Well, I must admit the lefties, greenies, woman's libbers, & the ratbags are all much better at grabbing a non event, & blowing it up out of all proportion to it's importance, than the right, libs & religious.

Does Gillard ever do anything else, apart from upsetting the teachers, a mob who do need it more than most, in my none too humble opinion.

I am glad I am too old for all that s%&t.
I would not risk my sanity and financial future on any sort of relationship these days let alone children.

Any young person who gets into a long term relationship, especially one where kids are produced is asking for trouble and would be best advised to steer well clear of it.

Oh hang on... They are arent they! Living at home till they are middle aged almost, social sex and non-commitment are rife, it takes a $5k bribe to even get the poor to procreate.

Reaping what was sown maybe.

The problem with this author is that he is not so much concerned about the welfare of young women as he is about promoting his own religious fundamentalism. He has shown before that he is quite prepared to twist any issue to that end.

He presents pre-marital sex, co-habitation, pre-nuptial birth and the dissolution of a marriage as all being absolute negative experiences for all women. He ties this in with a totally irrelevant issue about absent fathers. Maybe studies do show a link between fatherless girls and those experiences but they are only relevant if you think it is a negative effect. Where else would you get a blanket condemnation of such experiences except from a religious fundamentalist?

Many women have had some or all of those experiences and it has had little or no negative consequences for them. Many have become much better people for those experiences. If we are concerned about the welfare of young women then the most important thing is to protect their freedom to make their own choices. Religious fundamentalism cannot allow women this freedom and seeks to dictate how they should feel in response to those events in their life. For fundamentalism to flourish it needs to make people feel guilty whenever they follow their own natural responses to experience. This guilt is instilled by parents like Warwick Marsh and maybe Tony Abbott when their children are young and they have power over them. They are not good fathers because they are trying to protect their own dependence on religion rather than protect the fundamental value of freedom for their daughters. They have a right to their opinions and they have the right to father in their own way but let’s not call them loving parents based on this evidence.

Sexual and marital experiences are not of themselves either positive or negative. The same cannot be said of the deprivation of freedom of choice in childhood or young adulthood. Perhaps a study should be done on the damage caused by present but over-bearing fathers who would deny freedom of choice.

Because of their dad's comments, the Abbott girls have become a target for every smooth-talking sleaze in their neighbourhood.

Well, as a father of two beautiful, bright young girls (shall I say women, considering that one is 26 and the other 22 yo), I find this article and Mr. Abbott's remarks a bit unfortunate and offensive, to say the least.

It is entirely up to the girls to decide where, when, how, etc., they have a sexual relationship, and with whom, as it was up to me to decide the same matters some 28 years ago, before I met their mother.

What is good for the males should be good for the females too, right?
I don't see the author or Mr. Abbott advising young men to be careful and thoughtful how they do it the first time, or it this something to do with their religious beliefs? Bunch(duet) of hypocrites...

Firstly I am a mother & I agree with what Tony Abbott says!! To those saying why doesn't he say something about males in a relationship- well, he only has daughters & was stating his desire for his girls - not a national statement!!
I say it is actually refreshing to hear a Dad being protective of his daughters & only wanting the best for them without negative consequences [ which is what sexual diseases are for the promiscuous!!Tony seems very respectful of his wife & girls & as they all posed for photos & were very supportive of their father I don't think anything he said would have embarrassed them [ he has said a lot worse in the past & has admitted to being wrong sometimes!!]
I also want to thank Warwick Marsh for his article & keeping us abreast of what is actually happening in the real world regarding parents !!
I have seen within my family the hardship put on fathers who separate - an emotional & monetary cost even when the mother has a new relationship & job!!No wonder so many fathers have suicided when they can't keep up the payments- its too one sided!! Its not about Mothers against Fathers- it should be a mutual effort which is what the "shared Parent responsibility "is about. Yes sometimes one of the parents is the abuser- but its not always the Father - the Mother can be as well !! However in most cases it should be shared parenting. I have seen this working really well with a number of people I know & the children adapted to this really well as they saw both parents equally !!