Tell Me :
Talk
The difference is Tiger Woods has been marketed as an All-American hero with a family image, and the Stones have never been dishonest about their libertine attitudes toward sexuality - a huge difference, IMO.
This is the "fact" I think goes quite generally here without notice and Mick is treated according to his old reputation. In fact, there is nothing in his behavior for many many years that is sohomew morally inconsistent with his knighthood. Can anyone even remember when Mick was in the news due womanizing or due to some other supposed misbehavings? I can't. His biggest sin is probably not releasing the vaults - but even this is going to be changed...
When is Mick Jagger is going to act like Mick Jagger again! I feel betrayed! Or is him and Tiger Woods somehow changed their personalities and images... Mick is behaving like Tiger's official reputation and Tiger vice versa...>
<
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 01:00 by Doxa.
EXACTLY!
I agree. Tiger agreed to sponsorships that were based on a clean image and he was bound to uphold his image. MJ has been in the business of sex,drugs and rock'n'roll. A very different code of conduct for him, even if he has mellowed.
btw, didn't Bianca once say "my marriage ended on my wedding day"
You need to make yourself more clear. Your original post was naturally taken by everyone to mean is there a double standard in relation to the supposed personal lifestyles that are acceptable in respect to Mick and Woods given professions. As professionals, Woods of course a golfer, Mick a rock-based musician, it is generally accepted that musicians sleep around and that is ok, unfortunately, even if they are married and/or family men. Golf is traditionally a very conservative sport, and the pros are expected to behave a certain way and are held to certain moral standards on and off the course (and Woods has been heavily criticized for his behavior on the course, let's not forget). Therefore, it is generally not acceptable for a golf pro to sleep around like a rockstar, they are expected to be of a different moral fiber, and to carry themselves accordingly. With all this in mind, there is no double standard in this case from a professional standpoint.
From a purely moral standpoint, there is a double standard. Tiger is being put through the wringer for things that many men and women do every day, to varying degrees, ways, and specifics. Namely, sleep around excessively on their significant other while claiming to be committed and faithful, or, at the very least, operating under their partners assumption that they are committed and faithful. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior, regardless of what a person's profession is. In this particular case, I have very little respect for Mick Jagger as a person for many different reasons, and a large part of it is the way he has treated the women in his life (and possibly men), especially the mothers of his children. Whatever loophole he gave himself when he married Jerry Hall in another country, and regardless of how naive she may have been regarding that, the fact remains he made a commitment to her, only to turn right around and callously cheat on her with every piece of ass he could get his hands on. That is no way to treat the mother of some of his children. Jerry is only one example of the many women Mick has shown little to no respect for, and there is no excuse or justification for it. The fact that many people accept, and even admire, his philandering is flat-out wrong. I feel the same about Tiger Woods. He made a commitment to his wife, didn't honor it, and there is no excuse for it. The fact that he is a celebrity and is getting more flak than a so-called normal person is just tough tits, he still deserves all the criticism he is getting.
So, professionally, there is not a double-standard, but morally, yes there is. What do you expect, it's typical and pathetic human nature. If there is life elsewhere and they are aware of us and our behaviors, to them we must be the most pathetic examples of life in the universe.
Woods' popularity wasnt based on his 'clean morals'. It, and his marketability, was based primarily on his sporting brilliance.
He had already won around 10 of his 14 majors by the time he got married. His status as an icon was already in place.
If its an issue for anyone outside of his own family, it's one for the media and his sponsors who have themselves chosen to make an big deal out of it. If fans feel 'let down' by him (or anyone else in the public eye other than the sort of people, eg politicians or religious figures, for whom any hypocrisy between their public and private morality IS a matter of public interest), then it's their problem for elevating celebrities they've never met or don't know to the status of role models.
Not in any way excusing his behaviour, but it's a matter for him and his family. No one else. This never-ending parade of celebrities feeling obliged to go on talk shows or staging press conferences to apologise to people they don't even know is ludicrous in the extreme and says more about the sort of people who expect and drool over this type of voyeurism than it does about the celebrity himself.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: February 21, 2010 23:14
The chief reason I listen to the Stones a lot is the music. I admit that I have also been intrigued by the life style of Jagger who most likely has slept with thousands of women and cheated on his wife many times. I have also read of the sexual exploits of Bill Wyman, Ronnie Wood, and Brian Jones. Yet I look up to the Stones as heroes who can do no wrong.
Tiger Woods was caught lying about his relatively few women and has been severely chastised by his fans, many of whom could well be Stones fans. His career has been ruined by his bad boy behavior, while Jagger's career flourishes, possibly in part because of his sexual appetite and reputation.
Is this hypocrisy, a double standard for rock and roll super stars, or both?
Tiger Woods was caught lying about his relatively few women and has been severely chastised by his fans, many of whom could well be Stones fans. His career has been ruined by his bad boy behavior, while Jagger's career flourishes, possibly in part because of his sexual appetite and reputation.
Is this hypocrisy, a double standard for rock and roll super stars, or both?
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: February 21, 2010 23:17
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: February 21, 2010 23:28
tiger made alot of his money off of sponsorships.this is a trickey business,it requires one behave in a certain manner and many times the contracts have moral clauses.the reason for this is that companies who hire a spokesperson are looking for MASS appeal.old ladies,children,all religions,all races,..everybody.mick jagger,on the other hand, is a rock and roll star.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
doubledoor
()
Date: February 21, 2010 23:31
Different jobs have different standards. Even if Mick was really a virgin it would serve his purpose to be known as a prodigious ladies man to serve the image of an anti establishment rock star. That is not the same image a corporate sponsor with a squeaky clean image like M Jordan or Tiger Woods is supposed to have. The code of conduct has one book for pirates another for navy men.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: February 21, 2010 23:50
The other posters make excellent points. Different milieus have different standards. Yet I was horrified last night to read here that a young girl, a fan, had been BLINDED by one of Malcolm McLaren's associates; the point being that mindless violence was an accepted part of the punk movement.
Mick has been with L'Wren for over 8 years now, and there have been no reports of him having dalliances with other women in that time that I can recall. If there were, I feel sure they would be tabloid fodder, like Ronnie's private life.
Also, times are different now, perhaps largely because of the immediate dissemination of news via the internet. I think if the Bill-Mandy saga was occurring now instead of in the pre-internet days of the early 90s, it would attract much more censure than it did at the time.
Mick has been with L'Wren for over 8 years now, and there have been no reports of him having dalliances with other women in that time that I can recall. If there were, I feel sure they would be tabloid fodder, like Ronnie's private life.
Also, times are different now, perhaps largely because of the immediate dissemination of news via the internet. I think if the Bill-Mandy saga was occurring now instead of in the pre-internet days of the early 90s, it would attract much more censure than it did at the time.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 22, 2010 00:55
Quote
flilflam
The chief reason I listen to the Stones a lot is the music. I admit that I have also been intrigued by the life style of Jagger who most likely has slept with thousands of women and cheated on his wife many times. I have also read of the sexual exploits of Bill Wyman, Ronnie Wood, and Brian Jones. Yet I look up to the Stones as heroes who can do no wrong.
Tiger Woods was caught lying about his relatively few women and has been severely chastised by his fans, many of whom could well be Stones fans. His career has been ruined by his bad boy behavior, while Jagger's career flourishes, possibly in part because of his sexual appetite and reputation.
Is this hypocrisy, a double standard for rock and roll super stars, or both?
The difference is Tiger Woods has been marketed as an All-American hero with a family image, and the Stones have never been dishonest about their libertine attitudes toward sexuality - a huge difference, IMO.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 22, 2010 00:58
Quote
Bliss
Mick has been with L'Wren for over 8 years now, and there have been no reports of him having dalliances with other women in that time that I can recall. If there were, I feel sure they would be tabloid fodder, like Ronnie's private life.
This is the "fact" I think goes quite generally here without notice and Mick is treated according to his old reputation. In fact, there is nothing in his behavior for many many years that is sohomew morally inconsistent with his knighthood. Can anyone even remember when Mick was in the news due womanizing or due to some other supposed misbehavings? I can't. His biggest sin is probably not releasing the vaults - but even this is going to be changed...
When is Mick Jagger is going to act like Mick Jagger again! I feel betrayed! Or is him and Tiger Woods somehow changed their personalities and images... Mick is behaving like Tiger's official reputation and Tiger vice versa...>
<- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 01:00 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: February 22, 2010 01:06
Quote
71Tele
The difference is Tiger Woods has been marketed as an All-American hero with a family image, and the Stones have never been dishonest about their libertine attitudes toward sexuality - a huge difference, IMO.
EXACTLY!
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: February 22, 2010 01:18
I don't live in a cave so Obviousley I know who Tiger Woods is, but I've never followed him that closely...how explicitly has he been promoted as an all American family Man? And If He was, why is it such a dissapointment that he doesn't live up to it? OK so, he's an assshole, I don't understand why people are getting so passionate about it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 01:23 by ryanpow.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 01:23 by ryanpow.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
lademore
()
Date: February 22, 2010 02:13
When a 15 minute apology interrupts regular programming on practically every network in America, people do get passionate and pissed off....
Its thrown in our faces 24/7...thanks to the media.
Most people, couldnt give 2 sh-ts about it. And I certainly dont want him asking for my forgiveness. Also, it seems Punishment has been replaced with Therapy.
I didnt want to hear about his 14? affairs/dalliances, i dont want to hear his apology.
Its thrown in our faces 24/7...thanks to the media.
Most people, couldnt give 2 sh-ts about it. And I certainly dont want him asking for my forgiveness. Also, it seems Punishment has been replaced with Therapy.
I didnt want to hear about his 14? affairs/dalliances, i dont want to hear his apology.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: February 22, 2010 02:26
there is a lot of media scrutiny over him, but at the same time I think its very easy to tune out. The press conference for instanace, that was at 9 in the morning when most people are just getting to work anyways. And he didn't commit a crime I don't know what kind of punishment there could be unless you mean alimony or something...
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 02:29 by ryanpow.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 02:29 by ryanpow.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: February 22, 2010 02:30
Still one of the greatest athletes of our generation. And, hey, he's a man.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: February 22, 2010 02:36
TW is a hypocrite plain and simple. He deserves all the criticism he is getting.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: February 22, 2010 02:41
>>This is the "fact" I think goes quite generally here without notice and Mick is treated according to his old reputation. In fact, there is nothing in his behavior for many many years that is sohomew morally inconsistent with his knighthood. Can anyone even remember when Mick was in the news due womanizing or due to some other supposed misbehavings? I can't. His biggest sin is probably not releasing the vaults - but even this is going to be changed...
The main reason for this is that the English have taken Jerry Hall to their collective bosom, and her doings and opinions are always in the news. The last time Mick did anything scandalous was fathering a child with Luciana Morad whilst he was still 'married' to Jerry.
The main reason for this is that the English have taken Jerry Hall to their collective bosom, and her doings and opinions are always in the news. The last time Mick did anything scandalous was fathering a child with Luciana Morad whilst he was still 'married' to Jerry.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: February 22, 2010 02:48
I am the guy who initiated this thread. I have read all the posts. It would appear that there is a double standard for Jagger and there is another standard for other famous people who cheat on their wives, or seem to want to score with as many chicks as is humanly possible. Also, if any of you think Jagger has been faithful to L'Wren for eight years, then you are incredibly naive.
I am not being judgmental about anyone. In fact, I wish someone could teach me how to be more successful with women. I asked a simple question, and I got mostly consistent answers: it is OK for some to sleep around, and it is not OK for others to do so. This is the definition of a double standard.
I am not being judgmental about anyone. In fact, I wish someone could teach me how to be more successful with women. I asked a simple question, and I got mostly consistent answers: it is OK for some to sleep around, and it is not OK for others to do so. This is the definition of a double standard.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: February 22, 2010 02:56
I think the media is very hypocritical in their treatment of Tiger, and believe me, I do not condon that kind of cheating BUT who do they think they are to condemn him? Are they all without faults?? Someone already said that Tiger was held to a ridiculously high standard, in part due to the image he put forth. In that way, he brought some of this frenzy on himself. I just believe he should be left to work it out ( or NOT) with his wife.
Mick never proclaimed to be a goodie-goodie, you're right. I think that if he cheats on L'Wren, and I happen to think he does, she is not fussing about it the way Jerry did. She is more accepting. I recall when he first starting seeing her, she told him she was not a jealous person and basicly said " do what you want"! I thought that was a clever ploy to keep him guessing about how much she cared and if she would see other men. It apparently worked to some degree.
Mick never proclaimed to be a goodie-goodie, you're right. I think that if he cheats on L'Wren, and I happen to think he does, she is not fussing about it the way Jerry did. She is more accepting. I recall when he first starting seeing her, she told him she was not a jealous person and basicly said " do what you want"! I thought that was a clever ploy to keep him guessing about how much she cared and if she would see other men. It apparently worked to some degree.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: February 22, 2010 03:19
Quote
doubledoor
Different jobs have different standards. Even if Mick was really a virgin it would serve his purpose to be known as a prodigious ladies man to serve the image of an anti establishment rock star. That is not the same image a corporate sponsor with a squeaky clean image like M Jordan or Tiger Woods is supposed to have. The code of conduct has one book for pirates another for navy men.
I agree. Tiger agreed to sponsorships that were based on a clean image and he was bound to uphold his image. MJ has been in the business of sex,drugs and rock'n'roll. A very different code of conduct for him, even if he has mellowed.
btw, didn't Bianca once say "my marriage ended on my wedding day"
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 22, 2010 04:23
So let me get this straight. Your code of conduct, or better yet your moral compass is different depending on your career? Again this just doesn't seem sane to me. And yes, it is a double standard often on this board how people judge other people's behavior, yet are very loathe to judge their heroes with the same moral compass. And again, more importantly, who are we to judge others (unless a crime is being committed that infringes on a persons health/safety/and pusuite of life and liberty).
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: February 22, 2010 04:38
God I hate all this morality BS the media tries to apply to sports people, why don't they go after these bank CEO's whose greed have left millions of people unemployed and yet are still recieving bonus checks funded by taxpayers. So Tiger Woods commited adultry, so @#$%& what!
The only role models kids should have are people they actually know well, ideally their parents.
Ok sorry for the rant, stepping off soapbox now.
The only role models kids should have are people they actually know well, ideally their parents.
Ok sorry for the rant, stepping off soapbox now.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 22, 2010 05:03
good one Ket!
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
souldoggie
()
Date: February 22, 2010 05:32
"In fact, I wish someone could teach me how to be more successful with women"
Follow these steps:
be a rock star
make a lot of money
rinse and repeat
Making a lot of money is key, by the way. Nothings changed for 5,000 years and nothing ever will. You can hold your breath and stomp on the ground all you want, it will never change.
Tiger is the best golfer the world has ever seen. Jagger is the best rock star the world has ever seen.
Rock stars get a pass. As they should. They write things like Sympathy For The Devil or Brown Sugar and golfers, on say a par 4, stick their second shot one foot from the pin.
Rock stars get a pass.
Based on the threads around here lately, we need a tour or a record.
Follow these steps:
be a rock star
make a lot of money
rinse and repeat
Making a lot of money is key, by the way. Nothings changed for 5,000 years and nothing ever will. You can hold your breath and stomp on the ground all you want, it will never change.
Tiger is the best golfer the world has ever seen. Jagger is the best rock star the world has ever seen.
Rock stars get a pass. As they should. They write things like Sympathy For The Devil or Brown Sugar and golfers, on say a par 4, stick their second shot one foot from the pin.
Rock stars get a pass.
Based on the threads around here lately, we need a tour or a record.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
cirrhosis
()
Date: February 22, 2010 07:33
I wouldn't say it's a double standard, it's just that Mick Jagger is better than most.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: February 22, 2010 09:09
Yes, I recall some statement at the beginnng that L'Wren is very tolerant, but it seems odd that Mick has never been photographed with anyone else, and no one has come forth with a story in the press.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
saltoftheearth
()
Date: February 22, 2010 10:05
Wíthout knowing too much about the Woods case of course there are dirfferent standards - always have been. If someone bases his popularity on 'clean morals' it is a scandal if he or she does have other partners. (Look at some televangelists who preach that sex outside a marriage is a sin and will lead to hell but then they are seen with lovers or even prostitutes).
Mick Jagger or the other Stones never set up such a public image. In this respect they represent the opposite to Woods. I mean, could you start such a carreer and wirte such songs in a stable, two-to-three-children relationship with a soap-opera family life? I guess not. Much of the Stones music was about searching for a freer lifestyle. And in the mid 1970s Mick Jagger even explored the androgynous and gay side of life...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 10:06 by saltoftheearth.
Mick Jagger or the other Stones never set up such a public image. In this respect they represent the opposite to Woods. I mean, could you start such a carreer and wirte such songs in a stable, two-to-three-children relationship with a soap-opera family life? I guess not. Much of the Stones music was about searching for a freer lifestyle. And in the mid 1970s Mick Jagger even explored the androgynous and gay side of life...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 10:06 by saltoftheearth.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
nanker phelge
()
Date: February 22, 2010 10:15
Quote
Ket
God I hate all this morality BS the media tries to apply to sports people, why don't they go after these bank CEO's whose greed have left millions of people unemployed and yet are still recieving bonus checks funded by taxpayers.
Exactly!! This is one of the biggest crimes going - makes me sick!
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
boogie1969
()
Date: February 22, 2010 11:58
Quote
flilflam
I am the guy who initiated this thread. I have read all the posts. It would appear that there is a double standard for Jagger and there is another standard for other famous people who cheat on their wives, or seem to want to score with as many chicks as is humanly possible. Also, if any of you think Jagger has been faithful to L'Wren for eight years, then you are incredibly naive.
I am not being judgmental about anyone. In fact, I wish someone could teach me how to be more successful with women. I asked a simple question, and I got mostly consistent answers: it is OK for some to sleep around, and it is not OK for others to do so. This is the definition of a double standard.
You need to make yourself more clear. Your original post was naturally taken by everyone to mean is there a double standard in relation to the supposed personal lifestyles that are acceptable in respect to Mick and Woods given professions. As professionals, Woods of course a golfer, Mick a rock-based musician, it is generally accepted that musicians sleep around and that is ok, unfortunately, even if they are married and/or family men. Golf is traditionally a very conservative sport, and the pros are expected to behave a certain way and are held to certain moral standards on and off the course (and Woods has been heavily criticized for his behavior on the course, let's not forget). Therefore, it is generally not acceptable for a golf pro to sleep around like a rockstar, they are expected to be of a different moral fiber, and to carry themselves accordingly. With all this in mind, there is no double standard in this case from a professional standpoint.
From a purely moral standpoint, there is a double standard. Tiger is being put through the wringer for things that many men and women do every day, to varying degrees, ways, and specifics. Namely, sleep around excessively on their significant other while claiming to be committed and faithful, or, at the very least, operating under their partners assumption that they are committed and faithful. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior, regardless of what a person's profession is. In this particular case, I have very little respect for Mick Jagger as a person for many different reasons, and a large part of it is the way he has treated the women in his life (and possibly men), especially the mothers of his children. Whatever loophole he gave himself when he married Jerry Hall in another country, and regardless of how naive she may have been regarding that, the fact remains he made a commitment to her, only to turn right around and callously cheat on her with every piece of ass he could get his hands on. That is no way to treat the mother of some of his children. Jerry is only one example of the many women Mick has shown little to no respect for, and there is no excuse or justification for it. The fact that many people accept, and even admire, his philandering is flat-out wrong. I feel the same about Tiger Woods. He made a commitment to his wife, didn't honor it, and there is no excuse for it. The fact that he is a celebrity and is getting more flak than a so-called normal person is just tough tits, he still deserves all the criticism he is getting.
So, professionally, there is not a double-standard, but morally, yes there is. What do you expect, it's typical and pathetic human nature. If there is life elsewhere and they are aware of us and our behaviors, to them we must be the most pathetic examples of life in the universe.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
leteyer
()
Date: February 22, 2010 12:05
This people are no saints and do not owe us anything. One have to be stupid to think that they are role models.
Their real punishement is the "give me half of everything" divorce settlement.
Their real punishement is the "give me half of everything" divorce settlement.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 22, 2010 13:05
Actually Mick Jagger has never been such a bad boy he is famous for. That's the image was created by the time of ALO and Jagger learned to live according to it (but still I think being able to make distinction between private and public life). Because that is part of his legend and that makes money. He should give money - if he haven't - to Scaduto for cementing his evil image in his early 70's book ("Everybody's Lucifer"). Most of all, Mick Jagger is a projection of the desires and fantasies of one generation. Well, maybe his love life is a bit more experimental than someone elses, but he is a child of the free love generation, after all. When he was with Marianne they both screw with other people as much they could. Marianne had sex with their mutual friend while Mick was in jail, etc. And it was alright.
I think that one does need to go too far beyond the surface - the public image - to find out that there is a quite contrast with the actual man and the image. I think that is quite well known outside the most stupidiest tabloid world.
You know the old rock and roll legend that has a trait of truth in it: the story of the groupie who wanted to have sex with Mick Jagger, and after being with two other members of The Stones who were nice "But not Mick Jagger", she finally get to Mick's bed which was nice "but it was not Mick Jagger"...
Another funny story is the one told by Carly Simon. By the time of making "You're So Vain" she was invited to Mick's house, and Carly had mind full of ideas what might happen there (what kind of orgy, that is), because, it is THE dangerous Mick Jagger after all. Well, it turned to be that Mick just wanted to have a tea and talk business with her. Carly was so disappointed but amused when she learned Jagger is so "boring" regular guy...
I think they gave a knighthood for a quite ordinary gentleman-like bloke. Maybe the British know better the guy's true colors... (few non-martial bastard childs and some brief affairs here and there and are not such a big deal for a traditional English Gentleman...).
I think the Woods scandal is such an American thing and can only be comprehended in that kind of moralistic context. Better to leave old Jagger out of it.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 13:37 by Doxa.
I think that one does need to go too far beyond the surface - the public image - to find out that there is a quite contrast with the actual man and the image. I think that is quite well known outside the most stupidiest tabloid world.
You know the old rock and roll legend that has a trait of truth in it: the story of the groupie who wanted to have sex with Mick Jagger, and after being with two other members of The Stones who were nice "But not Mick Jagger", she finally get to Mick's bed which was nice "but it was not Mick Jagger"...
Another funny story is the one told by Carly Simon. By the time of making "You're So Vain" she was invited to Mick's house, and Carly had mind full of ideas what might happen there (what kind of orgy, that is), because, it is THE dangerous Mick Jagger after all. Well, it turned to be that Mick just wanted to have a tea and talk business with her. Carly was so disappointed but amused when she learned Jagger is so "boring" regular guy...
I think they gave a knighthood for a quite ordinary gentleman-like bloke. Maybe the British know better the guy's true colors... (few non-martial bastard childs and some brief affairs here and there and are not such a big deal for a traditional English Gentleman...).
I think the Woods scandal is such an American thing and can only be comprehended in that kind of moralistic context. Better to leave old Jagger out of it.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 13:37 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: February 22, 2010 14:05
no double standard, both can do whatever they want!
sleeping with more than one girl is not wrong or cheating, that´s normal sexual behaviour if you like it or not.
if it wasn´t normal than explain how all these mega stars and all these normal people who have affairs or all the cathouses who make lot´s of money every day could be so wroooonggggg.
i feel very sorry for the ones who dislike mick jagger for his sex life.
it´s not you or the church who made this world. you have just being brainwashed.
sleeping with more than one girl is not wrong or cheating, that´s normal sexual behaviour if you like it or not.
if it wasn´t normal than explain how all these mega stars and all these normal people who have affairs or all the cathouses who make lot´s of money every day could be so wroooonggggg.
i feel very sorry for the ones who dislike mick jagger for his sex life.
it´s not you or the church who made this world. you have just being brainwashed.
Re: Mick Jagger and Tiger Woods: Double Standard?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: February 22, 2010 14:53
Quote
saltoftheearth
Wíthout knowing too much about the Woods case of course there are dirfferent standards - always have been. If someone bases his popularity on 'clean morals' it is a scandal if he or she does have other partners. (Look at some televangelists who preach that sex outside a marriage is a sin and will lead to hell but then they are seen with lovers or even prostitutes).
Mick Jagger or the other Stones never set up such a public image. In this respect they represent the opposite to Woods. I mean, could you start such a carreer and wirte such songs in a stable, two-to-three-children relationship with a soap-opera family life? I guess not. Much of the Stones music was about searching for a freer lifestyle. And in the mid 1970s Mick Jagger even explored the androgynous and gay side of life...
Woods' popularity wasnt based on his 'clean morals'. It, and his marketability, was based primarily on his sporting brilliance.
He had already won around 10 of his 14 majors by the time he got married. His status as an icon was already in place.
If its an issue for anyone outside of his own family, it's one for the media and his sponsors who have themselves chosen to make an big deal out of it. If fans feel 'let down' by him (or anyone else in the public eye other than the sort of people, eg politicians or religious figures, for whom any hypocrisy between their public and private morality IS a matter of public interest), then it's their problem for elevating celebrities they've never met or don't know to the status of role models.
Not in any way excusing his behaviour, but it's a matter for him and his family. No one else. This never-ending parade of celebrities feeling obliged to go on talk shows or staging press conferences to apologise to people they don't even know is ludicrous in the extreme and says more about the sort of people who expect and drool over this type of voyeurism than it does about the celebrity himself.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
armin944 , bitusa2012 , CaptainAcid , ChrisL , corstones , dj , esqcjh , fdajef , goingmad , Handova , harald2002 , hot stuff , jigsaw69 , ladinsky14 , Mander2311 , micha063 , MickBal , MisterDDDD , quarkie , StonyRoad , Topi , TumblinDice76 , Witness , z
Guests:
1307
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10