It is definitely possible that bisexuality may just be the way of the future. It ties in with androgyny and open-mindedness and free-spiritedness. When we think about it, the only clear argument anybody ever has against the concept of bisexuality (or for that matter, homosexuality) is that it is 'unnatural'. This is an irrelevant comment because what is natural, these days, on this mutilated globe? To assert such a view as though this fact means anything at all, is to assume the stance that everything besides that which fits perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle is unnatural. It is to assert that diversity & variety is invalid. Yes, a penis fits inside a vagina quite snugly. So what? This is clearly to make the passage for the little spermae shorter so that reproduction may be easier; it is not a sacred symbol for a standard we are supposedly meant to live by. Life is not all about reproduction. If it were, we'd either rarely have sex for leisure, or people would be having babies one after another until they drop dead.
Yes, you might find it unnatural to be attracted to another person of the same sex. But remember, you have been programmed that way since birth. Just as we have been programmed to find snakes 'scary', and programmed to find our genitalia disgusting (in a girl's case anyway). Why should a girl be brought to shame because she owns a vagina? (I'm not going to go all fem-bot now, see the vagina monologues for that).
I have to question how freely thinking devout heterosexuals are1. I, for instance2, have never kissed another girl or had sex with one (save one time as a small child). I find them beautiful & sexual creatures but have never been personally attracted to one. I have only experienced that kind of lust with boys. So many people would say, "you're all talk". Or, "you're a bisexual in theory, but not in practise". But that's like telling a sixteen year old boy who's still a virgin that he is not heterosexual, that he is asexual, or rather, non-sexual, merely because he hasn't had sex yet.
It is curious this habit we have of putting people into three categories: "heterosexual", "bisexual", and "homosexual" (instead of one or two). This is a drastic oversimplification which ignores other dimensions of sexuality and hides the fact that these are groups with fuzzy edges, not neat square boxes. Bisexuality is a state of mind more than anything. For me, it says, i am open. I am accepting. I don't know if I will ever fall in love with a woman but there is no way I will discount the chance, after all it is a person you fall in love with, not their gender. It is not only that however; even if I don't even fall in love with a woman (after all, I sometimes feel like love is a dirty trick nature plays on us to seduce us into reproducing, and in this way falling in love with a woman might seem counterproductive), what's to say I won't be sexually attracted to one some day? Love does not equal sex does not equal any measure of 'naturalness' does not equal sexual categorisation.
It is also curious as to why it seems more natural for girls to be bi and not boys.. well let's consider some of the elements involved. First we have the sociological issues, such as the fact that it is ingrained that men and women alike admire the female body, much more so then the male body. Then there is also the fact that our earliest memories are suckling at our mother's breasts, so there is that kind of intimacy from a young age.
Also, traditional taoists (who call the act of two women having sex "rubbing mirrors") say it is okay for women to have sex because they are yin, and therefore two passive forces resonate together. However it is unnatural for men to have sex as they are yang, and aggressive. Two aggressive forces cause conflict.
Furthermore, in taoism, the well-known yin yang symbol depicts the yang as white, the yin as black, but did you note that one spot of the opposing color is found on each side? Does this suggest some trace of bisexuality, or perhaps bigendering or androgyny?
1Questioning how free thinking heterosexuals are does not imply that no heteros have it all thought it. It also does not imply that all bisexuals reflect upon their sexuality (and other things) intelligently.
2I said '
for instance', but I was not asserting the ultimate influence of my personal experience on reality. I am simply not that narrow-minded.