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)