New Book Has Details On Mick Jagger’s Alleged Affair With David Bowie

In his new unauthorized biography, Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger, muckracker Christopher Andersen rehashes the old gay rumors about Mick and David Bowie, albeit with some new details.

The New York Daily News has an excerpt:

Mick Jagger and David Bowie fascinated each other, both as stars and as men. Jagger was just four years older than Bowie, and yet Bowie was now being hailed as the hot new star. Ziggy, in spandex and gold body paint, hugged Mick when Jagger paid him a backstage visit in the spring of 1973. When Bowie and his companion Scott were invited to a Stones concert a few months later, Mick not only paid for the couple’s hotel room but sent along roses and champagne with a note signed “Love, Mick.”

Where Jagger was still coy about his own sexual preferences, Bowie made no effort to conceal the fact that both he and his wife were bisexual and often shared partners. “Mick looked at David and wondered if maybe this was the wave of the future,” said Leee Black Childers, former executive vice president of MainMan, the management firm that handled Bowie. “Mick was very conscious of doing whatever it takes to stay hot; David was the hottest thing around at the time.”

“It was the glitter era, and everybody wanted to be part of the bisexual revolution,” explained singer Chuckie Starr, who ran into Mick at a party in Beverly Hills the week that “Angie” hit number one. “Mick was no different. He was wearing rhinestones, blue eye shadow, and platform shoes.”

Why the offstage getup? Starr asked.

“Because,” Mick answered, “I have a lot of respect for David Bowie.”

Keith Richards, for one, was mystified by his friend’s apparent obsession with Bowie.

“The fact is,” Keith said, “Mick could deliver ten times more than Bowie in just a T-shirt and a pair of jeans. Why would you want to be anything else if you’re Mick Jagger?”

Angie Bowie also looked askance at the blossoming relationship between Mick and David, but for very different reasons. She thought her husband had nothing to gain from cozying up to Jagger, and that such a friendship might even cost him credibility with his hip, young fan base.

So were Jagger and Bowie legit lovers or just playing up to the ambisexual glamor of the day, as so many starlets continue to do today?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #angelabowie #bisexuality #davidbowie stories and more


  • dvlaries

    A mental image of Lennon with Epstein is a lot easier on the psyche.

  • Max the Communist

    Marianne Faithful’s autobiography, Faithful, records a pillow talk confession from Mick that he would like to suck Keith Richards’ balls. So, did Bowie and Jagger get it on? I’d bet the ranch.

  • jaded

    Even if they did, it’s almost 40 years ago. Does it even matter now? David Bowie has been married to Iman for a long time. Mick Jagger has had relationships with hundreds of women. If they were bisexual, then they apparently have more of a preference for women. I’m not saying that it’s good or bad. What I’m saying is, at that time bisexuality was trendy and even if it did happen, I don’t think it was because of sexual preference or they would have been with more men, wouldn’t they?

  • Maria

    Jaded-You clearly know nothing about bisexuality.

  • Paul

    Oh no… Not another bisexual piece…not right now…I can just see te shitstorm of over sensitive comments ccoming…

  • Ramon H.

    Paul who cares? There are a lot of biphobic people on this site and bigots who claim that they’re all for LGBT equality and rights but in reality since they’re biphobic they’re better off joining the Westboro Baptist church, or supporting Santorum or the Bachmanns.

    No it’s not being overly sensitive to call out bigoted people who are biphobic.

    Biphobia is just as bad if not worse than homophobia is especially when it comes from gays and lesbians who should know better than to be bigoted hypocrites.

  • Paul

    @Ramon H.: And here go… My Point made…I’m making a joke… Something that has been*sorely* missing these days…what with the crazies like Aquarelle and UsualPlayer, and the absolute rage about biphobia, and nothing but mean comments and cynicism (the recent J-Lo article, where the hate started about what…2 comments in?). I’m thisclose to leaving Queerty because I’m so fucking sick and tired of all the hate going on in here (and yes, I realize I’m opening myself up to someone saying another mean or cyncial remark to me saying something along the lines of “Good…leave”).

  • Ramon H.

    Paul you are right there’s a lot of hate on this site and it comes from fellow LGBT people. I’ve seen Latino gay men say horrible rac_ist things against other Latino LGBT people, and Latino gay men who are rac_ist things against white people. It’s messed up.

  • Larry

    this constant biophobic shit is nuts…just consider yourself lucky that everyone on the planet is someone you want to fuck and shut up

  • Triple S

    I agree, so many people seem to WANT to find some kind of non-existent biphobia in anything they read. Um, hello? Not everyone cares as much as you do about bisexuals.
    You hear a lot more about GAY suicides, and Lesbian problems than Bisexual ones, don’t you? And no, it’s not because people just refuse to publish it. You don’t find it ANYWHERE, and unless there’s some enormous conspiracy to marginalise bisexuals (which would make no sense whatsoever), they just need to get over themselves.

    It’s like people bitching and moaning about how racist white people are to black people. It almost never happens now, and when it does, it’s resolved within the same conversation.

    Bloody attention whores I say.

  • LGBT?

    It’s stupid page 6 crap from decades ago. Who cares? The bigger thing is that time and again the comments on Queerty, etc. prove that we aren’t this big happy family and that, in fact, LGBT is like a bunch of strangers being crammed together on the same elevator. We might get along; we mightn’t stand one another. We’re not all going to the same floor even. I think our differences far too often outweigh our sameness.

  • peter

    keef is (as usual) right: the panssexual appeal of his Mickness in the free-love sixties and early seventies exceeded that of bowie at his most glittery (ironically a look that attracted more women than men). of course there was that line from “Hair” “I’m not gay cut I wouldn’t through Mick Jagger out of bed!”

    there was a ‘fashionable bisexuality’ in the early-mid seventies: “we’re all bisexual” is a line a somewhat predatory older gay man uses to try to persuade a younger straight man to give it a try in the musical “follies”. admitting to bisexual was prerequisite to being hip.

    did something happen? i don’t think so. rather, i think they were having fun keeping people guessing. of course the association with Jagger was crucial in transforming ziggy from a space oddity into an international star.

    i think the closest jagger got to bowie’s bed was screwing angela.

  • Brandon

    Maybe David and Angie had a MMF 3 way with Mick?

  • the other Greg

    @Brandon: Hmmm… makes sense, they probably tried it.

  • jaded


    I’m bisexual. Try again.

  • Matt

    If you’re bisexual jaded then you should know that when someone’s bisexual they’re always going to be bisexual, just like how if someone’s gay/lesbian or hetero their sexuality isn’t going to change.

    Also just because a man is bisexual that doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily more into men as you want to claim.

    I have bisexual male friends and some are 50/50, some are more into men, and some are more into women.

  • Maria

    Jaded-Just because you’re that doesn’t mean that you understand the various many ways people can be bisexual. It’s like Matt wrote above just because a man is bisexual it doesn’t mean that he’s more into women, more into men, or that he’s automatically going to be 50/50 or close to it.

    I’m bisexual and when I was younger I was not sexually attracted to the male gender at all and sexual attraction towards the opposite gender did not start until puberty for me. I’ve had periods where I may prefer one gender over the other but I’m still bisexual and always sexually attracted to both genders.

  • Isadora

    Il n’y avait rien de plus terriblement beau et d’aussi merveilleusement sexy que Mick et Bowie…et j’espère bien mon dieu qu’il en ont profité autant qu’ils l’ont pu, qu’ils se sont mélangés dans un tourbillon d’étoiles aveuglantes …et j’espère qu’aujourd’hui ce souvenir les trouble encore, qu’ils s’enflamment quand il y pensent et sourient avec beaucoup de mélancolie en se remémorant ces moments enivrants….Love affair between BOWIE and Jagger…oh! thousand million times Yesssssssssssssssssss…Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss !!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ScaryRussianHeather

    Meh. Who cares about recreational sex? No different than Gaga’s claim and all the millions of dalliances that have gone on for forever. ESPECIALLY back in the day pre-plague.

    @9 Larry “this constant biophobic shit is nuts…just consider yourself lucky that everyone on the planet is someone you want to fuck and shut up”

    LOL right?

  • Geri

    Mick Jagger was rocking the androgynous bisexual look – lipstick, eyeliner, really long hair, girly clothes – in 1968 in the “LGBT related” movie “Performance”.

    Not sure he would even have heard of Bowie before Bowie had his first hit with Space Oddity in 1969. Bowie didn’t come out publicly as bisexual until 1972.

    Mind you, Little Richard was rocking the androgynous bisexual look way back in the 1950s – only back then most of the kids were so innocent they had no idea what a “bisexual” was. Even Little Richard didn’t start it. He based his image on a bisexual Jump Blues singer called Billy Wright who started out in 1949. Billy Wright never made any impression on mainstream white society though like Little Richard obviously did.

    I have heard rumours that the really bisexual Rolling Stone was Brian Jones. But I’ve no idea if there’s any truth to those rumours.

Comments are closed.