The Bisexual Sir Mick Jagger

[Guest fountainhall]

An unauthoritsed biography of Mick Jagger. Mick: the Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger, makes a number of controversial claims –

 

* he had numerous affairs with both sexes

 

* he enjoyed a long-term love affair with David Bowie

 

* when Bowie’s wife found them in bed together, she is alleged to have said, “Do you want some coffee?”

 

* “Ava Cherry, a backup singer who lived with the Bowies for a time, reportedly told a friend that ‘Mick and David were really sexually obsessed with each other. Even though I was in bed with them many times, I ended up just watching them have sex.’”

 

* In his early career, Jagger had proclaimed “anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope” and once called the Queen “Chief Witch”.

 

* When Jagger’s name appeared on Honours Lists, the Queen repeatedly rebuked Tony Blair because Jagger was “not suitable”.

 

* When Jagger was finally knighted in 2003, the Queen arranged to have a small knee operation the day before and so Prince Charles did the ‘knighting’.

 

Not surprisingly, neither Sir Mick nor the Buckingham Palace were available for comment!

 

http://www.telegraph...knighthood.html

[Rogie]

Let me say first off I don't like that kind of book, but sorry to say I cannot help myself being somewhat aroused at the thought of Mick Jagger and David Bowie in bed together. 1973 would have been around the time Bowie was re-establishing himself. Following his success with Space Oddity he went quiet for a bit, then released Hunky Dory in 1972 I think which contained a great selection of songs which kick-started his path back into super-stardom. His album The Man who Sold the World where he is dressed in drag (although his long hair may have been his own, I can't remember) on the cover clearly showed he was a man unafraid of what people may have thought of him.

 

When one considers the lives of pop stars they truly are in a world of their own. For the heterosexual young man bestowed with the glamour fame has brought is never short of the next girl to bed, from high society types to groupies he can take his pick. No doubt there are people, hangers-on, music paper journalists etc who get a vicarious thrill by keeping count of the numbers of women each member of the Roling Stones slept with. Brian Jones was the best-looking member and it wouldn't surprise me. . . but I'm getting carried away, and I'm not here to speculate.

 

So to be told Mick Jagger and David Bowie got together in the way claimed wouldn't surprise me at all. Bowie was clearly bisexual and Mick too, Bowie-style, was his own man, confident in his own sexuality. He may have been getting bored after hundreds of easy lays and, being a man of tremendous energy and charisma, it's hardly surprising he established some sort of rapport with Bowie, even if there wasn't a sexual side to it. These two were extreme extroverts and sparks were going to fly come what may!

[Guest thaiworthy]

. . . but sorry to say I cannot help myself being somewhat aroused at the thought of Mick Jagger and David Bowie in bed together.

 

Not me. I don't find either of them attractive at all. Although Jagger's lips are so big he could probably french kiss a moose.

[Guest thaiworthy]

* In his early career, Jagger had proclaimed “anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope” and once called the Queen “Chief Witch”.

 

And yet he was still knighted!

[Rogie]

Yes, he was. I am speculating here, but I think if the Queen is given a person's name more than once she is more or less obliged to accede to the nomination. Personally I think a knighthood is pretty meaningless nowadays, it's been devalued (if ever there was such 'value' to it other than the recipient having to be addressed as Sir whatever), not sure when the rot set in, perhaps during Tony Blair's premiership. On the other hand, I suppose if Britain wants to be seen to be fair-handed honours should be spread across the whole of society, so that it's not just 'captains of industry', or donors to whatever political party is in power, that receive recognition.

[Guest fountainhall]

I suppose if Britain wants to be seen to be fair-handed honours should be spread across the whole of society, so that it's not just 'captains of industry', or donors to whatever political party is in power, that receive recognition.

 

I agree with your sentiments. In this day and age when Britain is just another country and no longer ruling a quarter of the globe, to have a whole series of gongs conferring Membership of an Order of the "British Empire" is surely not just anachronistic, it is almost insulting to a goodly portion of the world's population.

 

On the other hand, my understanding is the 'honours' system has been revamped and is now far more for contributing to the community than it used to be. According to the Guardian, of the last ones doled out (on the Queen's official birthday), "72% of recipients are involved in charitable or voluntary work in their local community."

 

http://www.guardian....list?intcmp=239

 

What pisses me off, though, is that certain jobs seem to have an automatic knighthood attached to them. Become a good orchestral conductor, and you will be Sir somebody somebody by your mid-50s. Same if you run an institution like one of the great Art Galleries or the Royal Opera House. Why, in heavens name, should you get a knighthood just for doing your job well? Heck, they even get it when they do a lousy job! The man who ran the Royal Opera in the 90s so abysmally that it came to within half an hour of insolvency, Jeremy Isaacs, still got his K!That makes a mockery of the system.

 

There is, in my view, much greater justification if you are someone like Sir Richard Branson, who not only brings vast quantities of foreign currency into the country, he continuously promotes the entrepreneurial side of Britain.

[Rogie]

I agree with your sentiments. In this day and age when Britain is just another country and no longer ruling a quarter of the globe, to have a whole series of gongs conferring Membership of an Order of the "British Empire" is surely not just anachronistic, it is almost insulting to a goodly portion of the world's population.

 

I must just press the pause button here. I agree that an OBE or MBE harks back to another era and is anachronistic. However, if we mentally substitute OCN or MCN for those honours then what we have in reality is the Order, or Member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

 

There are currently 54 independent member states, with a population of 2.1 billion people (2005 estimate).

 

The Commonwealth's objectives were first outlined in the 1971 Singapore Declaration, which committed the Commonwealth to the institution of world peace; promotion of representative democracy and individual liberty; the pursuit of equality and opposition to racism; the fight against poverty, ignorance, and disease; and free trade.To these were added opposition to discrimination on the basis of gender by the Lusaka Declaration of 1979, and environmental sustainability by the Langkawi Declaration of 1989. These objectives were reinforced by the Harare Declaration in 1991.

 

I don't see why that should be insulting to other nations at all.

 

I hadn't realised that whereas the Queen is the current Head of the Commonwealth, when she dies her successor does not automatically assume that role, -."The position is symbolic, representing the free association of independent members."

 

And here's something I was completely unaware of!

 

At the time of the Suez Crisis in 1956, in the face of colonial unrest and international tensions, French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed to British Prime Minister Anthony Eden that their two countries be joined in a "union". When that proposal was turned down, Mollet suggested that France be allowed to join the Commonwealth, with "a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations