Some odd person, prompted by my criticism of Tony Abbott’s fifteen-century understanding of women and sex, has been going round to other blogs making comments in my name (and with a weird email address that looks like it could be mine but isn’t):
Jeremy (wjs@hotmail.com)- If I had daughters I’d tell them to shag at will.
Apparently, according to Julie Bishop and George Brandis, parents “understand” Tony Abbott’s views because they don’t think their daughters should be having sex either. They are incapable of reconciling the idea of them as independent adults with the same rights as their parents had, with the fact that it’s disturbing to think of a relative having sex.
If Julie had added the word “some” in front of the word “parents”, she might be right. I’m sure there are plenty of self-satisfied sanctimonious bossy people out there with daughters they’d like to make abide by medieval standards of female behaviour, at least so far as it comes to sex. But it’s a big call to assume that that’s all, or even a majority of parents. Even though almost every organisation with the word “family” in the name is a far-right socially-conservative front, not all families are far-right social conservatives.
My anonymous stalker is actually, despite his bad-faith attempt to attack me where he didn’t think I’d see it, right – if I had adult daughters, I would tell them to “shag” when they “will”, as in, when they want to. They should be aware of the risks, and take precautions, and be sensible, but sexuality is a gift – unlike “virginity”, one that keeps on giving throughout a person’s life – and they would be as entitled as every one of their ancestors to enjoy it. They should never be pressured into it; they should feel as confident and comfortable saying “no” as they would saying “yes” – but the critical issue is that it would be up to them. It has nothing to do with me. Parents who think they should have a say in their children’s sex lives are WEIRD. If my daughter asked me my opinion about whether she should “save herself for marriage” then I’d offer an opinion – um, why? – and if I saw that they were being pressured by a boyfriend, a girlfriend, a church, whatever, then I’d make sure they knew they had an alternative – but my kids won’t be a pushover for any such bullies, anyway. The point would be, it always should be their decision, not anybody else’s. And they would know that.
The thing is, Tony isn’t suggesting that unmarried women not have sex when they’re uncomfortable with it – he’s telling them to say “no” even if they want to have sex, because he thinks he and society should have a say in what people do in their own bedrooms. In what their daughters do in their own bedrooms.
And that is creepy.
Moved On 
Agree with bells on.
Some odd person, prompted by my criticism of Tony Abbott’s fifteen-century understanding of women and sex, has been going round to other blogs making comments in my name
The wingnutosphere seems overrepresented with attention-seekers who love pretending to be other people. It simply reveals a disturbed personality – do they not like themselves and feel uncomfortable with their own self?
Oddly these people also seem to have a rather strange obsession with the type of coffee and wine people consume. Fortunately I’ve never encountered such behaviour in real life. Maybe it’s the people I associate with. lol
Eloquently put Lefty – Abbotts archaic views may play well to the already repressed far right but they simply confirm his outdated, religiously compromised opinions to the rest of the country.
Anyone know Bishop’s marital status?
Julie Bishop is in a de facto relationship with former Perth lord mayor Nattrass. I think his first name is Peter, but can’t be sure.
Thanks Confessions. I wonder how Abbott feels about that.
Or George Brandis. I’m pretty sure Julie Bishop doesn’t have children.
I agree with you, sexuality, and not just virginity, is a gift (though as an atheist I don’t see where you get that gift), and maybe Abbott should have been broader about his comments, but he was after all asked about virginity.
However the rest of your comments above amount to, with all due respect to them, total bull shit.
He was talking about how he would advise his daughters.
Not what he would, or others should, demand of them and not what he did, or others should, demand of women in general.
Unlike you I have daughters. I hope that my attitude to them os a little more caring than yours is to your as yet un born daughters.
I’ll be giving them the same advice as Abbott. “Don’t give it away lightly.”
The choices that they make should be informed and they should not simply be doing it just,”….. when they want to.”
Being aware of the risks, and takeing precautions, and being sensible might not be something that they want to do Jeremy. Are you OK with that? Are you not demanding something of them by advising then that they should be aware of the risks, and take precautions, and be sensible?
Point well made, Leo. Unfortunately rancid slander is de rigueur among Gillard’s gullibles.
“he was after all asked about virginity.”
Indeed. And his attitude to virginity – a “gift” that a woman gives a man – is offensively sexist.
“I’ll be giving them the same advice as Abbott. “Don’t give it away lightly.””
“it” being their virginity? You’ll be making sure that they know you think their virginity is an important thing to preserve?
“Are you not demanding something of them by advising then that they should be aware of the risks, and take precautions, and be sensible?”
Um, no. Telling someone not to walk out into the middle of the road without looking isn’t imposing a value system on them – telling them that if they cross the road they’ll have lost something important, is.
I’ll be giving them the same advice as Abbott. “Don’t give it away lightly.”
Yes, but will you be communicating with your daughters through a national magazine, speaking as a politician rather than a father?
The elephant in the room that the Abbott luvvies refuse to see is that he *chose* to make those comments in a very public way, ostensibly for political gain. My father would never do that to me.
Confessions, Gillard’s reptilian lying is far more offensive than Abbott’s infelicity of expression, or the fact that he made public his private views.
SB: aside from the fact that I don’t know what “lying” your talking about, all politicians lie. Not all politicians use their children’s sexual experiences for cheap political gain. That is far more offensive to me.
I don’t think he was arguing that virginity is a gift a woman gives a man. Surely you don’t argue that sex is a gift a woman gives a man Jeremy. I’m prepared to be corrected here if you have a quote where he said virginity is a gift a woman gives a man.
No “it” being “it”.
Quite apart from “it” though, and to answer the question you pose, yes indeed I will be making sure that they know I think their virginity is an important thing to preserve, until they feel that they have found someone worthy of sharing the moment when they move on from it. Surely you don’t expect me, or Abbott, to tell them that they shouldn’t preserve it for a special partner? That they simply choose a bloke they like the look of and bonk him?
I’m interested that you so easily relate sexual behaviour as “crossing the road”. I guess that for some people sexuality is a little easier to simply write off as a ho hum social transaction than for others.
Many studies indicate that personal sexual values are quite intrinsic to human id and that people with promiscuity issues generally have serious self esteem issues as well. I doubt that crossing the road and having sex for the first time are quite equal Jeremy and indeed there are personal value systems surrounding sexuality even if yours are drastically different to mine.
I’ll be advising my daughters that they can cross the road with whom they like as long as they trust them. I guess that your daughters, when they come to the crossing at the Flinders St clocks, will be advised to simply cross with every man in the crowd?
“I’ll be advising my daughters that they can cross the road with whom they like as long as they trust them. I guess that your daughters, when they come to the crossing at the Flinders St clocks, will be advised to simply cross with every man in the crowd?”
If a woman chooses to cross the street with every man in the crowd thats her business and your bigotry about it is very telling.
A woman’s consenting sexuality is nobody’s business but hers and her partner’s. That poor self-esteem you speak of probably comes from the fact that almost all young women feel sexually curious; they want to experience sexual activity, and they are aroused by people they are attracted to (normal, healthy “gift” style sexuality) and then they are told if they act on any of those desires they are sluts/whores/cheap/stupid.
And again with the dichotomy! Why is it that if a woman doesn’t save herself for marriage, she is “crossing the road” with every man in the crowd? Maybe she is just having serial committed and monogamous relationships with people who respect her. Is that so bad?!
I think the spinning that’s being done on Tone’s remarks by Liberals and their media boosters at News Ltd is the more telling part Jules.
When the virginity remark first went public we were told by Abbott luvvies it was normal advice a father says to his daughter. Then when the creepiness of a father discussing his children’s virginity in public became apparent we were told that a national dialogue about sexual promiscuity in the young was a good thing. When that was interpreted as Abbott telling young women what we can and can’t do with our bodies, they embraced the private discussion angle again. Now we are unbelievably being told Abbott didn’t actually use the words virginity and gift at all! That “it” means something else entirely. The cognitive dissonance among these people is disturbing.
This is the weird thing. Nobody here has suggested that women, or men, should have meaningless sex.
What’s been objected to is the idea of “preservation” of female virginity, as if a woman who’s had sex is somehow worth less than a woman who hasn’t.
Not women and men being choosy about any particular sexual encounter: but the weird importance given to the first, and the implication that a woman is tainted once she’s made that choice once.
There’s a very, very long line between “virgin” and “slut”, but if you believed the Abbotts of this world you’d think a woman who abandoned the former condition only had the latter option left.
Jules I would add that I would have the same advice for my sons.
I assume that you are ok with parents ADVISING that their children have sex with every Tom, and Hariet?
It is no doubt a woman’s choice to have as many, or as few, sexual partners as she likes, but we’re talking about hoe we would advise younger people here and I doubt any decent parent would in fact advise promiscuity.
I would again visit the comments of Tony Abbot here as i don’t think Jeremy has represented them accuratel and we may indeed be discussing an inaccuracy.
He was asked not specifically about virginity, but sex before marriage and he said.
“It (sex before marriage not “it”) happens … I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question … it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving, and don’t give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say.”
That’s not to say he’s suggesting not to give it and its not suggesting that they preserve it till after marriage at all.
He is also not, interestingly, suggesting that it is a gift to a “man”.
Abbott has indeed been misquoted on this issue.
Well as above Jeremy virginity may indeed not be the point at all. You have made it the point, but it appears not to be the point of the statement by Abbott.
You need to read the dead tree edition of the WW rather than rely on the edited online version. Jeremy has indeed represented Tone’s words accurrately.
No he’s represented The Australian’s words accurately not the WW.
He’s cherry picked the tome he wanted to quote because that publication has itself misrepresented Abbott.
Barrie Cassidy said as much this morning though he’s not specifically speaking of Jeremy, Jeremy fits the bill.
“He will be verballed and the media is on to this sort of angle that they want, that he’s a social conservative who wants to impose all of those attitudes on to the rest of the community.
That seems to be their mindset and he was really badly treated over the Women’s Weekly article.”
I repeat: you need to read the dead tree edition of the WW, not listen to Barrie Cassidy, who in all likelihood hasn’t read the FULL article either.
As I said before, the attempted spinning away of Abbott’s comments by his luvvies is indeed a curious development in this debate. We were initially told Abbott’s womens virginity comments were good, “honest” fatherly advice. Now you guys are walking away from them. Why?
I’m not walking away from them at all.
It is good advice.
it is fatherly. He’s their father.
His answer to the question was indeed honest.
Why are YOU so challenged by good, fatherly honest advice?
Promiscuity is in the eye of the beholder. A slut is just a woman having more sex than YOU think she should.
Leo, nobody here has advocated telling their children to have sex with every Tom or Hariet; all we have said is that we think our children should be free to exercise their sexuality however they chose, being safe and responsible, and enjoying the range of expression.
Just because women can say yes to sex doesn’t mean they are incapable of saying no!
Kozbob that’s fair enough, but if you are asked (and Abbott definately made that proviso), wouldn’t your advice – for whatever reason, including the prejudicial nature of society – your children not to be promiscuous?
Because they will be seen as sluts, because they will be exposing themselves to issues out of their control, because YOU feel that the sexual “gift” should be seen as more than a handshake or a walk across the road. For whatever reason wouldn’t you tell them to think about it and be mindful of what they are getting into and the value that their own sexuality should have for them?
Wouldn’t you do that rather than simply say,”No, shag whomever you like the look of and don’t worry about and of the consequences.”????????
Why are YOU so challenged by good, fatherly honest advice?
Because no good, honest father would discuss his daughters’ first sexual experiences with a national magazine designed for public consumption.
As I keep saying, regardless of whether or not you agree with Abbott’s proclamations, the elephant in the room is that he CHOSE to make those remarks, and ostensibly for nothing more than cheap political gain. That is pretty creepy behaviour for someone who calls himself a ‘conservative’.
Correction: it’s pretty creepy behaviour from ANY father, conservative or not.
Rubbish.
He honestly answered a question he was asked.
Why do you have issue with his having been honest?
He had no idea what the questions they would ask were. Only Rudd vets that kind of thing.
Abbott was asked a general question which he answered honestly and i would suggest without controversy.
However those that would – have chosen to – misrepresent his answer as – being advice for all women – being advice about virginity – having an involvement in his daughters sex lives.
If Rudd had the honesty to answer that question, one doubts he would answer any differently, yet you are so offended by a man’s honesty?
How do you know he had no idea what the questions were beforehand? And if he didn’t, then it goes back to my original point from the other day: Abbott lacks political judgement and an ability to control his run away mouth. These are qualities that disqualify him for PM in my view.
As for Rudd answering the same question, he did. He said it was essentially a private matter for women, their family, friends and mum and dad. Much more sensible and far more appropriate.
So you actually WANT your PM to be dishonest?
Essentially a private matter for women, their family, friends and mum and dad?
So you have no problem with a dad foisting his sexual views on a child so long as if he’s asked what that view might be “if he were asked” he lacks the honesty to answer, or is a member of the ALP?
Bazaro world hath come to the burbs.
BTW please cite where Rudd did that?
As I said, promiscuity is in the eye of the beholder. If I advise my children to live their lives in perpetual fear of what others think, what kind of parent would I be?
I think telling them “Better not have consensual sex with someone you care about because Leo will think you are a slut” is pretty poor advice.
My parents advised me to be smart, be safe and not give a rip what anybody wholly unconnected to me thinks about me and my body. And that is some of the most empowering advice a young person can hear.
Sorry Confessions I found it.
Cache issues. My Bad.
Rudd has the advantage of course of seeing the storm honesty has caused his opponent and having had a minder offer him an answer to a question he definately knew was coming.
Again you would rather your PM give someone elses dishonest answers to questions than his own personal honest responses.
Interesting view.
I don’t agree kozbob.
You dress, speak, drink, dance, drive and a lot of other stuff with regard to what other people think.
If you don’t care what other people think of what you do then you’re arrogant and selfish. If your parents taught you that and you find it empowering – shame on them.
Again you would rather your PM give someone elses dishonest answers to questions than his own personal honest responses.
Still more assumptions. Why do you assume that isn’t Rudd’s personal view? I sense another double standard from the Abbott luvvies: Abbott’s actual words are honest, whereas the PM’s are not.
And yes, I do prefer our PMs to be people who don’t have rash political judgement, however “honest” they think they are. I also don’t approve of potential PMs simply uttering the first thing that comes to mind as Abbott has a long history of doing. And lastly, I don’t approve of potential PMs engaging in essentially private conversations with their children about sexual matters through the national media. If Abbott had had the political judgement and common decency to use the very words Rudd did, none of this shitstorm would have happened, would it?
I doubt that we have ever heard an honest personal view from Rudd except when he was confronted with an RAAF flight attendant with the wrong tucker.
The man’s so completely stage managed and focus group driven that I doubt we ever will.
I doubt Rudd would have given an answer with the level of honesty that Abbott gave to the question by WW, but having Abbott’s hindsight to educate him, there is no way that he gave a personal honest answer. He said exactly what they told him to say when the inevitable question was posed. And you can absolutely be sure that that was done for the political milage he’d gain by making the distinction between he and Abbott.
Are you suggesting that Abbott does not believe the things his answer suggests?
How exactly is his views on his daughter’s sexual morality a “rash political judgement”?
And if you truely “….do prefer our PMs to be people who don’t have rash political judgement, however “honest” they think they are, ” and “don’t approve of potential PMs simply uttering the first thing that comes to mind….”Should we assume that you did not vote for Latham?
If Abbott had had the dishonesty and stage managed cowardice to use the very words Rudd did, none of this shitstorm would have happened. The shitstorm would have been that Abbott had had the dishonesty and stage managed cowardice to use the very words “I hide behind pretend decency to protect my political future.”
Don’t give me that decency shit with Rudd. Do you think he’s advising his daughters to go and work in Scores? Do you believe that he went and ….didn’t inhale?
Who’s the true luvvy?
How exactly is his views on his daughter’s sexual morality a “rash political judgement”?
Because if they weren’t uttered as a result of a loss in judgement, it can only mean his proclamations about his daughters virginity were a deliberate and calculated statement designed to curry favour among people with certain views about women’s sexuality. That is much, much worse as it means he has used his daughters sexuality for political gain. I don’t know any fathers who would even contemplate discussing their dauthers sexual experiences with the nation at large, and if you were being honest, you’d admit you don’t either.
You are also forgetting that Abbott has a chequered history when it comes to womens issues, and is regarded with suspicion in certain camps. His supposed appeal to women has been written about endlessly since he became leader – anything he says about women is bound to get airplay for this simple reason. Yet against this backdrop he decides to do an interview with a national womens magazine, and you are trying to convince people here that either a) he never anticipated he’d be asked about stuff like that, and/or b) his minders wouldn’t be wanting to at least see the questions ahead of time?
I’m afraid you are either terribly naive about this stuff, or simply deluded because you want to believe the spin the news ltd hacks have been churning out since his comments went public.
They were not comments about his daughters virginity.
How could he have known that they were to ask that question?
Do you know many fathers who are asked by national media about matters of family? I am being honest when I say I don’t know any, because I don’t know any who would be asked. However my own views on what advice i would give my daughters is nothing for me, or my daughters to be ashamed of. He never said what he has told his daughters, merely what he might “if (he) was asked”. I have no issue with it. Hawke discussed his daughters drug addiction publicly. What’s the problem with that?
Abbott’s past with women is equaled by Rudd’s and believe me he is definately regarded with suspicion in certain camps.
People’s interest in his comments re women is probably the reason for the question don’t you think?
You’re suggesting that his minders saw the question and let him answer the way he did? Are you kidding? You don’t get it both ways.
Either he answered honestly or his minders saw it and they a) didn’t see the shit storm ahead or b) wanted the shitstorm?
LOL. You funny girl.
I’m afraid you are either terribly naive about this stuff, or simply deliberately spiteful, because you want to believe the spin the ALP hacks have been churning out since his comments went public.
Deliberately spiteful! Lol. Leo, you’re a shameless partisan hack – you’ve attempted to defend Abbott in this thread by bringing up Scores and News Ltd’s stewardess beatup.
They were not comments about his daughters virginity.
Have you read the dead tree edition of the WW? No? Then please desist with this meme, it makes you look silly. Just because some news ltd hack writes a column saying Abbott meant something else, doesn’t mean he did.
Do you know many fathers who are asked by national media about matters of family?
I don’t know any, but that isn’t what I said, was it? The time honoured tactic of someone whose arguments have fallen in a heap: distort and misrepresent what others are saying.
Abbott’s past with women is equaled by Rudd’s
Is it? I can’t find any references to Rudd trying to stymie the implementation of the RU486, I can’t find any references to Rudd claiming he is unaware of the pay disparity between men and women, and there is no record of Rudd walking away from comments he’d made supporting paid maternity leave not 6 months previously. I also can’t find any evidence of Rudd appointing priests to committees of the Health Department like Abbott did.
You’re suggesting that his minders saw the question and let him answer the way he did?
My comments are very clear, and I’d appreciate your not trying to misrepresent me simply because you don’t have rational arguments against them. You are the one claiming Abbott’s responses are “honest” therefore his proclamations about his daughters virginity weren’t a brain snap or lapse in judgement. If they weren’t a lapse in judgement then it can only mean they were deliberate and calculated. As I keep asking, and you continue to obfuscate, presumably because the truth is too creepy to contemplate, what kind of father willingly and deliberately discusses private matters such as his advice to daughters about their virginity with the national media for political gain? A far more honest response is to say those kind of things are not for public view.
or simply deliberately spiteful
And yet it is you who has turned up on this thread with spiteful name calling – calling me “girl” for eg. Projection much?
Confessions you said…”I don’t know any fathers who would even contemplate discussing their dauthers sexual experiences with the nation at large.”
I’ll stand by my remarks re that statement.
I’m used to people, like you, falling for the “have you been drinking” line as you have today, but I’m not used to them then saying stuff like “time honoured tactic of someone whose arguments have fallen in a heap…” blah blah in the same day. You very funny girl.
And you simply dismiss reports of Rudd gawking at girls in strip clubs while in the employ of the taxpayer and abusing female members of the defence forces who have not served him in the correct manner. You very funny girl.
Abbots comments are not about his haughters virginity.
They were honest responses to questions asked in good faith.
If they were passed by minders, as Rudd’s response to similar ones were, then why would he have responded thus? You make no sense there conny.
They are only a lapse of judgement if you concider honesty to be so. You clearly do.
Abbot was not discussing anything private at all. He was answering a hypothetical question about HIS OWN views. You would have him hide those views as your PM has done. More fool you.
If you are not a girl then I apologise. I gleaned from a response earlier that you were a female.
The term was not meant to be offensive. Though who would be offended by being called a girl?
Confessions you said…”I don’t know any fathers who would even contemplate discussing their dauthers sexual experiences with the nation at large.”
Yep, I did, for the simple reason that you are claiming Abbott’s proclamations about his daughters virginity are honest. If he was being honest then it follows he has no problem discussing essentially private family matters with the national media. I don’t know any fathers, including my own, who regard their children’s first sexual experiences as fair game in those circumstances. That you continue to obfuscate on this tells me you don’t either, but would rather walk over hot coals than admit otherwise. I shall take this point as agreed to.
If they were passed by minders, as Rudd’s response to similar ones were, then why would he have responded thus?
Because he lacks political judgement and simply blabs the first thing that comes into his head, as I’ve already noted.
FWIW I think he was being partially honest in his WW response: he clearly has pre-Enlightenment views about women and our sexuality that are frankly disturbing, but I think he over-reached by mentioning his daughters as a way of playing to the fundie vote. I don’t believe he expected the backlash because he lacks political judgement, as we’ve seen in the past. I have also noted that no sane father in my experience is comfortable talking publicly about sexual advice to their kids unless it’s as a joke, ie not dating until their 45 or something. Abbott’s earnestness in the interview is creepy.
Abbot was not discussing anything private at all. He was answering a hypothetical question about HIS OWN views.
Read the paper copy: his answers were clearly in relation to the advice he would give to his daughters about their first time sexual experiences. It’s very private, and akin to attempting to communicate with them through the media. Seriously creepy.
FFS we went through all this in Phase 2 of the Abbott Defence by his luvvies. Phase 1 having been along the lines of ‘we need a national debate about sexual promiscuity, hooray for Abbott for starting it’ etc etc. You abandoned Phase 2 when it became obvious that no sensible parent discusses the sexual advice they’d give their children in the national media.
Though who would be offended by being called a girl?
A grown woman with a mind of her own. Don’t use sexist or patronising terminology with me again.
LOL! A question in the Essential poll:
70% of respondents say he should not be giving moral advice against 19% say he should be, and 11% don’t know. Guess 70% of people are like me in wanting their MPs to stay out of personal stuff like virginity and marriage.
He never discussed any of his children’s sexual experiences. He discussed HIS hypothetical attitude to advising them on premarital sex. That’s completely different.
And what gives you the right to decide what is private in the Abbott houshold? Since he’s discribing his attitude, not their’s, then shouldn’t he and he alone be the decider of what is private?
I don’t know any fathers who would get a chance to discuss their own opinions on advising their kids with the media, but I do know lots who would have no issue with sharing their hypothetical opinions if they were asked.
If he had passed them by minders who you say he answered for then how is his judgement in question. You cant have it both ways.
I doubt that the question was seen before it was answered and Abbott gave an honest answer to a hypothetical situation.
“…I think he over-reached by mentioning his daughters as a way of playing to the fundie vote.” He didn’t mention his daughters. He was asked a question about them. You are prone to lie in your analysis of this aren’t you?
“I don’t believe he expected the backlash because he lacks political judgement”
But you said you believed he passed it by minders. Both ways = fail.
A suggestion. Get to know more sane fathers.
“It’s very private, and akin to attempting to communicate with them through the media. ”
Make it a big one and tell it often eh?
“Don’t use sexist or patronising terminology with me again.”
Well as long as you continue to use the term “luvvies” I think you have a hide demanding that. Toots.
The Opposition Leader Tony Abbott recently said that he believes women should try to remain virgins until they are married. Do you think Tony Abbott should or should not be giving advice on moral issues like sex and marriage?
The question contains a lie.
Guess 70% of people are like me you in accepting the lie and making a judgement on Abbott according to it.
He discussed HIS hypothetical attitude to advising them on premarital sex.
Incorrect. He was asked his views on sex before marriage and somehow made the answer about his daughters asking his opinion about their first sexual experiences. Read the article.
And what gives you the right to decide what is private in the Abbott houshold?
I’m a voter, which means I get to judge him based on his public statements. Which I have done. Which this entire thread and the one preceeding it is about if you hadn’t worked that out already.
If he had passed them by minders who you say he answered for then how is his judgement in question.
I don’t recall saying this, rather I posited the possibility in response to one your inane replies. Please provide evidence of my categorical stance. More telling however is 12 hours ago you wrote this:
If he was asked about virginity, how can you now claim that he wasn’t asked about virginity, that the “it” is something else entirely? I think it’s actually you who’s lying.
He didn’t mention his daughters. He was asked a question about them. You are prone to lie in your analysis of this aren’t you?
Read the article. It’s becomming patently obvious that I’m the only one in this argument who has, in which case it can’t be me who is lying.
But you said you believed he passed it by minders.
Incorrect. I said I believed no such thing. You are misrepresenting me again.
Well as long as you continue to use the term “luvvies” I think you have a hide demanding that.
Yeah, cause calling someone a luvvie wrt to their political dogma is the same as referring to a woman as ‘girl’ on a thread about patronising religious fundies. How about I refer to you from hereon in as a sexist prick and we call it even?
In summary I think you agree with me, but you’ve chosen to take the childish route in trying out the Blot rhetoric here. Oh yes, I’ve noticed your ahem…talking points all align with his. Now that is a fail.
I said I believed no such thing = I did not say I believed any such thing.
Here’s something else for you to read Leo, which is a damned sight easier on the retinas than Blot.
A question for the
Abbott luvviessexist pricks is why the ownership language around his wife and daughters in this, the 21st century? What kind of man seemingly regards his wife as a chattel?!See what I mean about pre-Englightenment views?
I guess everyone’s already covered most things but since you asked Leo, what parents tell their daughters is really none of my business, within reason (You know the sort of thing, if a parent told their 8 year old child to sleep with someone for example, I’d normally assume that would go without saying but something about what you are saying creeps me out so I’ll make that clear now.)
Ultitmately I’d hope to teach my daughter, if I had one, to have a healthy attitude to her life and her sexuality, and to base her decisions in her own self respect. After that i guess I’d have to trust them to make their own mistakes and figure it out. Its easy to say i spose.
Thats probably the attitude parents should have.
I know a few victims of sexual assault… some of them aren’t too impressed with Abbott’s comments.
“Because they will be seen as sluts, because they will be exposing themselves to issues out of their control, because YOU feel that the sexual “gift” should be seen as more than a handshake or a walk across the road. For whatever reason wouldn’t you tell them to think about it and be mindful of what they are getting into and the value that their own sexuality should have for them?
Wouldn’t you do that rather than simply say,”No, shag whomever you like the look of and don’t worry about and of the consequences.”????????” – Leo
Lets leave virginity out of it, cos I haven’t read the paper edition of WW and focus on what you said in an attempt to speak for Abbott’s opinion.
The the context of those comments is obviously that the only options are no sex before marriage or you are a slut.
This is a pathetic attempt to control female sexuality, and assuming that without your version of “respect” sex means as little as a handshake.
There’s nothing wrong with thinking of sex as sacred.. and in fact good sex (and good music) are possibly two things that will always convince people that there is something sacred about life, and existence and all that.
But really thats enough on its own without all the dogmatic control issues.
Thats what it comes back too. The assumption that your way is the only way, and if you don’t follow that way there is something wrong with you – that you’ll lose your social value and people will look down their noses at you.
Now ultimately this whole debate centres around healthy and unhealthy attitudes to sex, and the attitude you (Leo) are expressing, which you claim reflects Abbott’s view, is unhealthy.
While claiming to be about healthy self perception its actually about control, by defining healthy self perception sex outside of marriage as mutually exclusive.
People should make their own choices about sex, and not base them on other people’s opinions.
That opens them to exploitation.
Surely if you let external pressure not have sex form your attitude, its going to be harder to resist external pressure to have it when you might otherwise want no part of it.
For a start.
“I’m a voter, which means I get to judge him based on his public statements. Which I have done.”
Here’s a challenge to you.
Hadn’t you made that judgement prior to the WW article? Honestly? This entire thread and the one previous is indeed about you expressing your prejudices. Not based on his private life or his personal judgements, but on which side of the political fence he sits. Rudd shares his views on many, many personal matters, hides those views and is praised for that by you. Rudd is indeed using his views on how he would advise his kids in the same way you accuse Abbott of doing. For votes and no other reason.
And isn’t Jeremy, whom I conceed isn’t a father, doing the same thing in saying what advice he’d give his daughters. Strange that you accept the judgement of a man who’s not a father and reject the judgement of one who is.
Confessions said “How do you know he had no idea what the questions were beforehand?”
The logical extension of that is that you think I’m wrong in that assumption. Meaning that you believe the questions were vetted by minders.
Done.
I quoted the clarification Confessions. I said that having read the Abbott quote that it was clear that he’s commenting on sexuality not virginity. If you have another quote that suggests otherwise then I suggest you pop it in here and I’d be happy to be corrected. Don’t be shy now.
“Read the article. It’s becomming patently obvious that I’m the only one in this argument who has, in which case it can’t be me who is lying.”
The complete lack of quotes to support that assertion make it clear where the “errors” are.
If there are comments in the article that support your point then you’d be quoting them.
“….cause (sic) calling someone a luvvie wrt to their political dogma is the same as referring to a woman as ‘girl’ …”
Ok luvvy you win that point.
“In summary I think you agree with me, but you’ve chosen to take the childish route in trying out the Blot rhetoric here. ”
Now that’s a misrepresentation luvie.
Karen means I agree with you?
Lovie just became loopy.
Ha ha spelled me own name wrong.
Luvie. Either you have read the article and that makes your contention that “Tony Abbott recently said that he believes women should try to remain virgins until they are married. ” A deliberate lie. Because he does not say that in the article.
Or
You are repaeting it despite being informed here that it is not what he said. A deliberate lie.
Either way Luvie.
Lindsay Tanner called Tony Abbott a “credible chose” with John Faine this morning.
Leo: do you have any new arguments or just juvenile name-calling? You’ve failed to either answer my questions or respond with logical arguments to my observations. It’s also clear that you haven’t even read the full article in print, so anything you have to say about what Abbott actually said in the interview is simply hearsay and can’t be considered credible opinion.
Furthermore, contradicting yourself within a 12 hour period is usually indicative of someone who isn’t interested in reasoned debate, but simply wants to troll. And lastly, changing your name in different comments to give the appearance of a different person is just childish game playing. Why don’t you take your silly games somewhere where they’ll be appreciated.
Confessions, to be fair to Leo I don’t think he / she meant to change his / her name.
More Leo likely made a genuine mistake because Leo’s a moron. Or did get drunk as you suggested.
Rudd’s incessant monotonous moralising was actually starting to grate pretty hard a few months ago too, if you remember.
This isn’t about Rudd or Abbott, its ultimately about how unhealthy it is for politicians to make comments or judgments about people’s sexuality publicly.
Luvie
Firstly. I changed PC and made a typo.
Secondly. You have failed to quote the article and instead quoted a survey which mirepresents the point made by Abbott. I have however quoted it several times.
Thirdly. You are the one who started the ad-hominem with your “Have you beem drinking?” comment and you then continued it with “sexist prick”. I apologised (and do again) for having called you a girl when indeed you are elderly.
Lastly. I didn’t contradict myself. I corrected myself.
loe/Leo/whatever the fuck your name is: Have you read the hard copy article yet? No? Then you are blowing it out your arse. I have, so can tell you that his words in the interview are correctly represented in this post.
It’s up to you to make an argument having failed to refute anything that’s been put to you in this thread, and having contradicted even the stuff you have posted.
So in the article he actually said that he believes women should try to remain virgins until they are married?
Why not quote it?
And why are you getting this abusive?
So in the article he actually said that he believes women should try to remain virgins until they are married?
If you had read the article you’d know this. You haven’t yet continue to offer uninformed commentary on the issue. Why?
And is that yet another change of screen name?
You people are unbelievable.
You people?
Confessions if you must know I am a slightly disabled person with a mild visual disability and rather servere problems with my hands.
I am posting from a cafe in a disability service provider’s job search facility.
They let “us people” use their computers.
I use a number of different PCs to post here and on one of them, which remembered my typo, I have repeated that error.
I’m terribly sorry if this offends your clearly delicate dispositions.
Please don’t make this argument about you and I. It is about what Abbott said or did not say and as far as I can see, you continue to argue on the basis of something he clearly did not say.
And to prove that you now REFUSE to quote him.
Lie by misquote, lie by omission, lie by lie by lie.
Have you read the magazine article yet? No? Then you are blowing it out your arse.
Fran Kelly notices the same hypocracy I noticed.
Which is the ‘honest’ position Tone?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/05/2810841.htm?site=thedrum
Fran, while a little more polite and tempered in her denunciations of conservatives that you Confessions, is hardly the bastion of ballenced commentry in the Australian media.
In fact in the very few line you posted here she, like you, has misrepresented Abbott.
“Tony Abbott has a much more sophisticated view on the issue than he let show in The Weekly.”
Abbot edited the weekly article?
I note also that she, as you continue to do, has not quoted the WW article.
Why do you have an issue with this anyway?
(Other than political prejudice and religious bigotry of course.)
He’s talking about what he’d advise his own daughters in one and he is talking about the reality of life in the other.
It’s rather like saying on one hand,
that once people used to take the pledge and not drink untill they were 21, but now it’s not realistic to expect most young adults in this hyper-boozy age to live soberly.
And on the other
I would advise my daughters not to get paralitic and do 30 laybacks and jager bombs at the shooters and pass out on the footpath in a puddle of their own filth. EVEN THOUGH ASA YOUNG MAN I DID THAT.
It’s advice and it’s good advice coming from a perso who knows from personal experience the pitfalls of the behaviour.
Fran, while a little more polite and tempered in her denunciations of conservatives that you Confessions, is hardly the bastion of ballenced commentry in the Australian media.
Exactly, she’s so pro Liberal it’s not funny.
And Tone strikes again when it comes to women. How will the Abbott luvvies spin this pray tell?
And is being saddled with ironing we women’s punishment for giving away our virginity so lightly? lol.
Yes the left will not tolerate accuracy under any circumstances.
Luvie you spin it any way you like, but housewives, where they do exist, still do most of the ironing.
And Fran the liberal?
LMAO.
I do my own ironing! I reckon I’m pretty good at it too. My wife isn’t working currently, so I don’t have to do the dishes much but I still do my own ironing… I guess we’re a modern Australian working family 😉
And in the past when my wife was working and I wasn’t, I did the housework, I’ve never been a ‘housewife’ which I reckon is an anachronistic term.
I do most of the housework too Rob.
That is most of the jobs that housework entails.
I have to admit that I’m not home enough to do most of the actual work, but I do do the ironing, which I enjoy BTW.
In the circles in which I move though I am some what of a loner in ironing. Most of the blokes I know either wash and ware, order out for ironing or have the lady of the house do it. Most of the women I know (wives) don’t like ironing much, but still do it.
It’s probably an outdated term to call someone a housewife, as it is to call them a lady, but only the most feral armpit platters are offended by the term in my experience.
And more flipping and flopping from Tone.
In the WW interview when he was asked about paid maternity leave he declared “my thinking has moved on a bit since then”, flipping away from his Battlelines position on a 6 month parental leave scheme. Now, he’s flopped back to it again.
Of course these inconsistencies are never highlighted in the Abbottariat of the MSM, where his luvvies continue to represent him as a ‘conviction politician’.