I agree wholeheartedly with comments expressed here, including being unlikely to agree with Tony Abbott about most things.

As a father I would offer the same advise (if asked which is highly unlikely) who you share your time with and your bed with, will have profound effects on your life.

Choosing rather than fumbling into relationships is always good advise.

This piece tries and fails to rescue Abbott's remarks by claiming they are really innocuous because his express sentiment only applies to the abstract notion of sexual commitment before marriage as opposed to virginity. It's a nice try, but the piece only succeeds at addressing some of the excessive hyperbole in the press which uncharitably extend his remarks to Islamism and 'lecturing Australian women' - which aren't the substance of the mainstream reaction.

I read this piece a couple of times to make sure, but I failed to find anywhere where the author actually substantiates the idea that his comment was" "a rather straightforwardly commendable comment to make about the importance of caring and respect for the person with whom one makes love."

Like it or not, but the above is simply the author inserting nuance into Abbott's quote out of whole cloth. It may be charitably assumed that Abbott is capable of such nuance, but the fact remains that the comments made no clear distinction and the substance of the umbrage that is made out - ie. that a young women's sexual activity (whether losing her virginity or not) is a 'gift'.

As the leader of the opposition, Abbott should be expected to deal with all reasonable cut and thrust in the media, and still have his message prevail. If he cannot do that then he has failed as a political communicator. It is not the responsibility of others to come in and perform linguistic gymnastics to rescue and sanitise his comments for modern sensibilities as this piece tries so desperately to do.

Whatever way you cut it, the comment was inappropriate as given and must be called a faux pas

Without turning this response into an academic treatise, which the subject certainly doesn't warrant and has never justified, I would just like to say to Helen Pringle that she seems to have missed the main point and that is, if it is to do with Abbott, whether it is Speedos, Virgins, wife, family, inept political comment or anything that emanates from the new leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, the media is using the poor and naive fellow as a source of news, any news, ad nauseum. Is it any wonder then that his comment does appear to have been subject to various interpretations and some misinterpretations. That is the way the media works in this country with some of the very worst journalistic efforts seen every morning in every state.
Abbott is a product of his own background, arousing great suspicion with every statement he makes. His total preoccupation with his dominating form of religious thinking, controlling every thing he does, every word he utters, is the reason he must eventually be seen for what he is, a stooge for the Catholic Church and in this role he is surrounded by the likes of Hockey, Pine and many others who jump to the commands of Rome. His inability to see anything in government in a non-secular way will be realised by the voters eventually who are somewhat tired of the undue and excessive influence of tax-free religion in this once secular-oriented country.
So, in conclusion, if any journalist cares to seriously question Abbott and not treat him as a novelty, they will find a void in his perception on almost every subject except religion and eventually should see him for what he is, totally inept with little worthy or original judgement or ability. Therefore what he says will seldom be worth great comment and any comment today could be reversed tomorrow, except of course the kind of comment that started this whole exercise, virgins, a subject of great pith and moment in 2010.

I am in total agreement with the writer of this article and also with the comments made by Tony Abbott. This man has the guts to say what he believes.
He never mentioned the word virginity, so why did all these people use that interpretation of his words? I think it was due to malice. Also, they get themselves publicity - they are attention seekers!
What I like about Tony Abbott is that he has 'values' which he is prepared to state. He doesn't ask that we espouse the same beliefs, or preach at us.
As a feminist myself I have always believed that equality can only be achieved if women are prepared to make statements of their values/beliefs and then stand by them. Too often both men and women respond to criticism of their statements by saying:
"It is written in the Bible/Koran"
"My father/mother/husband/wife/sister/brother/son/daughter says that."
"I agree with my teacher/priest/neighbour who said that."
Be like Tony Abbott, state your beliefs and defend them - don't criticize the beliefs of others unless they rob you of your own right to free speech.

Perhaps a journalist could ask Abbott directly, whether or not he was referring to virginity as a gift from a woman to a man.... or not?

Hmmmm?

Of course, it is a bit late now.

Clever Abbott - enough ambiguity to permit his supporters to self-righteously defend him and his detractors to lack a definitive foundation - apart from Abbott's own track record of course.

"He never mentioned the word virginity, so why did all these people use that interpretation of his words? I think it was due to malice. Also, they get themselves publicity - they are attention seekers!"

Whether he said virginity or not is irrelevant. He is still characterising sexual activity before marriage as a 'gift' or trophy, whether it involves the girl losing her virginity or not. That's why this article fails. It tries to jump from the somewhat plausible argument that the context of the lead question suggests that Abbott may have been talking about sex in general, rather than virginity, to some completely invented scenario where he gave a carefully-worded innocuous sentiment about counselling delay and caution. But this completely misses the point. The word 'gift' was always the problem, whether it is used in relation to virginity or sexuality in general. Fixating on virginity makes it more inflammatory, but it isn't the substance of the objection.

Yet, the author thinks that by making this distinction that the issue simply disappears. But all she has done is disappear the word 'gift' and all it's connotations into the oblivion and swapped some highly sanitised, modernity-friendly interpretation of what he actually said.

If Abbott was really only counselling caution in forming relationship, there would be no issue here except for whatever was invented by the press. But he didn't. He made a highly anachronistic comment. I cannot help but feel those defending Abbott, whether feminists or conservatives, simply want to rage against the machine of modern sexual permissiveness and raunch culture, rather than actually deal with what he said.