Texture highlights are fake highlights and only in few cases they look good.

Quote - what about the photo textures. The higlights from the photo is on the texture. Do you want them or "us" to find a way to make it more "matte" looking.

Human skin has very few highlights and the few existent highlights depend on the illumination and camera angle. If the texture itself has highlights, the highlights are always in the same position not depending on the illumination and camera. The result can look good  and can look very bad and unreal depending on the scene.
On the other side if the texture has no highlights at all it becomes dull, boring and with unreal look unless your geometry and rendering algorithm is able to create real highlights that are not really highlights.
Skin has no lighlights, if it has is a plastic skin. What skin has is diffuse areas that can be more illuminated than other areas, it's more working in the diffuse color and not in the specular color, as Poser is unable to do much with diffuse color, you can play a little with the specular color for improving realism.
The only case when skin has specular color is with parts that has water, sweat or oil on the skin, but this follows the gravity law and are variable by the pose and never fixed as using in a texture mapping..

A good skin texture is not a texture that looks very good in the texture map, a good skin texture is one that looks good in average under different illumination conditions, pose and camera angles.
In some cases you can have a texture that makes excellent renders, but if you look at the texture itself, you find that is a bad texture and with low resolution, but it render fabulous!!!.....
Well..., in other cases a bad texture once rendered the result continue to be bad and worst.......

Stupidity also evolves!