Everyday racism

[Xelasnave.1947]

7% of the protests being violent is a lot.

Any protest that is violent is wrong and if anyone is looking at the statistics and saying a small percentage is acceptable then they are out of touch with what normal law abiding decent non violent folk expect and everyone should say hold on violence will not be tolerated. And remember the old saying..two wrongs do not make anything right they just make things twice as bad.

The influence of Hollywood can now be looked at...look how it shows all situations should be managed..violence...I am not surprised folk choose not to control their anger or aggression because after all that is how Hollywood shows it must be done..even those movies with the quiet monk being peaceful ..he always finally smashed the opponents face in..and this is their best attempt at showing the peaceful approach.

There is no justification for violence and it must not be tolerated at all no more than the casual bullying and abuse that flows like water on this forum ...it should not be tolerated in the least.

Is there violence at the protests against domestic violence in black communities or white communities that decry the number of females who die each week at the hands of an outraged man....

Alex

 

[paddoboy]

..she was calling me "sweety".....Now love and mate are definitely the norm and to judge these people as sexist would simply be irrational, out of tune with their community and unrealistically judgemental and simply wrong.

The couple who have so disgustingly put there case on that matter, will never admit to that, as they have taken their stance to extremism and a back down is out of the question.

There is an aboriginal guy who hangs around the shopping center and asks you for money...I always give him my change and we chat a lot...he says he needs food but I always say well dont forget to shout yourself a beer..if he wants to buy drugs I dont care thats his business and not for mecto judge..good on him for getting out and rounding up cash..one day I am in the car in the parking lot having a Maccas breakfast waiting to go to the doctors later... I did not have any change and said sorry man no cash today...I had my card but no folding Money coins etc...about twenty minutes later he comes up with two cans of baked beans and a can of soup and says.."I went home and got these for you" I explained to him I had card money etc..but he wanted me to have them but I could not take them even at the risk of offending him and said..mate I cant take your food I will be getting food after I have been to the doctors...

I had a similar encounter a while back with an Aboriginal fella sitting on the footpath "begging" for money....he looked like he needed a feed, so I went an bought him a burger and chips along with a Fanta. Being in somewhat of a hurry, I didn't have much time for chatting. But he was somewhat surprised and gobbled them down!

Another time while waiting at Maroubra Junction for lights to change before crossing the street, I noticed on the other side a woman in a wheel chair, who as the lights changed, somehow got her wheelchair jammed, and was struggling to get it moving...Ignorant arseholes, both men and women simply side stepped her and kept walking...as I crossed the road with the intention of lending a hand, two big hefty indigenous women, grabbed either side of the chair and lifted her across the road!

I also have and have had many indigenous friends over the years, mainly through my footballing days, including greats such as Bruce "Larpa" Stewart and Ronny Saddler both former NRL Rooster players, with Ronny Saddler captaining NSW, even before the great Artie Beetson captained Queensland.
My favourite drinking hole also was the Matto [Matraville] Hotel, the last pub at that time, before the suburbs of Malabar and La-Perouse and the Botany Bay headlands, and an established watering hole of the local indigenous population...

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The couple who have so disgustingly put there case on that matter, will never admit to that, as they have taken their stance to extremism and a back down is out of the question.

We could try their tactic..just keep harping and harping ...I wonder who will get sick of such nonsense first... I think what is on our side is we get out and about, have had wide and varied experience, ... a survey would nail it...I think I will start asking everyone I meet if they find folk calling them love is offensive...and report in detail on a daily basis all the contacts I have made and what people have said...insane people do that sort of thing you know.

Oops hang on this is the racist thread.
And the good news is Ice does not think you are racist or sexist ..you saw that I expect.
I can't believe they don't have compulsory voting ...or health care for that matter..you go thru these tin pot African countries and guess what...poor Americans they really seem to have some problems...and to think the best the dems could come up with was such an old man suggests not much in the way of hopefuls in their mob..mind you I think it's a backhanded way to get a woman president...anyways hope to be out of bed tomorrow and back to normal ..so much to do as a result of being laid up... If I am not around keep an eye on them and don't let them get away with abuse or bullying.
Alex

 

[Bells]

No Bells, simply wrong. I have respect for all, until they show reason why I should withdraw that respect, as has happened in this forum on a couple of occasions.

You only have "respect for all" if they behave a certain way towards you and basically give you what you want.

If you had "respect for all" you would address them appropriately and certainly not act in a manner that could make them feel uncomfortable or harassed. Particularly when you are in a position of power over them. And that is what you deliberately keep ignoring.

What stereotype Aussie is that Bells?
My parents who rented a unit, and did not have either a car or a phone, went to the expense of sending me to a Catholic school.
I achieved my Intermediate certificate, got an apprenticeship in Fitting and Machining, got my first car, became a union Delo, member of the ALP, did some travelling on a square rigged Barquentine, got married, had a kid, sent him to a Catholic school also, bought a home/house and a succession of cars of all shapes and sizes, built a little house in Fiji, built my mancave, actively participate in community help schemes, sponsor two children through world vision, donated 76 pints of blood in my time, regularly contribute to two charities I have chosen, and now am personally comfortably well off and happy.
Is that the stereotypical Aussie you are thinking of? Then I'm your man Bells!!

The word "historical" did not give you pause? You chose to ignore it because you decided to try to change the context because something something Aussie battler..

What is Australia and Australians known for historically, paddoboy? If you did not understand what I meant, perhaps you should read up on Australian history.

Pay particular attention to issues like terra nullius, genocide, stolen generation and how white Australians simply took and gave 0 fucks about others. That is the stereotype you live up to. You don't give a shit about others, how they may feel, how they are perceived and how they should be treated and you instead prefer to simply force your will onto others, address them as you want to instead of how they may wish to be addressed (the name tag is usually a huge indication fyi) and damn how they feel about it.

I was raised in Paddington, Sydney, a far more older and established suburb then your own I suggest, and now live in Maroubra Sydney.

That's nice. Frankly I am not surprised it's Maroubra, given your attitude here.

Not to mention you are completely ignoring the point.

With all due respect, I doubt whether you are with them 24/7 do hear how every person they interact with talk...

Perhaps you should apply the same logic to the women you openly harass and then boast about it.

You aren't with them 24/7, you don't know how they feel about how you address them and how they may prefer to be spoken to or made to interact in the course of their employment.

Nup wrong, how I speak is the norm, just as obviously is the norm of how others speak to me, and neither them or I are oblivious to other's feelings.

So you've asked these women how they prefer to be addressed when dealing with you in the course of their work day?

Going to guess the answer to that is no.

I won't say you are completely oblivious to how they feel. It is obvious that you simply do not care about how they feel in regards to how you address them.

It's not the norm. Far from it. It's the norm around people who know one another. It is not the norm for how we address people while they are doing their job.

If a manager tried to pull that shit on a staff member, they'd be fired for harassment and rightly so. Yet you think these women should accept it from customers because you think it's "the norm"?

In fact I could bore you [but you wouldn't give a shit] with examples of how I have shown my feelings towards other's feelings.

You want to keep boasting about how you inappropriately treat women in the course of their employment and try to hide behind "it's the norm"?

saying all women are offended by calling them love is simply not correct and indeed in some places is indeed the norm

No one said they are.

Everyone is saying to perhaps be mindful that they could be and to perhaps save the pet names for people we know and are used to, than complete strangers who one approaches with an opening salvo of pet names..

 

[Bells]

I think what is on our side is we get out and about, have had wide and varied experience, ... a survey would nail it...I think I will start asking everyone I meet if they find folk calling them love is offensive

You should ask women who are working and complete strangers to you, how they prefer to be addressed. By their name or "love", etc by you, while they are at work.

And then consider the response and consider that someone like paddoboy openly said he'd simply avoid them if they did not appreciate his pet names and given what he has reported already, is the type to call the manager and complain.

Consider, while you are working, if you'd call your subordinates 'love', 'sweety', 'darl', while at work? You were a lawyer, right? You'd walk into court and address the Magistrate as 'love' during a hearing?

Dr Flood says some examples of everyday sexism we should be conscious of include:

• Sexualising or patronising language, like calling women you don't know things like 'love', 'babe', 'sweetheart';
• Comments that imply there's something lesser than or weak about women or femininity;
• Remarks like, "You're playing like a bunch of girls" or "You run like a girl".

Dr Flood says everyday comments like these that imply women are less capable than men give less value or attention to women's voices.
[https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/calling-out-sexist-behaviour/11371228]​

I am going to take a huge leap here and say the answer to that is a huge no.

Hiding behind 'but it's the norm' excuse is no longer good enough. That excuse was used for generations as women, minorities, etc, were abused and controlled.. It was the norm to hang the black man who looked at a white woman on the street. It was the norm to beat and rape the wife if she tried to say no. It was the norm to beat one's children for talking back. It was the norm to deny minorities their fundamental human rights. It was the norm to prevent people from voting based on gender and race. It was the norm to harass, beat and kill people who were homosexual. And so on and so forth. All were the norm. All were inherently wrong.

I mean, is it that hard to be respectful and to address people by name while they are at work and serving you? Is it that difficult to consider how they (women who are complete strangers and who are, say, working) may feel and certainly how they may feel about the constraints placed upon them in how they respond and that maybe, just maybe, people should be mindful and not refer to them by pet names?

 

[Write4U]

I am loath to even enter this conversation, but it is for purpose of asking a question.

When women call men by little terms of endearment, like "Sweet Thing, Baby, Babe, Sweetie, Honey, Sweetheart, Sugar, Hunk, is that offensive? Personally, I have never felt imposed on by such terms.

p.s. While I agree on the maintenance of proper etiquette in a professional setting, I also think that different circumstances and locations permit different forms speech.

Are women more extrovert than men?

 

[paddoboy]

You only have "respect for all" if they behave a certain way towards you and basically give you what you want.

Nonsense Bells, absolute nonsense and you know that.

If you had "respect for all" you would address them appropriately and certainly not act in a manner that could make them feel uncomfortable or harassed. Particularly when you are in a position of power over them. And that is what you deliberately keep ignoring.

I address all appropriatley and no one feels harassed, including myself when addressed in such casual fashion.

Pay particular attention to issues like terra nullius, genocide, stolen generation and how white Australians simply took and gave 0 fucks about others. That is the stereotype you live up to. You don't give a shit about others, how they may feel, how they are perceived and how they should be treated and you instead prefer to simply force your will onto others, address them as you want to instead of how they may wish to be addressed (the name tag is usually a huge indication fyi) and damn how they feel about it.

I know my Australian history well enough Bells, and I know the wrongful and terrible time we put the local indigenous inhabitants through also, and thankfully most of that is being redressed, as it should be, but just as obviously we also cannot turn back time. Not sure what any of that has to do with women, idigenous folk, young and old, calling me Luv, or sweety...I was never offended and like most casual banter, I also reciprocated wasn't even noticed until certain people chose to make a song and dance about it here.

That's nice. Frankly I am not surprised it's Maroubra, given your attitude here.

Not to mention you are completely ignoring the point.

Maroubra is a lovely suburb, recognised of course by one of our best surfing beaches.

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Perhaps you should apply the same logic to the women you openly harass and then boast about it.

You aren't with them 24/7, you don't know how they feel about how you address them and how they may prefer to be spoken to or made to interact in the course of their employment.

I know it in my case, by the manner in which they address me.
If they objected to me addressing them as Luv or matey, I'm not real positive that they would address me that way. If what you say were true, logically they would see that to make their point [if it existed] they would address me as Sir or Mr or whatever.

So you've asked these women how they prefer to be addressed when dealing with you in the course of their work day?

Going to guess the answer to that is no.

I won't say you are completely oblivious to how they feel. It is obvious that you simply do not care about how they feel in regards to how you address them.

It's not the norm. Far from it. It's the norm around people who know one another. It is not the norm for how we address people while they are doing their job.

If a manager tried to pull that shit on a staff member, they'd be fired for harassment and rightly so. Yet you think these women should accept it from customers because you think it's "the norm"?

Pull what shit Bells? A Manager would obviously know his staff and address them by their names, but sometimes too, maybe mate or Luv? I'm sure that would have happened without any sublime messaging, hidden agenda or attempts at sexual assault.
It's all casual, every day banter Bells...so casual it passes without any flinching or even thinking about. If it didn't, and not withstanding your paltry excuses, I would stop, just as I'm sure they would stop if they knew I was offended by such casual banter. I'm not. They're not, and that's the crux of it all.

You want to keep boasting about how you inappropriately treat women in the course of their employment and try to hide behind "it's the norm"?

Nup again Bells...not boasting and hiding behind nothing that isn't fact.

No one said they are.

Except that you are trying to force what you believe to be the case, down my throat, and I'm pretty sure if I wanted to take the time, I'm sure I would find a contradictory post to your "no one said they are"

Everyone is saying to perhaps be mindful that they could be and to perhaps save the pet names for people we know and are used to, than complete strangers who one approaches with an opening salvo of pet names..

I'm mindful thanks Bells, and I thank you sincerely for reminding me of that possibility, and as I have said many, many many times, if it did happen, I would cease with such banter.
So why all this nonsense then?

 

[paddoboy]

And then consider the response and consider that someone like paddoboy openly said he'd simply avoid them if they did not appreciate his pet names and given what he has reported already, is the type to call the manager and complain.

Must address that Bells by asking you a question, as to why you see the need to exaggerate and totally misinterpret something you claim I said.
What was said was that if anyone objected I would cease, and then you asked if an employee addressed me as some fucking old arsehole, or words to that effect, would I like it?
I replied if they addressed me that way I would tell them to fuck off [or words to that effect] and probably report it. I may also not report it, depending on circumstances.
If you had a genuine point Bells, there would be no need to misconstrue what you asked and what I said in return, particularly when it is all revolving around me/them addresing the other as Luv or matey.

 

[paddoboy]

You'd walk into court and address the Magistrate as 'love' during a hearing?

I believe that little so called example given to support the case being discussed, says it all and the total futility that those believing they hold the moral high ground in this debacle have sunk to.

​

 

[paddoboy]

And the good news is Ice does not think you are racist or sexist ..you saw that I expect.

Yeah, I saw that.

Hiding behind 'but it's the norm' excuse is no longer good enough. That excuse was used for generations as women, minorities, etc, were abused and controlled.. It was the norm to hang the black man who looked at a white woman on the street. It was the norm to beat and rape the wife if she tried to say no. It was the norm to beat one's children for talking back. It was the norm to deny minorities their fundamental human rights. It was the norm to prevent people from voting based on gender and race. It was the norm to harass, beat and kill people who were homosexual. And so on and so forth. All were the norm. All were inherently wrong.

Yep, the Human race has had a terrible pathetic rise to what we believe to be finally a civilised society.
All the things you mentioned, plus many more were examples of barbarism which you know no one is supporting or would support and some still persist today.
None of it though equates in any way shape or form to the everyday casual banter, and the personal examples I have given.
Why pretend it does?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You should ask women who are working and complete strangers to you, how they prefer to be addressed. By their name or "love", etc by you, while they are at work.

I will. I have no doubt that there will be answers that support either proposition.

I am certain that in my Sydney suburb there probably won't be anyone who likes familiarity but in Casino it would be the opposite I expect.

Everyone is saying to perhaps be mindful that they could be and to perhaps save the pet names for people we know and are used to, than complete strangers who one approaches with an opening salvo of pet names..

Well I agree with that.

the type to call the manager and complain.

You are making a judgement based on what exactly?

Consider, while you are working, if you'd call your subordinates 'love', 'sweety', 'darl', while at work? You were a lawyer, right? You'd walk into court and address the Magistrate as 'love' during a hearing?

Well I would not.

However in the case of an employee one may have the sense to know what to say and what not to say given you spend so much time together under the same roof.

As to your example of the magistrate it is that sort of dressing up of your arguement that causes it to fail...to even suggest such just shows you are grasping straws and does your arguement a dis service...if you use sensible examples you will get further.

Dr Flood says some examples of everyday sexism we should be conscious of include:

• Sexualising or patronising language, like calling women you don't know things like 'love', 'babe', 'sweetheart';
• Comments that imply there's something lesser than or weak about women or femininity;
• Remarks like, "You're playing like a bunch of girls" or "You run like a girl".

Sounds reasonable to me...I have always demanded folk around me respect women and girls and I agree there are so many things that are just wrong but unless I have not been clear ,laying the boot into an old man with abuse and bullying and employing the sexism you rail against is just plain wrong and when you act wrong you propositions become wrong..when you avoid the abuse and bullying your case to me sounds reasonable and no different to my approach.

Hiding behind 'but it's the norm' excuse is no longer good enough. That excuse was used for generations as women, minorities, etc, were abused and controlled.. It was the norm to hang the black man who looked at a white woman on the street. It was the norm to beat and rape the wife if she tried to say no. It was the norm to beat one's children for talking back. It was the norm to deny minorities their fundamental human rights. It was the norm to prevent people from voting based on gender and race. It was the norm to harass, beat and kill people who were homosexual. And so on and so forth. All were the norm. All were inherently wrong.

Now there you go again...you just can not suggest these terrible norms somehow move the norms of familiarity into the same box...using this approach destroys your position because you show you are open to absurd comparison to support your position.

We are not dealing with norms that are in any ways comparable to those you list.

The norms we are dealing with is the over friendliness and being too familar with strangers...surely you don't need to be told the norms of which you refer to are just inappropriate...it is this resort to exaggeration that weakens your position and I am sure if in the first instance you approached Paddo with a simple reasonable proposition devoid of abuse, bullying and an overall judgemental attitude he could only conceed that yes there will be some folk who are very uncomfortable with over familiarity....please think about it whilst remembering the old saying..you catch more flies with sugar than salt....

I expect if I asked Paddo this..Paddo do think that some people could be uncomfortable with what they feel is over familararity he may just say yes I can see that..but when you abuse and bully and tell him as opposed to asking him I think his response has been entirely predictable and the sad thing is you have turned your valid point into something that deserves to be mocked.

I mean, is it that hard to be respectful and to address people by name while they are at work and serving you? Is it that difficult to consider how they (women who are complete strangers and who are, say, working) may feel and certainly how they may feel about the constraints placed upon them in how they respond and that maybe, just maybe, people should be mindful and not refer to them by pet names?

Now put in such a pleasant way who could not agree..Bells you have been very cunning employing a bad cop good cop strategy it seems.

And these threads are very good because casual readers will at least start to think about these matters...but keeping the good side good must always be paramount.. don't abuse, bully or stoop to using sexism and even though anger is an option know that is works against you never for you.
Alex

 

[iceaura]

If you are that touchy to personal attacks, I would suggest that you cease with them yourself.

That isn't possible, with some posters. They identify with their posts, and misread responses - all contradictions of their claims as written are personal attacks on them as they insist on being perceived, all labeling of ideology is a personal attack, and so forth.
Here's an example:

All the things you mentioned, plus many more were examples of barbarism which you know no one is supporting or would support and some still persist today.
None of it though equates in any way shape or form to the everyday casual banter, and the personal examples I have given.

The response:
That quote is of two false claims of fact.
The two facts it falsely contradicts are:
1) many people, including posters here, would and do support the "barbarism" mentioned, a barbarism which not only persists but on occasion dominates today's society in the US and other Western regions.
2) the allegedly personal examples referred to match exactly and specifically, in every physical detail including the subsequent defenses of them, some of the social norms and customs that have established and perpetuated that barbarism over the long history of it. So once the obscure "equates" has been clarified, the claim there is false.

Note: The word "equates" is an illiteracy of a common kind, which here acts as camouflage for the meaning rather than explication of it. The degradation of language that appears during longer exchanges of this kind may find its explanation in that - I have contended a bit differently, a bit more carefully, from my unverifiable suspicion that a lot of that linguistic deterioration is a consequence of self-deception (for more detailed exploration of that aspect of things see a good manual or handbook of English rhetoric or advice for writers).

Now: None of that was personal attack. All of it is a kind of post which is commonly described as a personal attack, by the posters whose posts are addressed and quoted and so forth.

Like the poet said: " The fire doesn't know where all that smoke is coming from".

 

[paddoboy]

That isn't possible, with some posters.

That would be the most pathetic philosophical claptrap I have come across...Schmelzer, eat your heart out!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police
In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, the Thought Police (Thinkpol) are the secret police of the superstate Oceania, who discover and punish thoughtcrime, personal and political thoughts unapproved by the government. The Thinkpol use criminal psychology and omnipresent surveillance via informers, telescreens, cameras, and microphones, to monitor the citizens of Oceania and arrest all those who have committed thoughtcrime in challenge to the status quo authority of the Party and the regime of Big Brother.[1] Orwell's concept of "policing thought" derived from the intellectual self-honesty shown by a person's "power of facing unpleasant facts"; thus, criticising the dominant ideology of British society often placed Orwell in conflict with ideologues, people advocating "smelly little orthodoxies"

 

[paddoboy]

Funny how things turn out...just finished watching this 60 min program....

 

[iceaura]

Speaking of avoiding personal attack:
"That isn't possible, with some posters"

That would be the most pathetic philosophical claptrap I have come across...

That's it - that description of those six words is the entire attempted response to post 187.

The central matter addressed - the falsehood of two thread-relevant claims quoted from an earlier post, analyzed (as it happens) without personal reference - explicitly appears nowhere in the response. Instead, we are treated to a Wiki entry on the subject of the thought police employed by a dystopian State to attack people personally.

Apparently - if we take the otherwise irrelevant Wiki quote as nonrandom innuendo - a poster here who finds this kind of claim factually in error, observably false:

All the things you mentioned, plus many more were examples of barbarism which you know no one is supporting or would support and some still persist today.
None of it though equates in any way shape or form to the everyday casual banter, and the personal examples I have given

is acting as an agent of the thought police of a dystopian State, and engaging in personal attack.

Identifying a stereotype is a personal attack on the one posting it, see?

That inverts the normally assumed relationship of Orwellian thought police to observed fact and experienced event. It also inverts the normally assumed relationship of thought police to State power and coercively enforced social norm.

And solidly supports my observation: some posters take all contradiction or objection to their posts as personal attack - it isn't possible to discuss any issue they raise, in disagreement, without attacking them personally.

Funny how things turn out...just finished watching this 60 min program....

As the thread's currently leading proponent of "canceling" (rather than addressing) other people's observations and supported reasoning (via one sentence namecalling, denigrating and slandering other people without addressing their arguments or observations, and justifying such behavior by claiming social support, normality, and other such cultural attributes, for yourself)

did you learn anything?

 

[paddoboy]

did you learn anything?

Yes. Your opinion is noted and rejected.

 

[paddoboy]

I expect if I asked Paddo this..Paddo do think that some people could be uncomfortable with what they feel is over familararity he may just say yes

Firstly nice post again Alex. The question above has been answered many many times, but ignored as it fails to support the agenda that this and another thread is trying to purport.
Anyhow to answer again, and to you directly...If there was any semblance of annoyance, offence or disgust at any of the casual everyday banter I use, I would cease straight away, and probably or though not certain, avoid that person in the future.
So yes to your question, in that it is possible that some may be offended.
But as yet, with the many everyday examples I have given, and many others not mentioned, that has never even looked like being the case. And we can include young women, middle aged women, and older women, in various positions including a Policewoman. And to reinforce that everyday casual banter, in some of the cases I have mentioned, the banter is by both sides and obviously in a light of joviality and fun.
The most recent recent example, lo and behold, was by my own Mrs as detailed in the "other" thread, saying "thanks Luv" to a male shop assistant.

 

[iceaura]

Yes. Your opinion is noted and rejected.

No, it isn't.
You have not "noted" my "opinion", or rejected it.

One cannot even tell which opinion you are referring to (there are several opinions of mine visible, none of which you have acknowledged, and you have invented opinions for me to have, which you could also be referring to).

In any case, rejecting anything I posted would require addressing it - which action on your part is overdue.

Suggestion: something from the contents of post 187. Five or six thread relevant opinions of mine appear - pick one, reject it.

 

[paddoboy]

Firstly nice post again Alex. The question above has been answered many many times, but ignored as it fails to support the agenda that this and another thread is trying to purport.
Anyhow to answer again, and to you directly...If there was any semblance of annoyance, offence or disgust at any of the casual everyday banter I use, I would cease straight away, and probably or though not certain, avoid that person in the future.
So yes to your question, in that it is possible that some may be offended.
But as yet, with the many everyday examples I have given, and many others not mentioned, that has never even looked like being the case. And we can include young women, middle aged women, and older women, in various positions including a Policewoman. And to reinforce that everyday casual banter, in some of the cases I have mentioned, the banter is by both sides and obviously in a light of joviality and fun.
The most recent recent example, lo and behold, was by my own Mrs as detailed in the "other" thread, saying "thanks Luv" to a male shop assistant.

Just to add to that Alex, we also do a reasonable amount of driving, mainly to the Blue Mountains, Katoomba, Gosford, Newcastle and Wollongong where I have friends and relos, and the same acceptance of the casual banter I have described exists.


ps: How's about a few photos [yeah I know the weather is preety damning!!

 

[billvon]

Just to add to that Alex, we also do a reasonable amount of driving, mainly to the Blue Mountains, Katoomba, Gosford, Newcastle and Wollongong where I have friends and relos, and the same acceptance of the casual banter I have described exists.

Acceptance != "it's OK."

Many, if not most, women will let you call them "toots" "honeybuns" "baby" etc because they don't want to make a scene, and they figure you _probably_ don't mean anything bad about it. That does not mean it is OK with them. It means they are putting up with you. Up to you if that's how you want to be seen.