b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 5483975 (Thread)

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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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!
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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?
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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.
(I helped save b3ta! Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:10, archived)