Bisexuals, Unicorns and Nice Tories: Fact of Fiction?

Apparently lots is said about bisexuals and bisexuality from a straight perspective, but not that much from a gay one.  Therefore in the interests of throwing out uninformed perspectives and generalisations into the blogosphere, here goes with some of mine!

Kinsey Scale

The best place I think we can start with a discussion on sexuality is the Kinsey Scale.  Yes, it's ancient (1948), yes I'm sure you've heard of it, yes it's been refined subsequently to include biological sex, gender identity, asexuality and the fact that sexual identity may change throughout a lifetime.  Its strength though is that it's very easily understood.  Here it is: the idea is we all fall somewhere between the two poles of 0 for complete heterosexuality and the 6 of complete homosexuality.

Kinsey shocked conservative post-War America by his findings that 11.6% of men were 3 (perfectly bisexual) from the age of 20 to 35.  He also found that 10% of men in the 16 to 55 age range were 5 or 6 (pretty much completely gay) for at least 3 years.  The figures for women were slightly lower, but still significant.  These numbers have been the subject of lots of debate since then: the fact is no one really knows what is going on in your own head (and in your bedroom) except you, and it is notoriously difficult to get honest straightforward answers on this subject.

Societal Pressures

The Kinsey scale has always seemed quite logical and reasonable to me.  One refinement I'd add is that societal pressures add hugely to whether you will react freely to where you are on the scale.  It's surely pretty obvious that if you are in ancient Greece and some fine semi-naked youth happens to stroll through your back garden of an afternoon, even if a "1" you'd be far more likely to indulge in some neighbourly interaction, than if you live in a society where same sex acts are strictly taboo.  Similarly you'd have to be a 5 or even a 6 if you lived in a country like Victorian Britain or one of the 7 countries in the world in 2012 that terrifyingly still have the death penalty for gay sex.

Hullo Comely Greek Youth. Cup of tea?

Even in a liberal European country today you may of course be a 4 or 5, but your personal upbringing and in particular teachings based on faith will have an effect on the actual expression of your feelings.  Self-loathing religious gays and married "ex-gays" aren't unfortunately as rare as, say, unicorns.

Polarising Attitudes to Sexuality

So far, straightforward?   Now some thoughts on attitudes to bisexuality.  If we're essentially all somewhere on the scale between 0 and 6, we do live in a society where having sex of any consenting adult of our choice is not punishable by law, and Kinsey's numerical findings are even half way accurate, why is bisexuality relatively so little spoken about? Why do some people (particularly within the gay world) actually doubt it exists?

A big factor in this has to be that fact that that human beings seem desperately attracted to polarisation and seeing things in black and white.  Both straight and gay worlds occur to me as being incredibly binary: you either like the opposite sex or you like the same sex.  Our wider (overwhelmingly straight) society has even come to accept homosexuality from a social and legal perspective as long as you fit neatly into one of the two boxes*.

I went through such a lot of personal soul-searching and absurd angst in admitting to myself I was attracted to men, that once I was over this massive hurdle I fell squarely into the "gay camp" and haven't really ever questioned this since.  If I'm asked where I fit on the scale I'd say I'm a 5.8 or a 5.9: the extent of my sexual experience with women is twice half-heartedly snogging girls in my early 20s.  In gay terms that makes me a "Platinum Gay" apparently.

The Bavarian Balcony. Zounds.

I do wonder though.  What if society did not have this polarising characteristic: would I actually view where I am on the scale differently?  When I look at an image like this, I would be lying if I didn't say I find her incredibly attractive.  Yes, my interest in things Blond(e), Bier and Bavarian related may be a factor in this, but wow.  She is gorgeous... mesmerically so.  Is there space for me as a gay man to fancy a woman like this?  I know plenty of gays who would come out with quite misogynist comments when faced with the idea.  Frankly I'd be a bit scared as I'm much more familiar with "what to do" with men in bed, but I'm pretty sure I could actually get over that with her.  I'm just so clear in my head that I'm gay I don't really think about such things.

Having reflected on this I do think we are all (gay and straight) drawn so strongly to the ends of the scale by society that anything in between is really very challenging to us.  If a straight man finds another man sexually attractive, is his power of denial sufficiently strong that he won't even consciously register the thought?  How many straight women reading this actually find her sexually attractive and might react on this if we didn't label ourselves so clearly into one of the two camps?  There is a lot more to the concept of sexual attraction than simply choosing a number, when society's pressures may be putting a lot more pressure on us than we even possibly realise.

Misconceptions about Bisexuality

Extending this thought it's fair to say that bisexuality seems to make quite people a bit uneasy.  The binary way we look at ourselves means that the wide middle spectrum is marginalised and ignored.  A lack of acceptance and discussion leads to all sorts of misconceptions.

Fuck Yeah Bisexual Dolphin: Superb!

 For gays one of the powerful misconceptions is that it is a "passing phase" and therefore doesn't really exist.  When I "came out" I did something I think a lot of young gay people did: I lied.  I told my friends that I was bisexual.  It somehow seemed less shocking and perhaps more acceptable to say that I *did* fancy women, but also "I liked guys".  The power of self-denial is such I may even have believed it myself for a short time.  After some amount of time the theoretical "bisexuality" dropped away and I related to myself openly as gay.  The above type of thing really can't help if gay people project their own experiences of having lied about their feelings onto bisexuals who are genuinely attracted to both sexes.  Straight friends who have heard the lie from a gay friend are also likely to take on board the idea bisexuality is either a passing phase or doesn't properly exist.  It clearly does exist and I know some very "real life" bisexuals.

There seem to be people convinced by the idea that if a bisexual is attracted (physically and emotionally) to both sexes they must want or need somehow to alternate between the two in relationships and can not be happy or fulfilled just being with one.  I have never really understood why this should be the case.  You might be a man who finds blonde women extremely attractive and end up in a relationship with a brunette.  Does this mean you cannot be satisfied sexually because you constantly crave blonde women?  Yes you might still fancy them, but that really does not mean you have to go out and bed them on the side to be happy.  You make a choice, you are attracted to the person sufficiently to want to be with them, and you just get on with that.  Think this through.  If a bisexual woman meets a man and has even a life-long relationship with him, why does that make her any less bisexual and why will it affect her happiness?  She will still continue to find women attractive, but assuming the couple has agreed on a monogamous relationship and it satisfies them emotionally and sexually there is no reason she will be unhappy or unfulfilled more or less than any other relationship. 

Some look for the next thing to come along: plenty don't

Following on from this you have the promiscuity argument.  Why on earth bisexuals should inherently be any more or less promiscuous than people elsewhere on the scale is beyond me.   You might say "well there's more choice".  Yes they may fancy more people because there are two genders to take into account, but so what?  I see plenty of men on a trip to Norwich I fancy, it doesn't mean they will sleep with me as almost all of them will identify as heterosexual.  It should be straight people who are the most promiscuous by rights as there are more straight people "in the pool" who would be available for sex.  The meeting, dating, and being together process for bisexuals has to be just the same as for any other group - unless society's unease about someone's bisexual identity comes in and it actually makes it more difficult.

The last thing to mention is that sexual attraction and emotional attraction are clearly intricately linked, but there is a big difference.  People are capable of engaging in sexual activity with someone of whatever sex, but the key reason I see myself as being gay is that I am emotionally/ romantically attracted to men.  It is however of course perfectly possible that anyone anywhere on the scale will meet and fall in love with someone of a gender opposite to those they have dated before and form a lasting bond.  The physical attraction is a large part of it: the emotional attraction is what creates unions.

Unicorns and Nice Tories

I'm not sure if anything above has actually said anything even vaguely original or perceptive, but I have quite enjoyed writing it.  I'd better deal briefly with the other subjects of the blog post.  Well, unicorns exist.  Of course they do: the Bible mentions them 9 times in 5 different books.

A perfectly reasonable explanation

As Dr Elizabeth Mitchell says here, to think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, "which is true in every detail".  The reference in her view could in fact be a creature with one horn, such as a rhino (a slender one, who has been on a treadmill as above?), or even with two horns (i.e somewhat puzzlingly in fact a "duocorn").  This latter definition of course handily covers anything from a giraffe to a walrus.

It would seem however that Noah forgot the unicorns who were off playing in a field when he called the animals onto the Arc (remember, this all has to be taken literally).  I find this quite upsetting and a little bit unreasonable of both him and the guy behind the whole "flooding the entire world to teach them a lesson" plan.

Now, Nice Tories?  Does the Bible mention them?  Of course not.  Don't be silly: they don't exist and you shouldn't believe in fairy tales.  Proof of the existence of 2 out of 3 things isn't bad though ;-)








* (and unless you're expecting marriage equality and talking to a traditionalist Christian of course).

Bookworm child

"Can we read a storybook after this?"
"Sure. Do you want me to read it?"
"No, I will read it to you!"

Memory

Thank you to those of you who commented on the previous post. I've fully absorbed the overall message that more photos is a good thing, and I'll try to do my best to satisfy your image cravings. I'm keeping this post short, though, and presenting a dramatic color juxtaposition I encountered last Friday night, which turned out to be one of those most enjoyable long, long evenings that make you very glad to live in such an alive and bursting little city.

I'm sharing this ubiquitous image of our famous Hallgrímskirkja (which I've decided is our own personal sacred pyramid) because it is so very blue, and because soon enough we won't even have this azure twilight to swim in; as the sun rises and rises in the sky and the leaves fill out on the trees, the street lamps will stay unlit and we'll, for a few summer months, forget what evening, and especially night, look like. And after the long slow, cold winter we've had, that will be very welcomed for sure.

The photo below was chosen for, of course, its absolute rouge and also as a permanent reminder of this night in particular, partially soundtracked by our own neo-psychedelic indie wonder, Singapore Sling. It was, just honestly, a Friday the 13th to remember forever. If you were there, you'll know what I mean ~°~

Exotic food @ Puchong Lim restaurant

TF and his family decided to go a Puchong Lim restaurant for lunch last Sunday. I tagged along. Unfortunately, I wasnt told where we were going, what we were eating and it was all because they spoke in hakka....... (they know i have no knowledge of hakka).

We arrived at this restaurant - no aircond, open air with a cheaply built rooftop, stray dogs around, a kitchen visible to the diners....

The food they ordered arrived and it was three claypot bowls of meat covered in dark sauce...... I asked TF what is it and he says, "different parts of the pig." Fyi, i do not even eat the pig's leg and here he is telling me its pork when all i see is plenty of bones in the claypot and skin... All covered in dark sauce. Taste wise was ok, but i couldnt bring myself to eat something when i dont know which part of the animal i am eating. So, i stuffed myself with rice and take teeny bits of meat.

TF also ordered a bowl of soup which he then told me it was 'shredded chicken' soup......

At the end of the meal, all was revealed that in the claypot, it was monkey meat, waterfish turtle and another animal which lives in the tree. The bowl of soup was snake!!!

Aih........ Terrifyingly disgusting to know people enjoy eating those animals. The restaurant has been there for more than 25 years and its always packed with 'evil' customers.

Its not even cheap to eat there. Bla blah blahhhh vomit!

FRIM

I chaperoned for a field trip with a bunch of 6 year olds to FRIM. If it were a normal malaysian pre-school, I doubt very much that parents would allow their kids to go for this sort of school trips. But, this bunch of ISKL pre-schoolers had to brave through the FRIM jungle and hiked the slippery slopes while watching out as to not trip on roots etc. Mosquitos were a real nuisance. Once I came out of the car, I had ten mosquito bites almost immediately. I thought the mosquitoes would have gone for the younger bloods surrrounding me, but I was the first to 'donate' blood. Such a horrible feeling to be bitten. I applied so much mopiko and used so many mosquito patches and mosquito repellent.

I must recommend mosquito patches to everyone. Thosw patches really work wonders. Of course, putting more
Patch was better. I 'forgot' to put on my bum, so i even had a mosquito bite on my bum. Wearing long pants also did not deter those hungry mosquitos from attacking me...... Now you know why i detest hiking trips and i would usually say no to camping/ jungle trips.

Once in the jungle, the poor little kids were also victims of the mosquitos. I felt real pity for the kids who had to stop halfway through just to scratch.

Aside from the mosquitos, the weather was really good for hiking. It was my first trip to FRIM so it was interesting to know about the 50 something year old trees in the forest reserve. We had a tour guide. But he was talking about silica and kulim tree and other things which obviously didnt catch the attention of 6 year olds. We also saw a huge fish...... I forgot the name.

After snack time, it was time to play at the waterfalls. FRIM is the closest place to KL where you will find a waterfall i guess.

Kids are adorable but taking care of too many is a handful.

Who would choose to be gay?

It's odd that in 51 blog posts to date, actually hardly any I have written actually relate to being gay - until recently.  I did write something on "Coming Out" which I hope may have helped a few people along the way and did have some kind feedback on it - but most other blogs have been on all manner of other things.

Anyone's sexuality is an inherently big part of their make up, but it's something you think about intensely as a teenager and then most people just come to accept where they are and who they are.  I certainly have since being there and have just got on with my life and all the various great, challenging and mundane things that are thrown up in the course of the years.

Sexuality in Focus

Then recently up pops the polarising rhetoric of the anti-equality lobby on the subject of same-sex marriage.  For the first time in years, perhaps decades, I'm faced with a group of people on Twitter expressing a whole range of delightful views such as this:

Homosexuality is an "intrinsic disorder" according to the above person's (Roman Catholic) faith and this is passed off not as belief, but as fact. She "knows" this to be the case.  Allegedly she's a liberal Catholic who is not at all homophobic, this comment is misconstrued by non-believers, and everyone is disordered so it's okay to say it.

Interestingly this link went to a blog that only contained one reason why same-sex would allegedly harm children, but let's not let facts get in the way.  From there one could at least access more homophobic drivel if one really wanted to.

And then we have this type of thing, which goes beyond merely offensive and into the realms of utter brain dead territory.  Yes, we all know that a same-sex couple is equal to a romantic and sexual relationship with an animal, or incest, thanks for this.

So There Are Twats Around

Yes there are.  What of it?  Of course I would not in my ordinary life be exposed to what I think are this range of ignorant and hateful views.  Twitter has many strengths but it also makes you realise there are a whole load of people out there you would rather not have in your consciousness.  Reading some of the timelines of such individuals makes you want to reach for the mind-bleach.  I just don't surround myself with people like this from day to day.

It is easy to dismiss them or mock them.  I do worry, however, what message they are sending out to (specifically young) people struggling with their sexualities, comparing their sexual make-up with wanting to screw an animal.  All the time they maintain they are not bigoted, they are not homophobic and they are in fact just upholding loving Christian values.  There are masses of Christians in this country, including Catholics, who would find their statements abhorrent, and once again it's dangerous but easy to see them as representative.  They are not.

Then I came across this blog.  Do please click on it and read it.  It's by the Chief Features editor of the Catholic Herald, Milo Yiannopolous, a gay 20-something man with over 10,000 followers on Twitter. The blog is full of self-loathing, a depiction of the gay world as "repugnant", "alienating", "self-destructing", "degrading" and contains the breathtaking line "it's wrong to expose an innocent child to the possibility of gay influence".  It compares having a gay child to wishing it were disabled.

You cannot but feel complete pity for Milo until you see his unnecessary dragging of Chris Bryant MP's picture from Grindr into matters, and his comment about "where would fat girls be without gay men" at the end. 

Milo contradicts himself in this and another blog about whether homosexuality is a choice or not; in one he says it is, in the other he says no-one would choose it.  I can only talk of my own experience and belief here, but I know that homosexuality for me is as natural as being right or left handed.  Whatever the societal pressures that make us more or less likely to act upon it (if you face the death-penalty, you're more likely to lead a life of misery denying yourself in a straight relationship etc) - it is simply how you are.

The Flip Side: this is Important

However, all of this "debate" in the context of the same-sex marriage debate has made me acutely aware that I am gay, and for some people this is a key defining element of a person's identity - to the extent that they would seek to deny me civic rights on the basis of it.  I also thought about the question, would I, at 40 years old, having been through my life to date, actually choose to be gay if I had had the choice?  The answer is a resounding yes.

Going through the process of realising I was "different" to our heteronormative world caused me to reflect, challenge myself, gain self-confidence and grow as a person.  This was huge to me: I don't believe life is about just material comfort or success: it is for me a process of learning, of growing, of developing.  Being a gay teen in the 80s in a suburban bungalow certainly gave me this opportunity.  It gives you a very personal understanding of what it means not to be in a majority group, which (one would hope) leads to greater tolerance and understanding of others.  I think it did me in any case.

I have been able to create a life for myself without the parametres of the expectation I would marry and have children.  Of course straight people can do this too, but they are often looked at with some amount of bewilderment and/or condescension by their peers if they hit 40 and have not reproduced.  As a gay man I have far more freedom and can much more do what I like with my life: I left a career in the City because I felt like it, moved to the countryside on pretty much a whim, have the freedom to travel and do much more as I please.  I've lived in 11 countries and travelled to 63.  I live for travel.  I have created a wonderful set of living circumstances and can suit myself.  I don't have a partner to support, kids at school, or a whole set of other responsibilities.  If I decided I really wanted to move to Munich next month, I could arrange it.  I take young Americans on educational tours of Europe for fun: how could I possibly be doing this if I had a family?  It is such a valuable job that literally can change young people's lives and I adore it.  I'd always wanted to be a teacher and this gives a way of expressing this.

[I should not that of course I could equally have decided to have kids: many gay people do, but I was simply freed from the automatic expectation that I would do so, and if I did not, there was something "wrong" with me.]

Am I selfish?  Yes, we are selfish creatures to a major extent.  My left of centre views on social justice and opportunity are to a large extent based on selfishness: I think that I benefit very much from living in a society where people are educated, cared for and valued, both in direct and indirect ways.  I'd also argue having children can be an incredibly selfish act: but even if it is, so what?  If it makes you happy and gives you a sense of worth, great, do it.  Just don't think that if people don't they're any less happy than you are by definition.

Have I experienced discrimination or bullying for being gay?  In a word, no.  I may be lucky (there are still plenty of instances of homophobic aggression, abuse and attacks in this country today) - but having some idiot shouting something once to me from afar in Surrey Quays in 1997 is the only example I can think of.  A partner at my law firm also said something behind my back once about queers, I went and saw him, we discussed it, he apologised and that was that.  I've had far more sneeriness about being half-German or vegetarian than being gay, and that I can very easily laugh off.

I do not see myself in Milo's description of the "gay world".  There is no denying that are elements of urban gay life that centre on drug taking and self-destructive behaviour.  I lived in Central London for six years and my entire exposure to drugs would actually make you giggle.  On the other hand I know of lots of (straight) lawyers who can't live without their regular hit of Colombian Marching Powder.  Sure, I went out, got drunk, had a lot of great nights out - but that was a phase I went through after a five year relationship and I've zero regrets about it.  I now live in rural Suffolk in a beautiful 550 year old cottage and the extent of my day to day social life is watching a Wonder Woman DVD cuddling the dog.  I *love* it.  The "gay world" encompasses as many aspects as the "straight world" does.  There are gay people living up and down the country, some single, many in relationships, who do not in any way fit in with the negative depiction that inhabits his head.

My Beautiful Little Home

Critically, the depiction of gay people leading "sad, lonely" lives is so far from my experience.  My life is full of love.  I have a set of friends whom I consider as family, my real family who adore me, and so much contact with people I sometimes really just love the thought of being on my own in quiet.  Even then, I spend most of my time on Twitter with more people I really like.  Every time I go down to London I actually get a bit stressed trying to fit in all the wonderful people I care about and want to see.  I am single and very happy being so: I go on dates when I fancy it and am lucky enough to still be able to flirt and get the attention of the type of guys I fancy.  Dating can be ace: the excitement, the fun, the expectation.  How many straight people of my age miss this?  I bet quite a few.  If someone significant comes along, wonderful - if he doesn't, wonderful.  Life is what we make it, and I'm certainly not sad and lonely for being a single 40 year old gay man.

Summary

In a strange way I'd therefore like to thank the motley little crew on Twitter who are so intent on discriminating against gay people by seeking to deny them marriage equality based on their faith.  They have made me realise that 20 years after coming out I have created a life I'm incredibly happy with, I'm quite proud of, and that the poisonous description of gay life that Milo has created in his head is a million miles from me.  You can't choose your sexuality, but you can choose your religious beliefs.  My question is actually why on earth anyone would choose this version of his faith if the result is the self-hatred he appears to display.  I wouldn't.

If you are young and gay, celebrate and embrace it.  The world is your oyster.  There are many things in this world worse than being a lesbian or a gay man in Britain in 2012.  It actually has many, many upsides.  Happiness comes from within and there is no reason you can't be absolutely happy, fulfilled and have a wonderful life if you happen to be attracted to people of the same sex.  If I were 14 again and *had* the choice, I would choose this path again.

LOL!!!

These three little letters seem to evoke quite a reaction at times, so I thought I'd explore this a bit with some observations on their use on Twitter and the Internet.

What does it MEAN?

The first thing to note is the meaning of "lol" seemed to be vying between two camps for some time.  It is now most definitely settled as an abbreviation for "laugh out loud".  Its rival, "lots of love" now seems reserved for those who use the Internet and "text speak" less...

I'm sure we've all heard the urban legend of the mother who texts her son to say something along the lines of "Your Grandmother just died, lol Mum".  A quick search reveals about 2,746,728 people trying to pass this off as original and actually having happened to them.  It smacks of being just a *tad* fabricated and I rather prefer this little spin on the original:

However, just in case anyone born before or around 1872 is reading this blog, PLEASE NEVER USE LOL TO MEAN LOTS OF LOVE.  That includes you, Mutti.

Is it VACUOUS?

Language purists hate "lol".  They say it's vacuous, it's sloppy and if we are to believe the Daily Mail [warning, clicking the link will quite possibly give you cancer] it is even putting the future of English at risk! On the one hand, clearly if the likes of the Daily Mail hate it, this is a darn fine reason to use it at every opportunity. Lol.

What I think people are missing here though is that "lol" can indeed be vacuous, but as with all language it depends on context and usage.  My perception is that when someone shoves "lol" at the end of a sentence of their own to signify that it is supposed to be funny, that often does make them look quite vapid.  It is particularly bad if the sentence is inherently really not funny.  An example I have seen on a dating site went something like this:

I'm looking for a guy who is intelligent and nice lol

Erm, yeah, what is possibly funny about that, other than the fact you come across as being about as bright as Brunswick (below), who could quite easily get a part time job as one of those nodding dogs in a car?  The usage actually evokes the entirely separate word "lolling" in the sense of hanging or drooping, a little how I imagine the mouth of the user.

I *AM* bright, honest, lol.

So when is it OKAY?

Well I personally think the use of "lol" as a signifier of amusement in relation to something said by someone else it is absolutely fine.. and in fact perhaps indispensable.  It is really a modern day signifier of a little grin or a chuckle.  Of course no one is actually laughing out loud: "lol" has suffered from over-use inflation and we need to use a much stronger term for that.  It is just a way of saying I found what you said funny, or this made me smile.

Part of the problem is that we don't have an emoticon for a laugh.  We do have a whole range available to us, but as yet, I have yet to see one that signifies a person laughing.  It's difficult to imagine how one would look.

:)  Smile

:(  Sad face
:/  Grimace

:D  Big grin

:o  Astonishment

:o))  Jaw dropping

:p  Stick out tongue

o_O  Staring at someone

 \o/  Huzzah (arms up in the air)

I love the \o/ emoticon and do it real life regularly

However, there just isn't a laughing emoticon.  Therefore we have to use something.  LOL-Haters don't seem to object to "haha" or "hehe" or "teehee" - I really don't understand why they are any more or less acceptable than "lol" to be honest.  Personally I would say a lower case "lol" on its own, just with nothing else can still appear as vacuous in a response - I'd say that adding something with it lessens this, e.g

I poured orange juice on my cornflakes this morning

Response A) "lol"
Response B) "lol - you big twit!"

I am not sure why, but the second just has a bit more weight about it and is less likely to be seen as an utterance of Brunswick.

Degrees of LOL

If "lol" doesn't actually mean you are laughing out loud, how can you signify that you found something really funny and approached this level of amusement, beyond the stage of a mere smile or a chuckle?  Well of course there are other splendid abbreviations at our disposal, mainly invented by 13 year olds and adopted with great enthusiasm by the likes of me.  A vague hierarchy is, I would suggest, something like this:

lol  a smile or chuckle

LOL stronger and verging on a vocalised chuckle (Of course the use of capitals indicates an emphasised version of any of the below)

pmsl  "piss myself laughing" (highly unlikely to be literal, fear not)

rofl  "roll on floor laughing" (again, permit us some hyperbole, please)

lmao  "laugh my arse off" (contact A&E if this happens in real life)

lmfao "laugh my f*cking arse off"  (the mind boggles: will there be baby arses?)

lmfaooooo reserved soley for the use of @SteMcCormick (no, I don't know what it means either, but he seems to like it)

lolololololooooo you may add as many letters as you like to signify your amusement: it's just added emphasis

Bahahahahaahaa (or a variant): gays seem to use rather this a lot. It first struck me as being quite sheep-like. I have therefore now (appropriately) adopted its usage myself.

There is - as you see - a whole wonderful/ murderous (delete as appropriate) range of ways of expressing your amusement.  "Actual LOL" also remains however probably the best way of saying you did what "lol" is supposed to signify.


Does any of this matter?

Of course it bloody doesn't.  If you don't like "lol", don't use it: simples.  If you do, lol away.  If it offends your sensibilities, however, you may well be disappointed with people on Twitter.  I have previously blogged on the playfulness of the language used in tweets.  Twitter is, like it or not, in large part informal, fun and a place where many people let their hair down.  Language changes, evolves, and the reality is that "lol" seems here to stay.  If you want to judge me for using it, feel free.  I'll just lol back.  I won't be using "lol" in a work letter, but then the beauty of language is the fact that we employ different vocabulary, rules and styles when we communicate in different contexts.

Oh and one final thing by the way, the OED has now officially accepted its usage. So there!! \o/