So even after spelling out what genetics have to do with porn
you ask again, what do genetics have to do with porn?

Righto.

And I'm sure you're just so squeaky fucking clean, having never judged anyone or made a superficial comment.. oh wait, too late for that, isn't it?
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 4:52, archived)

Oh, and as for the faces being ugly thing
I agree they are, but a lot of people still think they are attractive.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 4:53, archived)

So, what has the subjective attractiveness of a woman got to do with genetics?

edit: Come on, answer! You just said it's the opinion of the observer that decides attractiveness! What the fuck have genetics got to do with this? NOTHING. It's opinion, not genetics.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 4:58, archived)

I just did, below.
Have some patience, not all of us are sat here frantically pressing f5.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:10, archived)

You haven't provided an explanation yet.
This is because you are failing to find anything to back up your crazy claims.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:14, archived)

You didn't spell anything out at all.
You've now added faces into the argument, as well as unfortunate breasts.

Like I said, if you could read properly, the majority of pornstars are not pretty in the face, and those that appear to be so have 20 layers of makeup on.

Your genetics argument has no basis at all, and you have consistently failed to provide any reasonable explanation. I suspect you'll fail to explain this again, and accuse me of avoiding some non-point.

I'll say again - you're clearly a sexist pig that likes to consider women as potential pornstars because of the size of their breasts. You don't seem to mind doing this for a 15 year old either.
You are a disgusting excuse for a human being.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 4:58, archived)

The successful pornstars are pretty in the face.
and it's clear as day what genetics have to do with someone being attractive or not. Attractive girls make more money in porn.

Symmetry of the facial features is a big thing in attractiveness, for example. This is down to genetics. Shape of the eyes, nose, mouth, and even head. All down to genetics.

I'm sure you've looked at a woman and said "great tits" or the like, have you?
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:09, archived)

See above - you're contradicting yourself.
You say: I don't think pornstars are that attractive.
You say: The most attractive girls make the most money from porn.

Make your mind up!

You're saying you find the most successful pornstars attractive in the face, and that is what makes them successful, and NOT their massive fake tits.
Are you really that deluded?
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:10, archived)

The ones that appeal to the majority of people who purchase porn.
Not necessarily me - just to be Captian Obvious again.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:15, archived)

Look, dude, you're making yourself look a bit thick here.
You said the girl with the massive tits had the genetics for being a pornstar - nothing about her face!
Most pornstars have FAKE tits. Genetics are not relevant to success in porn. How hard is this to understand?
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:25, archived)

I've answered below because I cba with one word per line posts.

( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:26, archived)

Now you're posting gibberish :-(

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

...
here..
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:31, archived)