I don't find Tony Abbott 'charming or down to
earth.' He reminds me of a scavenger. A crow
that sits on your roof and makes a nuisance
of itself. If the PM was to have a piece of
paper fall out of his pocket - Abbott would accuse
him of littering the country. Abbott has nothing
new to offer - he's simply an attention-seeker.
The more the crow screeches - the more you want
to chase it away. His views on any given subject -
are rather narrow and limited.

I can't believe that the Party has elected a leader
who's anti-IVF, anti-stem cell research and who
wants to ban no-fault divorce. He scares the bejesus
out of me as a Party Leader.

Whatever Tony Abbott said it is clear that he has made a value judgement about certain types of sexual behaviour. He has made it quite clear that sexual behaviour outside a loving, caring relationship is nowhere near as valuable as sex within such a relationship.

Many of those who support his stance and proclaim him a good father on the basis of these comments also hold the same values. One must wonder exactly where these values come from and what kind of ideology or religion is driving them. Whilst he is entitled to his opinion the rest of us are also entitled to comment on his opinion. That is what people like Julia Gillard and others were doing. It is the substance of what he said and the inferences drawn from it that have concerned many people.

The onus should be on those who make such a judgement to show why they think it to be true that sex in a ‘loving, committed’ relationship is better than sex outside of one. Most could not come up with an argument because there simply isn’t one. So it is natural to suspect that the values are part of a package which someone has to accept as a consequence of membership of some autocratic group. In Tony Abbot’s case this membership could have repercussions for the rest of Australia and this is what worries people.

There is nothing wrong with reading between the lines to see what a person is getting at. Just because they chose their words carefully does not mean that we cannot reasonably infer the intent in what they say. Politicians are masters at trying to cover their tracks. They say things in such a way that allows them to escape when cornered with the intent of their message. Tony Abbott is one such master but even he can be so driven by his unconscious need to protect his religious affiliation that things just slip out and he should be challenged when they do.

BBoy,

'The word 'gift' was always the problem, whether it is used in relation to virginity or sexuality in general.'

Not really. It was the assigning of 'gift' to a woman's sexuality, but not to men's. But he only has daughters. He may well think giving your body to anyone to play with is a gift, whether it be from a male or female.

Rudd would never be asked as he's not got the fundi-religious image, and he would dodge the question anyway. I like a guy who tells us what he thinks. It's no sermon by any stretch of the imagination, just his values. The most important part of the statement is 'if they were to ask' in my book.

Which brings us to...

'I can't believe that the Party has elected a leader
who's anti-IVF, anti-stem cell research and who
wants to ban no-fault divorce. He scares the bejesus
out of me as a Party Leader.'

which is the real problem, not that he values taking sex so seriously. If Rudd said the same thing nobody would have given a shite. But he's a marked man for these other views, so extrapolation of what he says is fine apparently. Regardless it's a huge jump to 'equating a woman's value to a hymen'. I think he loves and values woman, especially his daughters.

phanto,

'That is what people like Julia Gillard and others were doing. It is the substance of what he said and the inferences drawn from it that have concerned many people.'

Julia was being mean and tricky. 'inferences drawn' indeed.

Why is it Baron Julia can cry when someone makes comment on her personal life, yet slam a guy for his hypothetical advice to his daughters. Media staging be damned, she still makes a judgement on his personal beliefs and on his relationship with his daughters.

BTW Foxy: Is there any Liberal politician that you don't despise with to very core of your soul, and any Labour politician who isn't a nice chap just trying to do a god honourable job making compromises along the way?

"Casual sex is a shallow and meaningless experience, but as far as shallow and meaningless experiences go, it's pretty good."
Woody Allen

I can't see what's the big fuss about suggesting that a woman's sexual favour is a gift. Assuming she's not selling it, it is a gift, because she's giving away something - an agreement to have sex - that has a value higher than nothing, whether you like that fact or not.

There was news recently about women auctioning off their virginity online to the highest bidder. One of them attracted bids in the millions of dollars. (The successful bidder - an Australian - ended up reneging because his wife wouldn't agree - "Damn!"). Another reportedly got over eight thousand pounds; flew to meet the guy in Venice; got invited back for a repeat performance next day; liked the guy, had a good time and now is doing it with him "for free".

But the one guy who offered to auction his virginity got a top offer of $3. A gift of small worth, apparently.

At least in regard to sexual favours for the opposite sex, the idea that the sexes are equal is simply false. But there was that ad in the classifieds a while back, that went something like this "randy, ugly, grumpy old man seeks pretty young virgin for wild sex". Perhaps the egalitarians will insist that he should equally be regarded as conferring a gift on her?

The way I see it, people with opinions like this...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/memo-abbott-virginity-debate-is-no-mans-land-20100127-mz0y.html

on the matter need a reality check. And a good lie down. And maybe a twisted up pair of knickers adorned atop a huge trophy. But she probably got that form her boss for generating so much 'outrage traffic' for advertising.

I found this the most comprehensive and objective article on the matter...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-monk-might-make-sense-20100127-mz0v.html

My view....

Abbot tries to improve his image with chicks after all that abortion denying action by appearing the wonderful family man in Woman's Day, and pimping his gorgeous daughters as eye candy and reflecting in their glory.

Julia says, 'oh no you don't', picks up an innocent comment, adds distortion, and throws to her feminist media pack of attack dogs.

Abbot says, 'so that's how you're gonna play huh', and whistles to his attack dogs to bring out the Barren (yes spelt better this time, but I like 'Baron Julia' also) jibes.

Julia doesn't have to do much more as he's digging a hole and playing into her hands.

Conclusion: Julia is running rings around him, but I still say Abbott's Mark Latham like honesty is more refreshing. Sure he denies global warming and tries to pretend it never happened later and a bunch of other stuff all pollies do, but at least you can be guaranteed he'll give a straight answer more often than the Albino Chinese dentist.

The bonus is it's still fun to read articles like the one from the Age's 'Senior Writer' Coslovich (arf) which amount to nothing but a pynchme-like rant about the evil Sheik Hilaly and Abbot joining Buster Hymen and the Penetrators*

* http://www.myspace.com/thepenetratorsne

Oh, I want to live in a world where men were valued for their policies rather than what swimwear they liked to wear. I'm waiting for someone to catch Kate Ellis in a bikini, and then for a male politician to make comment and be blasted by Julia and her feminist groupies! Actually Kate in a bikini would do, that other stuff would just be a bonus.

I wonder what advice Ms Gillard or Ms Haussegger might have given their children if they had had any? I wonder too if they could wave a magic wand and return to their youth whether they would make the same choices in life again?

Ms Gillard is too much the career politician to reveal anything of herself (does she have a centre core at all or is she just an egg shell?), however Ms Haussegger certainly has expressed regrets in her In WONDER WOMAN: The myth of 'having it all' and young women would be advised to take heed:

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006jul08_b2.html

Maybe both and Ms Haussegger and the woman she sees as her mentor, Ms Gillard, could have benefited in the developmental stages of their lives from listening to a father like Tony Abbott, who from his own example enjoys and worships the family he has built with his loving wife.

If Abbott was making a general point at all it was for adolescents and teens to be careful of the choices they make. Why waste yourself wandering through affairs and one night stands with aimless losers if you want better things in life? Women at least have a biological clock and whilst yours might be nobody's business bur your own, it is still ticking. Then there are the other risks of the raunch lifestyle, easily acquired STDs like Chlamydia that could limit choices forever.

Hmmm, perhaps Tony Annott wasn't being such a mean spirited, lying, wrong old fundy after all.