Re: Girls who are "too beautiful for porn"
My feeling is that the OP has it backwards. It's not, "Too Beautiful for Porn," it's ...
"TOO HOT TO JUST BE A SUPERMODEL"
Take your top 20 "adult performers" whoever/whatever your preferences are, and then figure out where the "supermodels" of the world would fit in that list. They would barely break the top 20 for me.
And WTF is a supermodel now-a-days? Back in the day (80s-90s) there was Cindy Crawford, Linda Evangelista, Naomi Campbell, Claudia Schiffer, Christy Turlington, Stephanie Seymour and Helena Christensen. Maybe missing a few but the point was they were the elite. Million dollar contracts while everybody else was making $100/week. Now a days, any model you've ever heard of is a "supermodel" or on some bullshit reality show.
"Supermodel" as the term was first coined no longer exists.
The point of this thread is to list other girls who you think are too hot for porn.
Should be: Girls that are too hot to just be supermodels.
there is never too beautiful for porn
+1
To beautiful for porn, WTF ?!!!
Exactly.
In responding the the OP's point, if a girl is not 5'10" or taller she will not have a modeling career. Period. Over 105 lbs (or whatever) No career. Real curves, no career. Runway models or models that are in magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, etc are not normal girls that we all love and jerk to. They are freakishly tall*. Way to thin. No curves (nice round hips, ass, breasts, etc). No personality. Etc, etc, etc...
I for one am very glad they did NOT go into that meat grinder of "becoming a supermodel" and instead went into the adult world where they have more control, please more people and make more money.
*Note: Don't get me wrong I love tall girls, but not girls 5'10", no curves, and weighing 95 lbs.