seemingly took a dive into the BDD pool.

There are still other stars at the top of the game who have not had any surgery at all.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:27, archived)

Did she not use makeup either?
I bet none of her photos wre photoshopped either!

You're even more deluded than it first seemed!
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:31, archived)

Now you are implying I've said she's not needing makeup?
You really are clutching at straws now, and claim I'm the deluded one. No, not much of her material was photoshopped, actually. Photoshop work is expensive, so most porn producers don't bother with it to save money - even the biggest. However, even if it were needed, because she already has natural beauty, very little would have been needed. You pay designers/artists by time, not per picture, so it would still save money to have an already attractive girl, who'd only need a bit of airbrushing, compared to someone that would need virtual facial reconstruction.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:38, archived)

No, you moron, I'm saying people like her in her made-up state.
Without all that makeup, she'd be a massive fail, like you.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:41, archived)

and yet it's clear to see she has a pretty face even under the makeup.
Are you incapable of seeing what a girl is like without make up on, Dave, is that it?
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:46, archived)

To you she might be.
You and your friend here might like to analyse porn, but your beloved majority won't be the slightest bit interested in what's under the makeup. Makeup done by a pro can make even a sinfully ugly girl look great.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:49, archived)

Which costs money, so a naturally better looking girl, to the majority (before you pull that old hat on again)
won't need as much, so it won't cost as much, so there is less expense, so there is more money, so the actress can demand more money, so she gets paid more.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:52, archived)

But people like Tera DO need a lot of photoshop and makeup.
The better looking girls aren't as successful. You seem to believe that porn success is primarily down to appearance. That just isn't true - it's a certain personality, ability and actions that count. Makeup and photoshop are NOT expensive anymore, and certainly don't decide level of success.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:56, archived)

Photoshop and makeup are hella fucking expensive.
Porn is primarily appearance. I won't deny the others you list are a factor, because they are. However this goes back to, yet again something already discussed, the fact she is willing to take photos of her scantily dressed self and put them on the net can easily be seen as exhibitionism, the main behavioural attribute of all pornstars.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:00, archived)

The appearance is not a natural one, and hence your genetic argument is invalid.
ALL professional pornstars making money are heavily caked in makeup, and 99% of them have implants. Many of them also admit to sexual abuse when they were younger.

Genetics do not decide the success of a porn model.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:04, archived)

But her genetics have given her the base look
of a porn star. She has a head start, if she choses to go that route. You really are a broken record, Dave.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:06, archived)

No they haven't. Are you a teenager?
I ask because only a child would think that any girl with large breasts has the "base look" of a porn star.
Either that, or you're mentally retarded and 40, living in a hick town.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:10, archived)

Retard?
I hardly think that insults are a valid part of a rational argument.

My comment does not rule out genetics. Please see the part of my comment that says "the level of success will vary".

A genetic predisposition for fair skin, fine bones and large breasts makes you more beautiful than average. Attractiveness is measure of success for porn stars. Indeed it is a contributing factor to the distinction between 'star' and 'actress'. You are correct that attitude plays a part. Neither one however is the sole gauge.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:08, archived)

Now read Jenk's original post and see how irrelevant what you said is.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:15, archived)

...
He saw an attractive young woman with large hooters and observed that she was fair of skin, fair of hair, in possession of large breasts and flirting with the camera. Indeed all these things indicate talents and gifts that would, if properly applied, lead to success as a porn star. I fail to see your objection to the initial observation.

Is it that number 15 that freaks you out? Would you have had such a reaction if the post had been titled "19yo annie"?
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:19, archived)

What talent? Photos do not show talent.
Are you another idiot american?
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:23, archived)

Again with the personal insults...
Do you not have any valid challenges to the argument?
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:24, archived)

Plenty, but you and Jenk seem incapable of comprehending even basic concepts.
www.b3ta.com/talk/5483894

I'm not the one losing my temper. Jenk was apparently upset by something you later used to try and support his argument. You're both completely retarded.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:28, archived)

an insult for an insult.
You implied I was/am a paedo by the very same comment you've linked, so I called you a cunt.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:32, archived)

You are a bit of a creepy nonce, to be fair.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:35, archived)

OK, well if you'd like to continue the chat without throwing around insult, I'm happy to chat.
But I assure you that I'm not retarded and my nationality is irrelevant to the discussion.

As it happens, yes I do consider it "ok (to appreciate a woman's beauty) if they have pubes". To repeat however, this does not mean that I would ever touch a girl under the age of consent, nor would I solicit nor seek pornographic images of girls under the age of consent. Thus I am not a nonce any more than appreciating the Mona Lisa makes me an art thief because I view it without taking it home.

May I assume that you do not consider this OK? That would appear to be the drive behind your comments. You have not made any specific replies to my observations of sexual mores over history nor have you answer my question regarding the title of the OP.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:37, archived)

www.b3ta.com/talk/5484001
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:39, archived)

Your facility with argument is eclipsed only by the creativity of your insults.
Good day, Sir.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:46, archived)

And you butt in halfway with irrelevant nonsense about how you wish
you could share the love with younger girls. Best if you fuck off to /board where you belong.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:58, archived)

Why is that a bad thing?
I started having sexual thoughts about women long before they or I reached the age of concent for my corner of the sphere.

And it's worth noting that the age of concent varies from state to state and age to age.

So why is it a bad thing to look at a chick of any age that has massive norks and thing sexual thoughts? Nature says she's ready; everything else is a temporal, social construct.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:50, archived)

That last line of yours there is incredibly creepy.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:56, archived)

As the saying goes, "If there's grass on the pitch..."
For countless millenia the gauge of whether a female is 'ready' for sexual relations is whether she is menstruating. The age of consent is a relatively modern concept. That's what I'm getting at. I'm a perfectly normal member of society. There's no way I'll touch a girl under the age of consent in an improper manner. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate their beauty and appeal. No way I'll date a teenager either; great bodies but their brains aren't developed.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:03, archived)

You're not making it better here.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:04, archived)

That's because you're shaped by the contemporary social construct and closed-minded.
The facts of my argument are irrefutable.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:10, archived)

Yes, I am such a sheep for not having sexual thoughts if I see
an over-developed 13 year old. How silly of me!
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:11, archived)

haha, also, your post sounds like the defense that Gary Glitter's lawyer might use.
Fucking hell.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:37, archived)

err what?
You leaps of logic are unfathomable.

I believe that Gary Glitter's lawyer argued that he didn't have sex with underage girls.
That's different from saying "I done it but it's OK because mother nature says it's OK even though your laws don't."
You seem to have overlooked that even though I can appreciate beauty, I wouldn't cross the line of what is legal and socially acceptable. It's a shame that things that don't fit within the narrow views of social norms can not be discussed without slanderous intimation.
( Ratsta, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:41, archived)

MIGHT use, you cretin.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:43, archived)