"Mick was very conscious of doing whatever it takes to stay hot; David was the hottest thing around at the time."
Also, way in the end of the linked article, there's this statement from a female, about Mick: "I was very, very shocked by his smallness, his fragility... Such tiny little bones. But Mick was not fragile or demure as a lover. Being with him was not like sleeping with a bag of bones. He was very aggressive as a lover, very strong and confident." This female nevertheless refutes the assertion made by Keith Richards that Mick has a "tiny todger."
I know, you probably don't care about Mick Jagger.
If you are interested and want to buy the book, here's "Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger." (And, by the way, thanks to readers who've been using my Amazon portal to buy whatever it is they buy. I notice and I'm always encouraged to see that you've cared enough to do that.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
tiny todger
That's quite funny.
I'm guessing now that Mick is in his 70's, tiny todger is quite appropriate.
looking like the thumb of an old worn-out catchers mitt
I don't know, that third option is so aggressive in its effort to state "I don't care" that it just doesn't represent my apathy appropriately.
"Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger."
The world keeps using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
I always assumed that was Mick on the cover of "Sticky Fingers." Would seem to put to rest any questions about his...unit.
I had all the David Bowie videos and just loved the way he made me want to jump up and dance. Jagger, not so much, he always felt sordid.
I saw the Stones in 1975 at Chicago Stadium. 13th row main floor. Awesome concert. As for the rest, no care.
Musically, or any other way, they might as well have been the Galling Stones.
Which they pretty much are today.
Or David Bowie.
Both are very 1920s Weimar.
Either of them could have been Marlene Dietrich.
He was very aggressive as a lover, very strong and confident.
Well, jeez, he was a rock star, and had an advanced degree in economics, so he wasn't a complete dolt. I would guess that practice makes perfect in this as in every other matter. It's not like in his long career he ever lacked a willing partner to hone his craft with.
Not sure what this says about me, or Mick, or David. But, I am not interested in either (Keef's another story). But, in reading your headline, I knew instantly who/what it was going to be about (no prior knowledge (or interest) in the Mick bio). Amazing what kind of worthless stuff gets filed away in the recesses of your brain, and then retrieved instantaneously with just a little prompting. Pavlovian.
I always assumed that was Mick on the cover of "Sticky Fingers." Would seem to put to rest any questions about his...unit.
It's not Mick Jagger. Andy Warhol photographed a number of men for the cover of "Sticky Fingers" and never told anyone which model's photograph he actually used for the cover, though the assumption is that it's someone named Corey Tippin, a well-hung kid who hung around Warhol's "Factory" studio.
Tiny Todger? I thought they were talking about Elton John.
You really gotta hold Mick closer.
I read the article so I don't think I can strike a pose of lofty disinerest in their shennigans.....From the article, one senses that they were all self consciously decadent. They were sinful in the driven way that Victorian maidens were chaste. Do you really need four back up singers at the orgy?...I suppose they had fun, and there are older seventy year olds than Mich Jaeger and David Bowie so it worked out all right in the end. (As Bowie said to Mick.) As a morality tale, this story lacks punch. Everyone is healthy and rich.
@YoungHegelian--Jagger left LSE after two indifferent undergrad years.
This female nevertheless refutes the assertion made by Keith Richards that Mick has a "tiny todger."
Maybe the todger likes her better than Keith.
@Chip S,
Point taken.
But, my poorly-made larger point (no pun intended) I think is still valid: was that Jagger was no chav-ish lout, and that he probably did have enough intelligence & dash about him to actually be "good" with the ladies, as opposed to being a "well, I've got mine, bitch, so piss off!" lout.
No question on that point.
There's a story that he actually got some funding for the band out of the LSE before leaving.
I'm a "consenting adults" person all the way, but, I'm sorry, those Caligula-like debaucheries are disgusting.
Whatever respect I had for them as artists is swamped by the disrespect I have for them as persons. Blah.
The time of grad-dad Mick Jagger, like sex bomb Zsa-Zsa Gabor....is well in the past except in older people that were contemporaneous with them in their sexual prime.
In a way, it is sort of a shame that Mick Jagger is stereotyped as some sexual totem. (pole?)
Because there really is a lot to that guy. He is extremely intelligent (London School of Economics), like many of the Brit rockers. A fine songwriter, businessman, and someone that has led the highlife for 50 years with verve, a true connoiseurs appreciation for the finer things in life and locales on the planet - be they 5 Star or just terribly decadent - he has experienced, or been to most of them.
If people envy him..or some others living life large for a sustained period....
It is mainly because he lived life in full, and his sex life is a part of that, but not the only or main thing to that life.
A fine songwriter, businessman, and someone that has led the highlife for 50 years with verve, a true connoiseurs appreciation for the finer things in life and locales on the planet - be they 5 Star or just terribly decadent - he has experienced, or been to most of them.
For me the music has a brilliant transcendental quality, and I viewed Mick in this light as well. Always seeming well above the fray. The other day I watched his Saturday Night Live appearance, where mid song he felt moved to take a jab at Mitt Romney, and I thought: he's just another turd...
That's why the Doors are my favorite '60s band.
You'll never see Jim Morrison doing shit like that.
I need a poll option that says, "Mick Jagger totally creeps me out, and even more so that I'm visualizing his Johnson."
In 1973 Bowie was 26,and *hot*, and Jagger was 30, or as hippies liked to say... at that age after which no one should be trusted.
But Bowie liked Jagger, and according to the author, Anderson, one of the reasons for that was because he was able to "electrify audiences year after year".
Talk about your understatements! "Year after year" would have been from 1964 to 1973. Add on another 39 years to that!
Now that's one hot, hard, workin' man to my mind.
After professing my apathy, I went and read the damned article anyway. Damn you, Althouse Vortex! [ shakes tiny fist of fury ]
If Mick Jagger was ever relevant, he stopped being so about 40 years ago.
Kinda like that other old fart you always go on and on and on about.
Don't stories like these undermine, to some extent, the notion that sexual orientation is innate and immutable?
Don't stories like these undermine, to some extent, the notion that sexual orientation is innate and immutable?
I find Jagger interesting in the degree that some rock stars are just that, but others become much more surprising when you learn about what their lives are like beyond the typical existence of a rock star.
Post a Comment