Just one thing makes Mick, the desiccated Shar Pei, attractive writes LIZ JONES 

• e-mail

Rolling Stones frontman Sir Mick Jagger has become a father again at the age of 73

I don’t meet many women who are like me: barren and proud of that fact, with no maternal instincts at all. But one that I count as a friend, my favourite supermodel of them all, is Marie Helvin.

We were talking about her new book, and she told me how she had just been a guest on ITV’s This Morning, where she had been subjected to a sexist, barrenist (is that a real word? It should be) assault.

The presenter said to her: ‘Eric Clapton, Peter Gabriel, Jack Nicholson, Tom Selleck, David Bailey, gosh you’ve been through a lot of men… is that the reason you’ve never had kids?’

And Marie blurted out: ‘No, I just can’t stand children!’

She can’t stand mums, either, even if they are 6ft supers called Jerry Hall, Marie’s former BFF, who married Mick Jagger and had four kids with him. The two women stopped talking because, Marie told me: ‘I just had nothing in common with her and, you know, I was at the time of my life when I wanted to go out and have fun. I didn’t want to talk about breasts leaking’.

Nobody wants to talk about breasts leaking. The best line in Sex And The City was the following: Charlotte announces that she and Harry are trying to have a baby, and Samantha responds, deadpan: ‘Why?’ Why, indeed.

But I can sort of understand why women want a baby with a rich, charismatic, famous man. You want to hang on to a little bit of him, something that lasts, like a really expensive Swiss watch.

When he moves on to a younger model, literally, he is still tied to you, on an umbilical cord of maintenance payments.

You believe, too, that your children will be really good looking, and talented, and thus able to support you in later life if he ever brings up the pre-nup, or claims that you were never legally married in the first place. You will have proof you actually had sex with him when you come to pen your memoirs.

The mother of Mick Jagger's child is Melanie Hamrick, a ballet dancer aged 29

But why, exactly, men – especially old, rich men – want to have millions of children is beyond me.

It was announced last week that Mick Jagger, at the grand old age of 73, has become a father for the eighth time. The mother is Melanie Hamrick, a ballet dancer (men are obsessed with dating ballet dancers; it’s the body, and the fact they’re not too cerebral) aged 29. That makes her 17 years younger than Mick’s eldest daughter.

Now, why would a 29-year-old want to have sex with a man in his 70s? I imagine Mick resembles Gollum when he takes off his clothes.

He must dye his hair, too, surely?

I suspect Richard Hammond does this, too; short men always overcompensate.

Who could possibly have sex with a man who stands in front of the bathroom mirror with a packet of Grecian 2000, complaining he can’t lift his arms to do it properly because his arthritis is giving him gip?

Well, I can think of one good reason why somebody might – the money. (If the Jagger clan are anything like mine, they will have all been getting the calculator out last week, figuring out how much their inheritance has plummeted in value because of the new arrival).

I’m always amazed, too, how famous people ricochet into the next relationship, so soon after the last one. Why is this? I went for 32 years without even a sniff of sex, and yet a man who resembles a desiccated Shar Pei has to beat off bendy ballerinas with his Zimmer frame.

His future child will only get to know his or her dad via YouTube and downloads, I suppose. What kind of childhood is that?

Yeah, OK, the Stones were brilliant. And, really, what’s one more Jagger in the scheme of things?

Ashley Graham has graced the cover of Vogue

But if Jumpin’ Jack Flash thinks siring a child at his age helps prove his potency, he’s mistaken. It just shows that there’s no fool like an old fool.

PS. Plus-SIZE (ie, normal, not stick insect) model Ashley Graham graces the new cover of British Vogue. 

But it’s a missed opportunity. 

Just as the fashion bible only deigned to put Adele’s face on the cover, it’s kept Ashley’s incredible curves – pictured right – covered up. 

Only inside do we see some full-figure shots. I wish we had seen her in all her glory on the cover… 

But it’s a missed opportunity. 

Just as the fashion bible only deigned to put Adele’s face on the cover, it’s kept Ashley’s incredible curves – pictured right – covered up. 

Only inside do we see some full-figure shots. I wish we had seen her in all her glory on the cover…