
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.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 4:58, archived)

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?
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:09, archived)

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?
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:10, archived)

Not necessarily me - just to be Captian Obvious again.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:15, archived)

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?
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 5:25, archived)