The Philosophy of Jenna Jameson

[akbar234]

Something I found searching on Google. For those intellectual porn-fans out there - you need to have read some postmodern french philosophy to get this, but the paper is quite funny anyway........

"This paper intends to critically examine the existence of Jenna Jameson within the modalities of Jean Baudrillard’s simulacra. While simulacra is typically referred to in the context of the hyperreality of commodification and representation, in conjunction with marketing schemes such as Pokemon or Disney, this paper will to argue that Jenna Jameson has evolved into a simulacrum."

www.inter-disciplinary.net/transform/plazaola paper.pdf

Obviously some academic who wanted an excuse to spend a lot of time on freeones.

 

[akbar234]

"However, Jameson is in control of the simulation, she controls the means of production and controls the rights to her products. She is reportedly worth millions and has admitted that her financial situation would allow her to never to work again."

In other words, the difference with Jenna Jameson is that she's exploiting me. On the other hand...

"Has Jenna Jameson become a perfect worker under the capitalistic regime? Has she become the ultimate worker by Al de Plazaola 11/15 /26/2003
unknowingly exploiting herself for capital to the extent that she believes her exploitation is actually empowerment?"

Dunno about that but Dangerous Tides is a great movie :nanner:

 

[da_Sickness]

link does not work for me

 

[akbar234]

http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/transform/plazaola paper.pdf

 

[bobblez]

Light but interesting paperwork.

It is a pity the paper doesn't develop the part on,

how a simulacra builds itself, by what means, and applied to pornography, what are the factors, the needs, included in such a development.

Becoming an icon in a predetermined field of expertise can be achieved in various sectors, the fact that it is situated in pornography, which is openly outcasted, was a good example.

For control and mass media is due to pass through people's minds, needs, feelings, envies, and that we are still far, from a certain extent, from mass mind manipulation.

Comforting thought if there is one.

 

[Misery]

Someone has way too much time on their hands. JJ may have a lot of money and exposure, but any analysis into it, or the suggestion JJ is some sort of genius entrepreneur is silly. She got lucky, and that is all. It's more than likely Savannah could have achieved the same level of stature had she been more affable and kicked the drug habit early on.

The obvious conclusion from both these women, is that your personality plays no part is how you are viewed in the business. Achieve a high level of popularity and more often than not, you are hated by your peers. Savannah was, and so is JJ and even Tera Patrick.

 

[D-rock]

There are times when I think people try to go to far and psychoanalyze everything. Sometimes things just are the way they are. There doesn’t always have to be a deeper meaning behind everything.

 

[Jizm]

Something tells me you'll find better philosophy reading Plato..... cmon man

 

[jdb67]

Ummm.... I just wanna look at her Boobies!!!

 

[agggelos21]

totaly agree with Jizm & jdb67!!!
whatever "philosophers" say about Jenna, we just wanna see her naked!!!
that s the hole point!

 

[Johan]

I don't give a fuck about her philosophy, all that i want i her ASS :thefinger

 

[McRocket]

Overdone, pretentious, deliberately complicated, over-analytical, semi-nonsense (imo).

Jenna Jameson happened to be the right person at the right time. She comes on the scene 10 years earlier - and she doesn't make half what she has - I bet.
And like all firsts of an entertainment era; if they are smart they can really clean up.
She was and did.

End of story.

 

[bobblez]

Yet the title can be some source of confusion, ie nobody wrote that Jenna Jameson was turning into a new guru, or was doing some philosophy of some sort.

But, being an icon, she ( or more precisely her simulacra ) does attract different sort of persons, for different reasons.

Let pass the "Philosophy of Action", which would dictate not to care some much about words that are not directly holders of active meanings, and therefore, participating in the whole act of being attracted by representations of Jenna Jameson.

And let try to understand, that some people could be attracted by the icon, but still find the need of wondering why they are truely attracted by this sexual icon, and how it works, in a more "reflexive way".

Why, to be honest, Braudillard, even if considered a philosopher, digs in different parts of different social sciences to build his notions up, mainly cognitive sciences as i could recall.

In a world of mass communication and virtual realities, interdisciplinarity becomes a crucial move to make, maybe not to be caught by the bishop ( to the king ).

Well, when opinions are build on sciences, philosophy, social sciences, are they still mere opinions or do they gain, by this mean, some intrinsic truth ?
Maybe words can be used without depth and sense, and yet, and you are right here IMO, we still could communicate to a certain extent.

 

[KO_Computer]

Interesting. I will share all this points of views with Jean the next time we share a coup of coffee.
I hope he won´t turn nihilist on me

KO