This is to be his 8th "official" child. The mother to be is an American ballerina 44 years his junior.


In those new daddy duties he will join bandmate Ronnie, who recently had a set of twins at 68.

What is a baby daddy? Is there other kind of daddies? A non baby daddy? Like a daddy who's child was born an adult?

Why not say that he would become a father?

Show some respect for other men.

Culture wars start with language and manner of speaking.

I think this is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

Everyone only gets one father.

This kids father will likely be dead before he/she graduates high school and he knows it or should know it.

Personally, I think if you are going to have a kid, you should at least be confident you are going to be around to raise and guide it until 25-30.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:16 AM)Mage Wrote:  

What is a baby daddy? Is there other kind of daddies? A non baby daddy? Like a daddy who's child was born an adult?

Why not say that he would become a father?

Show some respect for other men.

Culture wars start with language and manner of speaking.

Baby daddy is a function, while father is a role.

Now you tell me, realistically, what is Mick here.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:16 AM)Mage Wrote:  

What is a baby daddy? Is there other kind of daddies? A non baby daddy? Like a daddy who's child was born an adult?

Why not say that he would become a father?

Show some respect for other men.

Culture wars start with language and manner of speaking.

Jesus, no better proof that musician game trumps all for age dating, for whatever reasons if you are a great musician or artist you can get away with some ridiculous style that other old guys couldn't possibly get away with unless they were considered a rich eccentric type.

Looks like he had good taste this run. Ballerinas. Fantastic bodies. Like yoga girl body firmness, but more slender, gentler curves. No big shoulders, lats, and preying mantis look.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:18 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I think this is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

Everyone only gets one father.

This kids father will likely be dead before he/she graduates high school and he knows it or should know it.

Personally, I think if you are going to have a kid, you should at least be confident you are going to be around to raise and guide it until 25-30.

Men of his stature, caliber and means should be commended that they are willing to bring others into this world at any age.

Children are blessing, and children who will grow up privileged are also blessed. It's a win-win.

Years from now when this kid gets to sip champagne on some yacht and think of his connected life made up of attending finest schools, living in poshest places, dating finest human species - I'm sure this new kid will not be too greatly shattered that his/her papa didn't pull out in time.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:18 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I think this is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

Everyone only gets one father.

This kids father will likely be dead before he/she graduates high school and he knows it or should know it.

Personally, I think if you are going to have a kid, you should at least be confident you are going to be around to raise and guide it until 25-30.

Selfish isn't a negative word, it's how we all automatically live our day-to-day lives.

I don't accept the premise that a father needs to raise and guide a kid for extended periods of time. 25-30 is absurd. By the time a kid reaches 16 he should be a fully functional man who is capable of guiding his self. Any 16yo can pick up a biography of a great man and learn, and many more should be doing so instead of relying on daddy who by basic statistics is most likely a nobody.

This kid will, as another poster mentioned, carry the name of Jagger, and so will automatically be buried in cash and pussy. That's not a bad consolation prize.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:43 AM)72 and sunny Wrote:  

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:18 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I think this is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

Everyone only gets one father.

This kids father will likely be dead before he/she graduates high school and he knows it or should know it.

Personally, I think if you are going to have a kid, you should at least be confident you are going to be around to raise and guide it until 25-30.

Men of his stature, caliber and means should be commended that they are willing to bring others into this world at any age.

Children are blessing, and children who will grow up privileged are also blessed. It's a win-win.

Years from now when this kid gets to sip champagne on some yacht and think of his connected life made up of attending finest schools, living in poshest places, dating finest human species - I'm sure this new kid will not be too greatly shattered that his/her papa didn't pull out in time.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Go tell that bullshit to someone who has lost a father as a kid; young enough to know them and care about them but not old and mature enough to deal with the fallout like an adult. All the money and material crap in the world doesn't replace your old man. A million bonding moments you will NEVER have; moments you see ALL THE TIME with other fathers and their children (including adult children) is forever lost. And you think a bottle of Dom Perignon and a nice house replaces that?

Believe me dude, I know what the fuck I'm talking about regarding this subject. And I can't imagine anyone who has been through what I've personally been through saying something so ignorant. I really can't.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:26 AM)72 and sunny Wrote:  

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:16 AM)Mage Wrote:  

What is a baby daddy? Is there other kind of daddies? A non baby daddy? Like a daddy who's child was born an adult?

Why not say that he would become a father?

Show some respect for other men.

Culture wars start with language and manner of speaking.

Baby daddy is a function, while father is a role.

Now you tell me, realistically, what is Mick here.

Ok, I admit I didn't read carefylly enough and was wrong

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:04 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

All the money and material crap in the world doesn't replace your old man. A million bonding moments you will NEVER have; moments you see ALL THE TIME with other fathers and their children (including adult children) is forever lost.

Sure, but this is life. We all pass away some day, as will our memories or lacks thereof. And we must all ourselves become the old man too.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:58 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:18 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I think this is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

Everyone only gets one father.

This kids father will likely be dead before he/she graduates high school and he knows it or should know it.

Personally, I think if you are going to have a kid, you should at least be confident you are going to be around to raise and guide it until 25-30.

Selfish isn't a negative word, it's how we all automatically live our day-to-day lives.

I don't accept the premise that a father needs to raise and guide a kid for extended periods of time. 25-30 is absurd. By the time a kid reaches 16 he should be a fully functional man who is capable of guiding his self. Any 16yo can pick up a biography of a great man and learn, and many more should be doing so instead of relying on daddy who by basic statistics is most likely a nobody.

This kid will, as another poster mentioned, carry the name of Jagger, and so will automatically be buried in cash and pussy. That's not a bad consolation prize.

16 is too early to expect someone to be fully functional in dealing with all of life's problems. They are still dependents generally. They can't own a house or even go into the military at 16.

To be clear: I'm not advocating someone be babied until they are 25-30. But young adulthood can be brutal for young men and there is nothing wrong with having someone around to provide some guidance from time to time; especially when dealing with various adult struggles for the first time.

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:04 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

All the money and material crap in the world doesn't replace your old man. A million bonding moments you will NEVER have; moments you see ALL THE TIME with other fathers and their children (including adult children) is forever lost.

Sure, but this is life. We all pass away some day, as will our memories or lacks thereof. And we must all ourselves become the old man too.

Sure, shit happens. But Jagger is 73. The odds of him even making it to 85 are pretty low given his known lifestyle history. This kid has a pretty good chance of losing his father around the the early teens; which I KNOW is a pretty shitty time period to be losing a father. To knowingly set a kid up for this, just seems really selfish to me.

I suppose if you haven't been on the other end of this, it's very hard to understand the ramifications at a visceral level. I assure you, they are not pleasant.

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:19 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

16 is too early to expect someone to be fully functional in dealing with all of life's problems They are still dependents generally. They can't own a house or even go into the military at 16.

Sure but I think this is resulting from defects in Western society, not due to any biological rule. As a simple example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_...cient_Rome
Why are children spending much of the lives in a school learning about stuff that doesn't help them and which they don't give a shit about? They also spend their whole lives being told what to do, and having stuff done for them, instead of being encouraged to learn how to do things themselves. Dependency is taught. We could do much better for young men, and indeed when I am older I wholly intend to be involved in moving the education of young men towards this.

I don't know how many more years the Mick will live, he can be alive long enough to see that kid graduate high school.

Good for him, maybe this kid will inherit some of his musical genes.

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:32 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

I don't know how many more years the Mick will live

He might even see him graduate from junior college.

Bit of a double-edged sword.

On one hand, tip of the hat to Jaggers ability to sire yet another kid at his age.
On the other... Well, I have to concur with The Black Knight.

I don't want to be a dick, hater or whatever...but...did you see the Instagram of his girl?


He (Mick) is not in a single picture!! Fuck, her dog is in like 3 pictures, while Mick is nowhere to be found.


Huge red fag recognized.


And she is "only" 29. Mick, what the fuck man? You can get much better than her. God knows how much bones she buried... .


Game not recognized. Goldigger game - recognized.

Quote: (07-15-2016 04:06 AM)Irenicus Wrote:  

...did you see the Instagram of his girl?


He (Mick) is not in a single picture!! Fuck, her dog is in like 3 pictures, while Mick is nowhere to be found.

Some of these mere-mortal-with-megastar relationships are bound to certain expectations regarding privacy, and just all around decency. I'm sure Mickey has that covered.

Besides, he's so much older that she would be trolled as goldigga, and he would be trolled as crypt-keeper cradle robber. This way she doesn't have to face any of that, while still giving off the smart, independent class vibe. This way is so much better for all involved.

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:30 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:19 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

16 is too early to expect someone to be fully functional in dealing with all of life's problems They are still dependents generally. They can't own a house or even go into the military at 16.

Sure but I think this is resulting from defects in Western society, not due to any biological rule. As a simple example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_...cient_Rome
Why are children spending much of the lives in a school learning about stuff that doesn't help them and which they don't give a shit about? They also spend their whole lives being told what to do, and having stuff done for them, instead of being encouraged to learn how to do things themselves. Dependency is taught. We could do much better for young men, and indeed when I am older I wholly intend to be involved in moving the education of young men towards this.

I know where you are coming from and I'm very sympathetic to what you're getting at. In fact, I sort of expected you to go down this route. Haha.

I suppose if you cut out all the bullshit, you could get a 16 old up to snuff on all the basics for living and surviving independently. There is definitely WAY too many people overly dependent on their parents at all ages these days. I find it pathetic.

Believe me, I struggled a lot with connecting with people when I was younger precisely because of what you are referring to: people who are TOO dependent on their parents and can't function or think on their own. The current culture and education systems discourages independent thought and even worse, they don't allow for struggle and for people to fail. No one can suffer; no one can feel bad. But that's the only way to grow-up to be a resilient adult and deal with real world struggles.

But I believe there needs to be a balance. Most people were on the overly protective end and acted like helicopter parents back in my day; never letting their kids fail at all. I was on the other end; dealing with overwhelming problems when I should have had some mentorship/protection to make sure I didn't go off the edge of the cliff. I came dangerously close many times and paid a severe penalty the occasions when I did.

The former leads to adults who can't handle adversity.

The latter leads to people who can handle adversity but I noticed throughout the years that it often breaks a lot people forever as well. Everyone has a breaking point. It's not a universal thing across each person and some people never recover from when they went off the cliff.

Again, I believe there needs be a balance. Push kids to their limits, let them fail, but be there to protect them from going off the deep end. As the years go on, you peel back the oversight until the child has the basic foundation to take on the world.

In the current western paradigm with all the distractions, obligations, bad influences, I think it's very difficult to get a kid to the basic foundation level by 16. Not impossible but difficult. I suppose if you have unlimited time, resources, and home school, it can be done with some confidence by 16. But most people have to work, send their kids to public schools, deal with a fucked up culture, and have legal limitations in how far they can push/punish a kid.

So, given the current reality and circumstances for most people: I think its not unreasonable to say it takes until age 25-30 for people to (potentially) really find their footing in life. Thus, this is why ideally I say everyone should have a male role model (a father) until at least 25-30; to shepherd them through all the unfortunate crazy bullshit that exists in the world today. And this is purely from a functional standpoint.

I didn't even touch on the bonding stuff; which is equally important in my opinion but I'll save that for another time.

I want to congratulate any 73-year-old man who can impregnate (with the financial resources to support the baby) an attractive 29-year-old woman! With that said, Mick's parents lived very long lives. According to the poster above, Mick's dad lived to be 93, so Sir Michael Jagger could very well have 20 years with his new child.

From what I hear, Mick lives a very healthy life these days. He sowed his wild oats decades ago and appears to exercise and abstain from drugs and excess drinking. Good for him. The man gave us some of the greatest rock music of all (I am listening to Beggars' Banquet right now), so let's wish him and his newborn all the best.

73/2 + 7 = 43. I guess the half your age plus seven formula doesn't apply to aging rock legends...

Quote: (07-15-2016 03:19 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:58 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:18 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I think this is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

Everyone only gets one father.

This kids father will likely be dead before he/she graduates high school and he knows it or should know it.

Personally, I think if you are going to have a kid, you should at least be confident you are going to be around to raise and guide it until 25-30.

Selfish isn't a negative word, it's how we all automatically live our day-to-day lives.

I don't accept the premise that a father needs to raise and guide a kid for extended periods of time. 25-30 is absurd. By the time a kid reaches 16 he should be a fully functional man who is capable of guiding his self. Any 16yo can pick up a biography of a great man and learn, and many more should be doing so instead of relying on daddy who by basic statistics is most likely a nobody.

This kid will, as another poster mentioned, carry the name of Jagger, and so will automatically be buried in cash and pussy. That's not a bad consolation prize.

16 is too early to expect someone to be fully functional in dealing with all of life's problems. They are still dependents generally. They can't own a house or even go into the military at 16.

To be clear: I'm not advocating someone be babied until they are 25-30. But young adulthood can be brutal for young men and there is nothing wrong with having someone around to provide some guidance from time to time; especially when dealing with various adult struggles for the first time.

Even in your 40s or 50s, the old man will still be an important source for guidance, if you're lucky enough to still have him around.

Smart guy. Anybody calling selfish is probably just jealous their daddy is not a rock star.

Quote: (07-15-2016 02:18 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I think this is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

Everyone only gets one father.

This kids father will likely be dead before he/she graduates high school and he knows it or should know it.

Personally, I think if you are going to have a kid, you should at least be confident you are going to be around to raise and guide it until 25-30.

The kid is going to be royalty whether or not Mick is alive.

Having the biggest rock n roll star ever as your father even if he's not around? Pretty fuckin cool.

Quote: (07-15-2016 06:35 PM)monster Wrote:  

The kid is going to be royalty whether or not Mick is alive.

Having the biggest rock n roll star ever as your father even if he's not around? Pretty fuckin cool.

Exactly. Even if dead, in theory, he will have bigger positive impact on the life of his child than many fathers who share experiences with their children all along.