Quote
Addicted
Some quite upsetting comments here, from stoneswashed77 in particular.
Personally I don't care who people sleep with. As long as it's with another grown up, not with animals, children or corpses. I'd rather judge people by how they behave than who they share a bed with.
A typical example of bad behaviour? Sexual abuse of children! Violence. Particularly against those who can't defend themselves. That's uncivilized and unforgiveable.

reread my posts , you didn´t understand them. i said nothing against gay ppl. just that mick and most of his fans are not.

Quote
Rockman
Never once would I allow someone’s sexuality to influence my feelings about their art

YEP!!...that's why I love ...Dame Edna...Sir Les Patterson and Barry Humphries...

The funniest person I've ever met. I interviewed him in 1991 (or 92) in Montreux, Switzerland, at the TV festival. He was so funny - I almost found out what Tena Lady is good for... What an absolutely wonderful character! And with good legs, too! He charmed Roger Moore and some other dignitaries, and me, at a dinner in the Montreux Palace Hotel. Can't stop laughing when I think about that man. Yeah, Rockman, he's a star!

Stoneswashed77 perhaps you should reread your own posts. When I told Dewlover he should be embarrassed about his ignorance regarding the existence of bisexuality you replied and I quote:

"no he shouldn´t because it´s correct"

I totally agree that you're entitled to your opinion but such idiotic opinions don't perhaps have a place on this message board.

Now all we need is a Mars bar somewhere in that picture........

Quote
Rockman
ANYBODY CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS WITH HIS ASS ¡¡¡......

The funniest person I've ever met.

Yeah Addicted... probably the funniest bunch of people you could ever meet ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
iamthedj
Stoneswashed77 perhaps you should reread your own posts. When I told Dewlover he should be embarrassed about his ignorance regarding the existence of bisexuality you replied and I quote:

"no he shouldn´t because it´s correct"

I totally agree that you're entitled to your opinion but such idiotic opinions don't perhaps have a place on this message board.

it´s not an opinion. maybe you should first understand that difference.

Dewlover expressed his opinion that bisexuality doesnt exist. I replied stating my opinion that he was wrong. You, stoneswashed77, quoted his post on the matter agreeing with his statement that bisexual men just dont want to be called gay. Its very simple. Im not admonishing you, just letting you know that some members of this "community" dont appreciate such talk. You're free to harbour whatever opinions/prejudices you choose.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-21 23:38 by iamthedj.

Quote
iamthedj
Dewlover expressed his opinion that bisexuality doesnt exist. I replied stating my opinion that he was wrong. You, stoneswashed77, quoted his post on the matter agreeing with his statement that bisexual men just dont want to be called gay. Its very simple. Im not admonishing you, just letting you know that some members of this "community" dont appreciate such talk. You're free to harbour whatever opinions/prejudices you choose.

if you can´t stand facts, than go to mummy and cry.

Mummy's busy at the moment darling but I'd love to know where you get your facts.

Quote
iamthedj
Mummy's busy at the moment darling but I'd love to know where you get your facts.

what´s your profession. i am really interested who you are to question me.

...well according to the new NY Times article/interview with Keith he brings this up in the book...[www.nytimes.com]

What's my professtion? I'm a librarian, not that it's any of your concern. May I ask what you do? You are interested in who am I to question you? I think you'll find I'm the voice of reason and would represent the opinions of a great many more people on this board than you do. So now I've introduced myself please follow suit and let me know where you get your information/opinions on these issues.

you say it again, that nasty word, opinion.
i am not interested in opinions. i may be interested in a discussion, but that´s something different.

the question was does bisexuality exist. you can not answer that with your opinion or just because a friend has sex with both genders.

you have to know things about the brain and psychology, how works the sexdrive,
what happens in your brain when a man loves a man. and so on.
you have to really look behind the curtain. we are talking about subconsciousness, 93% of your brain that you can´t easily talk to or ask questions.
i don´t want to say that all these things are completely science proved.

but to say everyone can do what he wants and shouldn´t be judged by who he loves is just some nice pc talk, but has nothing to do with a discussion about a certain topic.

especially if you consider a discussion about it immediately as an insult or not pc enough for all the minorities in the world.

however, from all i know about that topic and of course judged from a distance,

i think mick is not gay or bi.

I'm not even going to justify that nonsense with further response, love. You claim to "know things" about the brain and psychology but clearly can't compose a post that is both ledgible and gramatically coherent. Let me just say this, I'd gladly welcome a measured discussion on the subject but I think I'd have to look elsewhere. Just one thing, if your previous posts were some sort of "come on" I'm really not interested in men but I respect your persuasion and I'm sure you'll find Mr. right soon.

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Addicted
Some quite upsetting comments here, from stoneswashed77 in particular.
Personally I don't care who people sleep with. As long as it's with another grown up, not with animals, children or corpses. I'd rather judge people by how they behave than who they share a bed with.
A typical example of bad behaviour? Sexual abuse of children! Violence. Particularly against those who can't defend themselves. That's uncivilized and unforgiveable.

reread my posts , you didn´t understand them. i said nothing against gay ppl. just that mick and most of his fans are not.

Oh yes, I understand your posts and that's why I react. They're unsympathetic, ignorant and you come across as someone I'd go to quite a lot of trouble not to have to meet...

no you don´t understand. that´s the problem. you have no knowledge about it but still want to have an opinion. great, but worthless.

watch the dick cavett clip from 72 just before the stones go onstage, if mick does not look and act fruity there then the term should not exist

Quote
stoneswashed77
maybe freddy or elton are idols for gay men, i don´t know. not for me or most ppl around here which kind of proves my point.

where is here? texas?
just curious, do you have any friends that are gay?

All this talk about Mick.... Keith Richards, at one time, was the hottest Stone, hands down. Mick was cuter, but Keith was hotter. Maybe it was the guitar.... Personally, I think the Stones have a huge gay following and it has a lot to do with their music and image and showmanship, and, well, Keith.

Quote
stoneswashed77
no you don´t understand. that´s the problem. you have no knowledge about it but still want to have an opinion. great, but worthless.

And what leads you to believe that you have some sort of supreme knowledge on this subject?
Alot of what you have posted here is boarderline homophobic which is really unacceptable. And just because you claim something while providing no evidence whatsoever doesn't actually make it a fact.
It is claimed that people are most influenced by their peer group so does that mean anyone who is friends with a homosexual person is then gay as straight people cannot look upto someone who is gay as you claim? I think you'll find that alot of what you have said is bullshit.

I'm all for having this discussion about Mick as long as it remains in the context of how sexuality affects the Stones music and live performances and art in general. But now that discussion cannot happen because this thread has deteriorated into pages of ignorant mud-slinging.

You shouldn't spend your life looking at someone as gay or straight or bisexual, just as other people like yourself. I mean I'm not going to look at a picture of Mick and say it's a gay man or a straight man or whatever, I'm gonna say it's Mick Jagger and I'm going to admire him because he's a damn fine singer, songwriter and performer, gay, bisexual or straight.

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
stones78

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
stoneswashed77

i know he is not bi because i like him.

Do you mean that you wouldn't like him if he was bi??

yes, because if he was bi or gay he would be a completely different person, artist, singer, he would talk, walk, appear, differently, his life style his women everything was different.

freddie mercury is a very good example. i can accept and see he was a great singer, but i don´t like him at all. he is nowhere near a role model for young men.+

mick is, because he is a straight and cool man.

Jagger is as good a "role model" as Freddie Mercury, if you think gay people are bad role models only because of their sexuality, well, that's a whole other subject.

role model for whom is the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mick attracts millions of heterosexual men. and yes he is a role model for them not a sex object.

that´s only possible to achieve for a straight men. it would be ridiculous if millions of straight men chose a gay man as idol. that´s laughable and would be a mistake. mistakes happen but not by millions of people.

maybe freddy or elton are idols for gay men, i don´t know. not for me or most ppl around here which kind of proves my point.

bigotry is really just ignorance...but you should maybe look up or start with Alexander The Great and work your way on up to modern times..just a suggestion.

It's been made quite clear that someone who is gay is with/into/of the same sex and does not do anything with the opposite sex. Someone who is bi is with/into/of both sexes. Just as saying guns, not people, kill, when in fact guns don't walk around shooting people.

It's people who misconstrue such things to an advantage, for example, on a job ie getting someone fired because they are gay - and just because they don't like gays. Look beyond sexual identity (I think preference doesn't work because, for example, I like brunette women more than blonde women so my preference is brunettes) or whatever one wants to call it.

Why is that so difficult? Goddamn.

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Koen

Quote
stoneswashed77
why should a straight boy or young man want to be like a gay man?

I was a big Queen fan when I was growing up, and never, ever it occured to me that I wanted to be like Freddie *because he was gay*. I admired him (and still do) for his artistic qualities.

exactly what i said, thank you!

That was not my intention...


So how do you feel about gay teachers?

Quote
stoneswashed77
but to say everyone can do what he wants and shouldn´t be judged by who he loves is just some nice pc talk, but has nothing to do with a discussion about a certain topic.

So people should be judged by who he/she loves?
I look up to many people, I don't care if they're gay, bisexual, or straight. And you mentioned Mick is a good role model sexually speaking (maybe I misunderstood you)...that would be screwing as many women as possible, cheating on every wife/girlfriend/etc? Not exactly a great role model. But to each his own.

Quote
stoneswashed77

reread my posts , you didn´t understand them. i said nothing against gay ppl. just that mick and most of his fans are not.

Stoneswashed77, your whole premise here is somewhat homophobic. So now Mick Jagger is not bi, and neither are most of his fans? Why is this? Because you know Mick Jagger personally, and you know most of his fans personally? Wow. You really get around. Witch-hunts aren't needed where the arts are concerned. Whatever Mick Jagger does with his privates is private, so long as they're all 18 and over, etc. I could just as easily say that Mick is bi, and so are most of his fans. That wouldn't make me any more right than you. I can imagine I'd get something wrong being that presumptuous about so many people that I don't know! And really, who cares? If you do, maybe should be asking yourself why.

The Stones have always used sex in their music. It's the very essence of what makes them who they are, and it is also the thing that most separates them from their contempories, such as the Beatles, Bob Dylan and the Who etc. In that regard they stand alone in their own catagory, within the funkiness and subtelty of their own muse, whether it's Keith's very own often subtle and insistant guitar sound/ riff, or Jagger's very powerful and sexually charged delivery. Jagger seems so totally natural, certainly when he was at his peak, physically, in terms of his sexual projections (on and off stage), and also vocally. He certainly had an attractive feminine quality, alongside his more macho physical attributes, which made him rather fascinating in a way that the Beatles, for example, never were. He has always had the slenderness of a dancer within his physique. I have never really regarded him as bisexual in terms of his lifestyle, because in nearly fifty years of his stardom, there has never been any true revelations, referring to that fact, apart from a few rumours here and there, which seem to have little foundation. I think particuarly in more recent years, when huge financial rewards can be made from the selling of a story, it is amazing to think there have never been any revelations, unlike his romances with the opposite sex. That's not to say Mick may not have been curious at one time in his life, but i think that is pretty much all it has been. I'm not sure David Bowie was ever genuinely bisexual either (although he may also have been curious) - i think he just liked to court publicity and outrage in the earlier part of his career. It seemed just another dare, and a way of breaking down the barriers. He also seems to connect sexually overwhelmingly with women. Of course, Elton John and Freddie Mercury are/were different.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-22 09:05 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
The Stones have always used sex in their music. It's the very essence of what makes them who they are, and it is also the thing that most separates them from their contempories...
I have never really regarded him as bisexual in terms of his lifestyle, because in nearly fifty years of his stardom, there has never been any true revelations, referring to that fact, apart from a few rumours here and there, which seem to have little foundation.

The first statement is absolutely right, but not the second.
I must once again repeat that if we consider the serious sources (Scaduto) and the stage shows/movies of the 1973 through 1976 tours (think of the 1976 'gay-style' clip and the overtly gay elements in the stage shows in 1975/76) that - according to the spirit of the era - Mick Jagger explored the field of bisexuality. Already in 1973 he looked very feminine with his stage suts and mascara.
What's the big deal? He sure is not gay but it was common in the 1970s to experience all kinds of sexuality in order to enhance creative abilities. The NY disco Studio 54 sure was based on a bisexual attitude. It was nothing really sensational in these circles at the time.
If serious authors tell about it as a fact why are so many people upset about it anyway? For me it is a part of the Stones culture as is the Voodoo cult or the Maharishi in the 1960s.

Re Freddie Mercury

I'm not anyhow specialist in his doings but I saw a document once where Jagger's example was emphasized for Fred to encourage to develop his own stage act. I don't know if that is true but it very easely could have been; the sexually very liberal, bi-sexual early/mid-seventies rock scene and atmsophere offered also a room for 'real' gay sexuals to take part of the show more in terms of their own.

Funny though, in some other contexts I remember both Marianne Faithfull and - of all people - Charlie Watts pointing out how Mick (Marianne) and both Mick and Keith (Charlie) were ahead of their time with their make-ups - before that scene really took place in the early 70's (Bowie, etc.).

But as pointed out here many times, there is a distinction between how to project oneself as a performer or what one actually does between the sheets (which, finally, is noone ele's business). I have always had the feeling of Jagger liking to flirt with the idea that there might happen more there than actually does... That's part of his mysterious image. On with the show...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-22 10:12 by Doxa.

Was it from Marianne that there was a description of Mick having an affair with James Fox? Or Anita in some interview?

My books are in storage so I can't look it up.