There's an awful lot of rudeness in this thread. It's rather disappointing, really.
But still, the topic is fascinating. I've had this conversation with quite a few of my friends, and it's interesting to hear it treated so differently by folk on the interweb.
I've never met a female that I've gotten to know well who hasn't agreed to being at least possibly bisexual. I certainly couldn't say for myself that I'm solely hetero or homo sexual. There's no "ick" factor involved, female bodies can be quite lovely, and there's no particular reason for me to say that I couldn't be attracted by one or the other. I think part of the problem is the definition. I have female friends that I love, and male friends that I love. And some folk say that one gender or the other they'd "never" have sex with. I wouldn't. I think that on some level, every person you want to spend time with, you're attracted to. And why should
that be limited to, or against, sexual attraction, after all?
What's the real
difference between platonic and non-platonic friendships? Is there one? If so, why? And I'm not talking about evolutionarily speaking. Because though our development as humans has led us to have sex with folk so we could have children and pro-create, that means next to nothing at this point. Humanity is not so strictly bound by evolutionary rules anymore - the stupid don't die, they work in fast food (only arguably better than death). The ugly don't fail to procreate - they get plastic surgery (unless they're also poor, implying they were also stupid, and unable to get money). The weak don't die either - modern science can change everything. Admittedly that's a weak answer to evolution, but to say "it's right because history made it so" seems small-minded.
And men, if you're saying or thinking "ick, man's bodies, gross", how do you think women feel? Women who were more traditionally raised with barbie doll dresses and glitter glue fall just as easily for a dirty, hairy, man's man as a tomboy does. It has never made any difference to women, men can be studly, muscled, lanky, or portly, and still be handsome to women (or not handsome, as the case may be!). But heterosexual men, who are traditionally raised to enjoy playing in the mud, find men too ugly? I don't buy it. Nor do I believe it's that simple.
That said, I'm not sure if I'm bisexual. I don't know that I would be able to have a stable long term relationship with someone of the same gender. Females are attractive, but I don't know that they would have in their personality the things that I need and am looking for. People tend to be completed by their opposites, by those who think closely enough to think completely differently. And opposites tend
to be found in, well, an opposite gender. Because though you may have similar interests, you will have had fundamentally different experiences because of the differences inherent in your genes, at least in this day and age.
but I think I understand what the OP was trying to say. I'm not convinced there's anything *wrong* with being one sexuality or the other, or both. But, as enlightened folk, isn't it our duty to give a rational look at different perspectives? Especially those which we feel initially so disagreeable towards, for instinctual reasons?