Prev
Next

Hey Tony, the virginity ship has sailed

Catharine Lumby

by Catharine Lumby

27 Jan 02:10pm

Must Reads

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart - this is a caption

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart

134

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone - this is a caption

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

161

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

163

Filed under: Marriage, Men And Women, Politics, Tony Abbott, Womans Weekly

126 comments

So Tony Abbott thinks Australian women should quit having pre-marital sex.

I trust you girls will keep yourselves nice. Picture: Bohdan Warchomij

We all know he likes a challenge.

But good luck, mate, getting that particular toothpaste back in the tube.

The 60s is often portrayed as the era of sexual liberation – a time when western women cast aside their foundation garments and started living in sin. In fact it wasn’t until the 1980s that pre-marital sex really came out of the closet.

I know because my generation of women was the first to shack up with their boyfriends en masse. We entered our twenties in the decade when formerly bohemian sexual mores went mainstream.

We stopped lying to our parents about who was sleeping where in our share households. Most of them got over it quickly.

Of course we didn’t invent premarital sex. What we did was to refuse to live a lie and pretend that sex was something ‘nice’ girls refused until they had a wedding ring on their finger.

A combination of factors drove this shift. Reliable contraception was available without stigma from Family Planning rather than conservative family doctors.

Feminist campaigns and laws that promoted women’s equality were critical. But perhaps the biggest change of all was that many women of my generation finished high school, went to university and wanted to be financially independent.

My generation no longer saw sexual purity as something you used to buy economic security in the form of a husband who’d support you and your children.

Because when you get behind all the romantic tosh about women ‘saving’ themselves for their husband, there’s an ugly truth: female virginity was valued because it allowed men to claim exclusive sexual ownership of their wife.

Marriage, after all, has its origins in a property transaction.

Fathers needed their daughters to remain virgins because it was difficult to pass ‘damaged’ goods on to a suitably well-heeled husband who could expand the family’s wealth and status. Women were regarded as the legal property of their fathers and later their spouse.

It’s telling that Mr Abbott focuses on the ‘gift’ of female virginity. Men presumably get a tacit free pass to sow their wild oats, providing they do it with someone else’s daughter. It’s a double standard that remains alarmingly common.

I sat next to a well-educated liberal minded man at dinner recently who was openly boasting about his son’s libidinous adventures at university. I asked him politely what his daughter was getting up to in her spare time. He looked at me in dumbstruck horror.

This, of course, is the other great lie that underpins the push for women to stay sexually pure.

It’s the claim that men are naturally sexual and they can’t help themselves. Women, being interested in romance rather than sex, give into sexual demands in exchange for true love.

The double standards might live on in the minds of middle class men with daughters to ‘protect’. But if you look at how most young Australians conduct their sex lives and their relationships it’s pretty clear that the virginity ship has sailed.

Tony Abbott it seems is still clinging forlornly to the mast.

Most commented

353Lay off the tatts and have a debate about the real issues
304Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
286Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
232I'm Labor, I'm pro-life and I'm no political hypocrite
226Is an act of crime ever too trivial for investigation?
225Home births are prone to many complications
213Blame no one – and everyone – for the Oz Day debacle
185A fair day's pay for a fair day's play

126 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Aitch B says:

      04:19pm | 27/01/10

      Not quite, Catharine…. he has said he’d like his daughters to retain their virginity until they’re married. If they’re not going to do that then he’d like them to use condoms.

      Where has he stated that he’d like this to apply to all unmarried teenagers or women in general?

      Nowhere!

      Reply

    • Bec says:

      04:25pm | 27/01/10

      My god, my dad was way too mortified to talk to me about virginity, much less stipulate rules about it! He did teach me how to change a tyre and fix a lawnmower, though. Way more useful, and no creepy Joe Simpson moments. Cheers, dad.

      Reply

    • Loving says:

      05:06pm | 27/01/10

      My dad was the same, he was a kind loving man, who would never have discussed virginity with his only daughter or embarrased her, he set my standards high for all other men in my life and after reading Tony Abbotts comments I realise how lucky I was to have him

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      07:04pm | 27/01/10

      Lumby your boat has sailed. Why does it seem these days we can never work towards the ideal and promote it but instead have to accomodate all the lesser options incase we offend someone. The two parent family, keeping sex before marriage, not shoving your children into immediate child care,having enough water for your garden, owning your own home, having health insurance, having roads that aren’t always clogged. We should be aiming for these things not saying - too late we’ll never have them so get over it. We need to aspire to a better Australia not accept Lumby’s mediocrity.

      Reply

    • JJJ says:

      07:48am | 28/01/10

      Joe. I like your idea of keeping sex BEFORE marriage - I applaud that!... try before you buy, I say! Life is too short to not be sure you are having great sex. smile

    • Dazza says:

      09:03am | 28/01/10

      She’s fighting for the right for kids everywhere to have unwanted teen pregnancies, STDs and all that other great stuff. Fight for the right to party.

    • H of SA says:

      04:25pm | 27/01/10

      There are not two groups. There are at least 5

      Celibates (rare)

      People who openly have sex outside marriage.

      People who say the don’t believe in sex outside marriage and are lying.

      People who don’t believe in sex outside marriage but their actions fail to live up to their convictions.

      People who don’t believe in sex before marriage and actually live like that…...and here is the rub, what on earth is wrong with that?

      Reply

    • Catharine Lumby says:

      07:06pm | 27/01/10

      Thanks to all my respondents. I’ve read your comments and thought them through like the daggy academic with three tertiary degrees that I am. (I note that some of you see the tertiary education track record as a disability..but it’s the truth).

      I’d like to respond as honestly as possible to the claims that I was distorting Mr Abbott’s comment. On the contrary, I was digging beneath his very genuine statements about his daughters. I have no doubt, having worked years ago in Parliament House with him, that he’s a very good parent and a very well-intentioned man. As a feminist, however, I have many quarrels with him, including the claim that virginity matters.

      Reply

    • Darren says:

      09:10am | 28/01/10

      “Digging beneath his very genuine statement…”

      Code for: making it up as I go.

      I can’t remember your outrage at Kevin Rudd’s strip club adventures. Presumably your three teriary degrees have afforded you the view that the “liberated” sex industry is preferable to sensible fatherly advice to his daughters.

      I’m just using my tertiary degree to dig for the real motive beneath your genuine comment piece.

    • Tropsmurf says:

      09:28am | 28/01/10

      “Making up a story” or as you say it “digging beneath”. You were distorting his comments so you could get on your soap box, don’t try to deny that.

    • Eric says:

      10:03am | 28/01/10

      In that case, Ms Lumby, I can “dig beneath your very genuine statements” to discern that feminism is about wanting to enslave or exterminate all men. See, I can use the same tactics, and I didn’t even need three tertiary degrees!

    • Stephanie says:

      12:08pm | 28/01/10

      “As a feminist, however, I have many quarrels with him, including the claim that virginity matters”

      My virginity mattered to me when I gave it away, I was not married, but it was words like “Don’t give it away lightly” not “Virginity doesn’t matter” in my head. So to me, your brand of feminism stinks.

      I also graduated from university (1 degree I’m afraid) but during those years I watched as many of my friends (girls and guys) go through the agony and pain of discovering they had STD’s and the stress of HIV tests (thank god none of them had it). Their STD status was what they feared and being branded as sluts because they made a poor choice of sleeping with someone they barely knew thinking…“ah it doesn’t matter”

      Tony Abbott’s words just reinforce my decision that my sexual activity does, and my virginity did, matter to me and always will.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      03:01pm | 28/01/10

      I dug beneath your need to mention your impressive academic record - out of context - but all I found were the roots of a frustrated superiority complex.

    • Adam Bowman says:

      10:48am | 29/01/10

      Once again, as soon as people see the word feminism a red haze engulfs them and they start acting like Pat Robertson.

    • Mandi says:

      07:08pm | 27/01/10

      What sort of question is that to ask any dad by the Women’s Weekly.  I’m definitely no fan of Tony Abott but he should have refused to answer such a question.  It’s somewhat distasteful of the Women’s Weekly to ask the opposition leader such a question about his daughters- just a little bit icky and information I don’t need to know about..

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      04:25pm | 27/01/10

      “So Tony Abbott thinks Australian women should quit having pre-marital sex.”

      Does he? Or is this a total media distortion of the answer he gave to a specific question about advice he would give his daughters?

      It’s pretty sad when “news” services have to resort to misrepresentation just to push a story. But then, with the left-wing bias of the vast majority of journalists, beat-ups like these are inevitable.

      Thankfully we have the Internet now. If the American experience is anything to go by, in a few more years the mass media will rapidly become irrelevant.

      Reply

    • Jeanette says:

      07:25pm | 27/01/10

      I agree with you Eric.

      Also, maybe if he suggested that men remain virgins until marriage, surely the women remaining virgins will automatically follow!

    • KW says:

      04:27pm | 27/01/10

      Thank you Catharine. Your last few paragraphs sum up perfectly the concerns I have with abbott & his supporters on this issue.
      Surely by 2010 we can start to move on from sexist double standards?

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      07:10pm | 27/01/10

      Catherine, get your FACTS straight before righting a piece. There, I said it. Now I would hate to think how you got your qualifications as a journalist because isn’t journalism all about the FACTS which you would appear to have glossed over. But then if you had the FACTS you wouldn’t have been able to write the article. Fair dinkum, the standard of contributor’s to this site is at an all time low with junk like yours. I wouldn’t ask you to take out my garbage let alone write for me!

      By the way I don’t think Tony would care what you do Catherine. He’s got bigger fish to fry.

      Reply

    • Little Miss SciFi says:

      04:32pm | 27/01/10

      Actually Catharine, that’s not what he said at all.  Typical knee-jerk reaction there.

      Reply

    • Toddzilla says:

      04:33pm | 27/01/10

      Actually, Catharine, Tony Abbott said nothing about being anti sex before marriage. That is something you and the other irrational Abbott haters have cast upon him. What actually happened was this:

      Asked what advice he would give his three daughters on sex before marriage, he told the (Women’s) Weekly: ‘’I would say to my daughters, if they were to ask me this question … it is the greatest gift you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don’t give it to someone lightly.’’

      I would argue that any parent who gives advice to their children that differs from this (ie., that girls should spread their legs for the first bloke who asks), should immediately have their children taken from them. Why then, did he not mention blokes having sex before marriage? Obviously because he has no sons and it was therefore not a question posed to him. So Catherine, get off your soapbox and learn to read before you impinge others with opinions they never aired.

      Reply

    • Catharine Lumby says:

      11:21pm | 27/01/10

      Hi Todzilla. (My ten year old who has been following these posts and thinks you have a ‘cool’ name BTW). Thanks for your comments and for spelling my name correctly. A rare event.

      Anyway, I understand your concern, and those of other respondents to my column, that we should understand Tony’s statements in parental and not in broader political and social terms. But that’s precisely the problem I’m pointing out in my column - it’s the patina of paternal concern that masks the larger and, for mine, patriarchal control of women. That’s exactly why no-one worries about boys having sex and becoming ‘used’ goods but the same people are horrified if their teenage daughters go out dressed like a ‘slut’. (Damn - now I’ll have to explain patriarchy to my ten year old when he reads this!)

    • Peter says:

      09:57am | 29/01/10

      “it’s the patina of paternal concern that masks the larger and, for mine, patriarchal control of women”, my god you talk some crap. Virginity does matter in the sense that any young girl (or boy for that matter), should aspire to have their first experience with someone special in their lives, not just blokes they might meet on a street corner some day. But to suggest that first time experience is not important or special is ridiculous. You are peddling outdated feminism ideals. Feminism has probably done more harm than good to women, and that’s thanks to people like you… Feminism told women to hold off having kids to build a career yet these are the women you see in IVF offices because they left things too late. Both men and women have a primal instinct to get married and have kids, they should be encouraged to do this earlier in life rather than depend on doctors and taxpayers to do what nature would have done anyway.. Just because your loose with your morals doesn’t mean eveyone else has to be as well..

    • Karen M says:

      04:35pm | 27/01/10

      I just find the whole topic distasteful, Tony Abbott’s daughters are young females and I honestly feel they should not be put in a position of having their virginity talked about by anyone. Double standards is exactly right, its ok for a man but not ok for a woman. Time marches forward and gone are the days of virgins being of high value and sold on the slave block.
      Australian women are not silly they can and do protect themselves and continue on in good careers quite happily. And does todays man really care if his partner is a virgin or not? I have never met a guy yet whos even asked me “are you a virgin”? my answer would be “none of your buisness”

      Reply

    • BW says:

      04:48pm | 27/01/10

      Ha, taking advice on sex from a disgraceful puppet of the sex industry in Catherine Lumby - never going to happen! It’s because of deviant smut-mongers like you that sex has been so cheapened in Western culture that slutting oneself is a now a higher virtue than monogamous marriage. You, Catherine Lumby, are a disgrace.

      Reply

    • Burn of the Glen says:

      08:13pm | 27/01/10

      Well said.

      Congratulations

    • Sadhbh Warren says:

      06:38pm | 28/01/10

      Man, now I want to be a deviant smut-monger. It sounds interesting.

      I was going to reply seriously on how much I enjoyed the piece (double standards, much?) but now I am laughing too loud at some of the comments.

    • DocBud says:

      04:49pm | 27/01/10

      Is this what is taught at the Journalism and Media Research Centre, Catharine? How to distort what someone says in order to push your own agenda. The JMRC claims to offer “rigorous and relevant education for postgraduate coursework and research students.” I guess rigorous doesn’t include reading or listening to what was actually said in its proper context.

      Reply

    • Carl Palmer says:

      04:52pm | 27/01/10

      Thanks for the history lesson, but I can’t see how this article could be remotely associated with TA comments.  Your article smacks of a “feminist rant” particularly the “…well-educated liberal minded man at dinner recently who was openly boasting about his son’s libidinous adventures at university” line. TA has three daughters.

      The question was “……what advice he would give his daughters on sex before marriage, Mr Abbott replied that he would advise them not to give away their virginity lightly.”

      As a father, this is a perfectly valid response and very eloquently stated and I bet Mrs Abbott would probably have the same view.

      I think he understands that it’s the 21st Century. I’m also sure he knows that it is a media beat up.

      Must be a slow news day.

      Reply

    • Sherlock says:

      04:56pm | 27/01/10

      As mentioned by others the opening sentence of this article is incorrect. That’s not what he said despite the left going out of the way to convince all and sundry he did.

      I can only reach the conclusion that a large proportion of the left happen to be illiterate or at least have some problems with comprehension. They attempt to read something yet reach a completely differing conclusion to what is actually written.

      Frankly I blame successive governments (liberal and labor) for allowing the public school system to decline to its current poor state.

      Abbott asked about a hypothetical piece of advice to his own daughters that he would advise them to wait until they were married before having sex. If they found that impossible to at least use contraception.

      Who really thinks that’s bad advice from a father? It not even particularly churchy and it’s certainly not the official catholic dogma.

      It would seem the left would have preferred him to say go out and root like rabbits without any contraception. Oh I see that would mean more welfare recipients for the left’s wealth redistribution wet dream.

      They have the sex yet we get screwed!

      Reply

    • Fog Badger says:

      04:58pm | 27/01/10

      Wow. Where’s the academic rigor in this?!

      All journalist and no Professor.

      Reply

    • Muzz says:

      05:04pm | 27/01/10

      Give Tony Abbot a break PLEASE. Anyone have anything to say about Rudd? Last year we had to endure Turnbull stories every time he opened his mouth, one after another after another. Now it looks like it’s going to be Abbott stories every time he opens his mouth. Please put some focus onto the Rudd Government for a change.

      Reply

    • Jennifer says:

      05:05pm | 27/01/10

      “So Tony Abbott thinks Australian women should quit having pre-marital sex”

      Ummmm no Catherine, he doesn’t, he just hopes that his own daughters “don’t give it away lightly”, which is the same advice I would give any kids I have. He doesn’t talk about it in regard to sons because HE DOESN’T HAVE ANY.

      Your generation’s sexual habits and standards are NOTHING to be proud of. As a 23-year-old woman I respect Tony Abbott’s stance on it far more than your stance on attacking him for encouraging his daughters to take the decision seriously rather than jump into bed with the first Tom, Dick or Harry they come across like your generation did.

      You and your equally demented friend Germaine Greer are the ones that need to stop “clinging forlornly to the mast” that encouraged a whole generation of women to drop panties and burn bra’s!

      Reply

    • TC says:

      05:49pm | 27/01/10

      Well said Jennifer. The 60s were 40 years ago!

    • Vlad says:

      07:20pm | 27/01/10

      and TC, you should know, how do you date the primitive age, BCs…...hang on…....i think it’s way further than that, and that is the way everything is going…

    • Bri says:

      09:30pm | 27/01/10

      Hi Jennifer

      Whilst I totally respect your opinion and agree that TA has been miss-quoted I thought that as another young woman I’d question your assumptions about the ‘sexual habits and standards’ of our parents generation.

      What many young women today do not recognise is that feminism is not an ugly word. In fact many of the things young women today take for granted have been hard fought for by feminists of the past. Take your right to have the vote and go to university; your right not to be raped by your husband, your right to have the same pay as men (although - women in Australia are still not paid the same as men). There are many other rights that you now have that you would never have had if it were not for feminists.

      As for the 1960s and 70s there was a lot more going on there than ‘dropping panties and burning bras’ - this was the era that gave Aboriginal Australians the vote, this was the era where young people campaigned against oppression of all sorts (not just sexual oppression).

      The past is important and should not be forgotten. I for one do not want to return to the bad old days of rape within marriage and women seen merely as objects to be traded.

      Whilst TA has every right to express his personal opinion concerning his daughters, he ought to have the political savvy to recognise the inherent sexism in the question he was asked. This is not about female virginity but about mutual respect and respect for your own body. He should have answered the question much better than he did.

      I hope you don’t diss Germain Greer and other feminists too much Jennifer. They are on your side.

    • Jennifer says:

      09:00am | 28/01/10

      Well Bri…we’ll agree to disagree!

    • Bruce says:

      05:08pm | 27/01/10

      Tony Abbott did NOT say “Australian women should quit have pre marital sex”.  What a misleading statement. Little wonder we read “beat up” media articles with suspicion. Wether you believe in pre- marrital sex or not, personaly I do not care. I would have thought Tony Abbotts comments were more than sensible. What alternate statement would you like him to say to women, particularly your daughter or children ?

      Reply

    • Lincoln says:

      05:16pm | 27/01/10

      If Tony Abbott doesn’t say what you people want him to say, then you’ll say he said it anyway. Do you think the public are so stupid they don’t actually check what he actually said! Go and sit with Penbo, Spicer and Gillard you fools.

      Reply

    • TC says:

      05:22pm | 27/01/10

      Is there any part of this rant that has any foundation whatsoever in the actual words that came out of TA’s mouth? Or factual basis is irrelevant in journalism these days.

      Might also point out Catherine that the 60s were 40 years ago. Just who is living in the past

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      05:24pm | 27/01/10

      Seriously, does Catherine Lumby have the same alert system for ‘ZOMG SEX IN DA NEWZ’ as Punch regular Eric? Does an alarm go off and does she emphatically declare ‘TO THE GIRL CAVE, LUMBY!’ Only does her Girl Phone play a polyphonic ringtone version of ‘Let’s Talk About Sex Baby’? Does she ever get sick of that song being used to introduce her when she goes on television? And is her Girl Cave accessed by a Wayne Manor style fireman’s pole like Eric’s? Or do poles and chutes to the Girl Cave make for easy laughs and are discarded the way Christopher Nolan got rid of them for his Batman Returns / Dark Knight reboot? These questions might never be answered, but are of greater importance than the debate about Tabbott’s virginity slip up.

      Catherine Lumby is right about one thing. She didn’t invent premarital sex. I did. It was an unseasonally cold evening in January 1991, I was ruminating on the recent invasion of Kuwait by allied forces when the notion came to me. I didn’t follow through on it then, obviously, I was 6, and umarried, but the idea caught on when several rich heiresses started filming it and putting the evidence on the internet. Now everyone does it, and I wish I had have done it earlier so I could say ‘I was the first, man.’

      I’m suprised that Lumby hasn’t mentioned the inherrent sexism of all this virginity talk. It’s a really male centric way of describing one’s first sexual encounter. A woman’s virginity can be taken, bought, sold, traded. By labeling it we’re still describing it in commercial terms, like women are objects. I’m no feminist, but, that makes me uncomfortable. Not, ‘Tony Abbott talking about virginity’ uncomfortable, more dissonant.

      On the one hand, I want to celebrate a woman’s right to choose her sexual partners, and the social circumstances around which she makes that choice. I want to celebrate that because, once or twice a year some woman chooses me. But at the same time, I’d want to protect my daughters from making the wrong choice. Because, on several occassions, women have chosen me as their sexual partner and later, we would all agree this was a very bad choice, since I’m clingy, unreliable, and bathe rarely.

      Reply

    • Merry says:

      08:32am | 29/01/10

      Best comment.

    • misha says:

      09:23am | 01/02/10

      Who are you? You made me laugh out loud!

    • Maree says:

      05:28pm | 27/01/10

      Abbott certainly must have alot of you people at the Punch very FRUSTRATED is all I can say. How about trying to write something he said instead of lying about what he said. At least Abbott is honest, because the rubbish, misquotes and distortions you guys are trotting out lately about what Abbott has said is unbelievable! VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.

      Reply

    • Bec says:

      05:33pm | 27/01/10

      Zeta, I seriously love you, but that will all change if you give everyone else the location of the Girl Cave.

      You hit on the problem with how we talk about sex: it’s all creepily transactive. Sex isn’t an object or fee; it’s a performance. You don’t give sex: you do it. and nobody owes it to you, and you don’t owe it to anyone either. Maybe if we got rid of this creepy fetishising men and women would get on way better. As it is, dads, give your daughters advice on buying a car or dealing with dodgy bosses - we can take care of the ladybits, kthx.

      Reply

    • Napolean says:

      05:35pm | 27/01/10

      Tony Abbott loves his daughters. Glad to hear it. It’s the sort of advice they probably wish he chose to share with just them and not the nation, but Dad’s can be embarrassing sometimes. I’m not holding that against him.

      He is simply too careless and bumble-footed to be a serious contender for PM. He reminds me a lot of Mark Latham. Some good ideas, great energy, a strong sense of moral foundation, and endearingly honest at somewhat unsuitable times. But this slip hints at a more disturbing lack of judgement. He walks into an obvious political traps. When the issue is his daughters virginity (for heaven’s sake) it matters not, but one day soon, it will be a much more important topic and his stumbling foolishness will cost Australia dearly. Imagine how China’s leaders would run rings around him.

      Reply

    • Brian says:

      05:37pm | 27/01/10

      Same Catherine Lumby as celebrated saviour of the NRL post Coffs Harbour 2004? Good job done there…........................NOT. Go back and hide in the ALP.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      05:44pm | 27/01/10

      Catherine, your article is misleading and deceptive and you should be ashamed of yourself.

      Tony Abbott simply claimed that he would like his daughters to save themselves for marriage and value the gift of their virginity, and that if they did have sex they did so safely. Yes he doesnt want them to get pregnant, nor contract a sexually transmitted disease.

      He did not state that all women should conform to his wishes for his own children. I doubt your father thought wow I hope Catherine does and fu_ks every man.woman at uni.

      I bet deep down he loved his daughter and just wanted the best for her, just like Tony Abbott does and what 99.9% of men want from their daughters.

      For the punch to allow publication of such shit is a disgrace.

      Reply

    • IMHO says:

      05:55pm | 27/01/10

      “Professor” Catharine Lumby…what a shocker.

      “Director of the Journalism and Media Research Centre at UNSW”...do we use public money to pay for this tripe.

      Zeta, once again. Nicely framed. I am becoming your biggest fan (don’t worry, not in a sexual way)

      Reply

    • Lewy says:

      05:56pm | 27/01/10

      Hey Catharine Lumby, your journalistic reputation boat has sailed.

      Reply

    • Xena says:

      06:01pm | 27/01/10

      What about rudd telling australia how internet censorship, worshiping china and the ets will make our lives better, all lies and but do you have anything to say about that?

      Reply

    • Brad Coward says:

      06:07pm | 27/01/10

      Ms Lumby….you failed reading/comprehension tests at primary school, didn’t you ?  And those reading/comprehension skills have not improved as you’ve aged.  Next time, read the individuals quote and report on what the individual actually said…not what you believe that you’ve heard.

      Reply

    • Brad Coward says:

      06:14pm | 27/01/10

      Lumby and Spicer…..graduates of the same journalism course !  And it only cost thirty bucks to get the diploma !

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      06:22pm | 27/01/10

      What a pathetic piece of gutter journalism,  a male leader in this nation answers honestly a question that terrifies every parent and states that he hoped his children would be mindful of who they slept with.

      Then bang bang off go the looney left carrying on that mindless promiscuity is great and giving the impression that we should just get our clothes off and get to it with anyone anytime anywhere and that Abbott is somehow launching some kind of assault on the ‘sexual revolution’

      And they say Abbott has the issue!!

      Seriously Catherine, go and ask the same question of all parents with teenage daughters (well the sane one’s at any rate) and see what response you get, no doubt Abbott’s views would be very mainstream.

      Reply

    • Robert says:

      06:57pm | 27/01/10

      I believe that this has been blown so far out of proportion. The comments made by Mr. Abbot were from a magazine article. He was not attempting to pass a law against pre-marital sex, he was expressing his opinion. It is not as though it would be impossible to guess where Mr. Abbot would stand on this issue, it is common knowledge that he is a devout christian possibly fanatically so (if you believe current affairs programs).

      In any case, I will still be voting Liberal this election if only due to the fact that Mr. Rudd has done absolutely nothing worth while and Ms. Gillard’s ideas concerning an education grading system are rediculous and will only lead to greater strain put on the public education system in Australia.

      Reply

    • Simple Simon says:

      06:59pm | 27/01/10

      Does anyone else think that feminism is more about female supremacy than equality???

      Reply

    • Vlad says:

      07:00pm | 27/01/10

      So, everyone here blabbing against Tony’s opinion, is ok, but it’s not ok for Tony to do the same, the dude chooses to live with principles, and like everyone, makes mistakes, but unlike everyone, he actually attempts to not repeat them. Rudd, continues to waste our millions, promoting abortion overseas, and promoting the ‘enforcement’ of abortion upon those not willing in this country to take part. That’s a little more that ‘opinion’
      You say Tony is behind the times, his values seem to be relatively similar to what people have enjoyed for at least the last few thousand years, but the values here that folk are trying to form are primitive and barbaric.
      Tony is trying to revive the move forward, not backward with rhetorical crap.
      and that is what this and everyother nation NEEDS.

      Reply

    • The Drover says:

      07:02pm | 27/01/10

      All he said was that this was the advice he would give his daughters, is that a problem for you, he wasnt preaching, why must people like you try to distort it. Oh, he must have you lot spooked.

      Reply

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      07:02pm | 27/01/10

      Oh my, what a day, what a shocker for Lumby, Gillard and Rudd. If Abbott can cause this kind of reaction talking to WW what is going to happen in Parliamant. The massive over-reaction to fraudulently distorted rational comments will surely drive any “Working Family”  directly into the arms of Father Abbott. Pathetic beat up.

      Reply

    • Vlad says:

      07:05pm | 27/01/10

      yeah….....Tony more than likely treats his daughter with the same love and respect, people here are putting ‘your dad’ out of context, stay loving, like your dad and Tony.

      Reply

    • Vlad says:

      07:27pm | 27/01/10

      hey, I am quite impressed with almost the lot of you here and your responses…. after ‘replying’ to the few, ..... that is all I felt I had to do….... as most of them actually were on the same page, the correct one, Lumby….... you’re fired!!!!

      Reply

    • Legend says:

      07:46pm | 27/01/10

      A key that can open any lock is called a masterkey. A lock that can be opened by any key is a lousy lock.

      Men want sex all the time and want it as easy as possible. We’ll practically give it away to anyone for the chance of procreation. A man that can score easily shows that he has some very special qualities (usually looks and/or money). A woman doing the same shows she has a heartbeat and a vagina and not very high standards.

      But we don’t want to marry a girl that has done the same. Double standards exist. Get over it. While men don’t expect to marry virgins anymore, we don’t want the town bike. we want a girl with some self-respect and restraint that we can respect and trust.

      Reply

    • Ian says:

      08:21pm | 27/01/10

      wouldn’t expect anymore from this bloke, just as he is allowed his beliefs all others are aslo allowed their’s. A vote for his part will bring this sort of holier than thou attitude to divide the whole country

      Reply

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      10:00pm | 28/01/10

      Really? A politician mixing his politics and faith? Whatever next? Maybe a PM organising photo opportunities outside church?  Oh, and any church will do so long as the media have been given a heads-up.

      Care to recall who said this:

      “No I’m not on a crusade. I’m doing what I think at this time in Australia’s political history is right. And that is to engage this debate about faith, values and politics and not to vacate the ground for the other mob. For those on the political right who believe that faith is their natural preserve. I don’t intend to stand around or let that happen. I’ve got a responsibility for the tradition of Christian politics that I come from.”

      You know that God bloke? Well he belongs to Labour, not that Liberal mob. grin

    • RJB says:

      08:27pm | 27/01/10

      If this is how you hear and or read a comment and decipher it as per your written trash, then what does this say about your competancy.

      Reply

    • Bri says:

      08:52pm | 27/01/10

      Yes, those who are criticising Catherine for suggesting that Abbott said all women should not have premarital sex are right. He didn’t say that and the media are definitely hyping this.

      HOWEVER - Catherine is absolutely correct about the historical background to comments about virginity being a ‘gift’ (which is something TA did say). It is the ‘gift’ component of Abbott’s comments that I find distasteful, and I applaud Catherine for bringing attention to the issue of marriage as a property exchange. It is 100% correct that historically speaking women were only valued as a potential wife if they were ‘in tact’, and we are all deluding ourselves if we think that TA comments do not stem from this historical place.

      Yes he can have is opinion and good on him, nothing wrong whatsoever with no sex before marriage if it is important to you. However, Catherine should not be criticised in the way she has been on this forum - she is not a crazy feminist and this is not a rant, she is stating the historical facts about male/female relations and anything that even hints at taking us back there is offensive.

      Reply

    • Vlad says:

      01:13am | 28/01/10

      yes she should be critized in this forum the way she has, because she has been ‘UNprofessionally opinionated’. And like you said, Bri,  when you referred to Tony’s value having ‘history’, we are supposed to learn from history, not just place blame on it for our own boo boos, like we do with God. No, Lumley is not a crazy feminist….........she’s a cunning ‘passive’ crazy feminist…........is that politically correct enuf:-)

    • Harricat says:

      09:15pm | 27/01/10

      Catharine - you call youself a journaist??????  Good grief…..distortionist more like it.  What a beat up on a perfectly sensible answer to a question.
      I think TA’s advice to his daughters is spot and and shows that he loves his children and wants the best for them

      Reply

    • Bill says:

      09:27pm | 27/01/10

      Do you have to be a card carrying member of the Tony Abbott hate group to write for the Punch?

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      09:37pm | 27/01/10

      As usual a pollie has answered a difficult question (though it was asked!), and answered it honestly.

      As usual the mainstream media (with perhaps a skew towards hysteria by female pollies, reporters, and columnists!) have reacted in a way to beat up the story.

      You have responded to what you think (or want to think) he said.
      Not to what he said. Media integrity? Where?

      The fact that so many comments here, are aware of the knee jerk and incorrect (in that the response is to the perceived quote - not to the actual quote) rants that have been written, fills me with hope about the Australian voter.

      I wonder if this is why newspapers are dying and the internet news (independent blogger/commentary etc.) sites are living?

      Reply

    • PkrPlayer says:

      10:03pm | 27/01/10

      Wow Catharine this article sure backfired on you didn’t it? I’m pretty sure this would be the journalistic equivilent of an ‘epic fail’.

      Reply

    • bec says:

      10:14pm | 27/01/10

      No, those of us who attended school don’t think so.

      Reply

    • Turner Garfield says:

      10:28pm | 27/01/10

      Yes, let’s have a close look at what Tony Abbot actually said;
      “Let’s start, if we may, [on] the traditional moral teaching in this area, which until a generation ago, was not the regarded as the Catholic Church’s teaching. It was regarded as the accepted wisdom of Western civilisation. It was based on the understanding that, if families were a good thing, intact families were a good thing, happy marriages were a good thing”.
      Asked a direct question about his attitude to sex before marriage Tony Abbot replied “It happens” before volunteering; “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 to someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don’t give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say”. His attitude to contraception as published in the Women’s Weekly is; “People should do their best to adhere to the rules and, if they can’t, they should take suitable precautions or something to that effect”.
      So where, exactly, has Professor Lumby gone so horribly ‘wrong’? (I’ll call Catharine Lumby ‘Professor’ because her academic qualifications-that incidentally make her one of Tony Abbott’s “women of a certain age, in a certain line of work”- allow me to).
      Just who has been dictating Tony’s “rules” which we should all ‘try to adhere to’? Who has been indoctrinating, dogmatising and propagandising the ‘“accepted wisdom of Western civilisation” (at least until ” a generation ago”)? Just who has been allowing Tony Abbott (and people like him) to regard their daughter’s sexuality as a ‘possesion’ over which they, as fathers, exercise such dominion that offering unsolicited opinions about it in public forums does not even register as inappropriate?
      I don’t know of any ‘special ringtone’ on Professor Lumby’s mobile alerting her to ‘sexuality debates’ in the media; but it is transparently apparent that a dedicated cadre of rightwing prudes and religious crackpots still aspire to exercise undue influence in the public debate in our society by shouting down genuine intellectuals. I’m sure they have some kind of ‘early warning system’ in place.I for one believe these people have done more than enough damage in the US where their peculiar brand of anti-intellectualism more properly finds a home.

      Reply

    • Merry says:

      08:45am | 29/01/10

      I’ll have to agree. I don’t understand these “rules” he speaks of. But what really bugs me is this “gift” of virginity.

      And Catharine, the idea of virginity goes further back. Marriage was an institute created so that the geneology of the father could be traced. If one woman slept with one man for her entire life, it would very easy to tell who the father is of her children. Thus why it was very important to have a woman who is a virgin, otherwise a child may be born and raised that was not of the husband’s bloodline very soon after the wedding.

      But frankly, Abbott saying that it’s a gift? Firstly, it’s making the presumption that one woman will sleep with one man for the rest of her life. It implies that the sanctity of marriage will always be there - ignoring the divorce rates. It implies that sex for women is for breeding - because, as mentioned, marriage is about getting together to raise children. If a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, oh… that’s an issue. If she gets pregnant in a marriage, she’s doing the right thing, even it it was an unplanned (or even unwanted) pregnancy.

      So, while the generalisation is a bit much in saying he wants all women to close their legs, his statements do reflect an archaic form of thinking in which women are only good for breeding.

    • Radical Chick says:

      11:28pm | 27/01/10

      I am a woman and have two daughters…and every time Tony speaks I am even more inclined to vote for him….you can see from what he said ( not the distortion the the OP has propagated…which I guess would be more appropriate to Today Tonight than this blog…) that Tony Abbott is not only a great politician but also a thoughtful father. I think these are qualities I would like to see in a Prime Minister.

      Reply

    • JamboDocker says:

      12:35am | 28/01/10

      Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin put it, “This sex revolution is as important as the most dramatic political or economic upheaval.  It is changing the lives of men and women more radically than any other revolution of our time. . . . Any considerable change in marriage behavior, any increase in sexual promiscuity and sexual relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences. A sex revolution drastically affects the lives of millions, deeply disturbs the community, and decisively influences the future of society

      Reply

    • STEVE says:

      01:21am | 28/01/10

      GO TONY GO….......... WE LOVE YA…....... STAY AS HONEST AS YOU WERE WITH THIS…........

      Reply

    • Richard Benaud says:

      05:38am | 28/01/10

      Abbott is like the Phil Hughes of politics. He’s so unorthodox (in his political style that is) and plays such risky shots with absolutely no defensive game. He does things which aren’t necessary. If delivered a bouncer on the last ball of the first day of the first Ashes test in Cardiff, he would try to hook it for 6.

      To his opponents he looks like a bunny, and he can lose his wicket cheaply. But when in form he can manufacture runs out of thin air, and draw panicked ill-thought through responses from opposing teams.

      Reply

    • Nic says:

      06:40am | 28/01/10

      Getting past the misquote which has been blown up by all the media, I think the important thing is that Tony thinks it is ok to discuss this in the mainstream? it is not up to anyone (father or politicion) to go out like this, his daughters must be cringing at his double standard, I am slightly disturbed that he considered it a gift… first time or last time, it is not a gift my lover gives to me, it is something we share.

      Reply

    • Liz says:

      09:05am | 28/01/10

      Poor daughters. He’s lost a few generations of female voters if they were ever even thinking of voting for him when the time comes.These Lib leaders just get worse!

      Reply

    • Jools says:

      09:08am | 28/01/10

      Has anyone considered asking Rudd the same question?

      Of course, it would be pointless because you wouldn’t get a straight answer.

      Am I the only one that finds it strange that Abbott is being castigated for telling the truth whilst Rudd wheels away with lies, half truths, misconceptions, rhetoric and spin?

      Reply

    • Casba says:

      02:08pm | 28/01/10

      Well said Jools!  The press in this country has a lot to answer for. They can make or break a political party or leader and generally they are of the leftist variety so it is usually the conservatives they try to do a “knife job” on- shame more of these so called “journalists” dont’ fall on their own swords instead of getting out the knives to the likes of Tony Abbott for his honesty.  Actaully, come to think of it, most of them would not recognize open honesty, they certainly don’t report it nor write about it without putting their own political spin on it! And , yes, why do they not ask these same trite quesions of our lightweight PM?  Well we all know the answer to that one, don’t we? It’s about populist spin, as I said, not ungilded honesty!

    • Turner Garfield says:

      04:57pm | 28/01/10

      Yeah, right on, Jools! All the “lies, half truths, misconceptions, rhetoric and spin” the left got away with during the golden age of truth, justice, honour and honesty under the former Liberal federal government was simply appalling, wasn’t it?

    • Macca says:

      10:34am | 28/01/10

      “So Tony Abbott thinks Australian women should quit having pre-marital sex”.

      I think you’ll find in the entire interview that Tony never mentions pre-marital once. What a beat-up

      What a load of crap this article and the Australian media are, and the minions just eat this Sh*t up. This whole saga disgusts me, that a man can be honest about his family and cop such a beating is disgraceful

      Reply

    • Turner Garfield says:

      01:28pm | 28/01/10

      Actually ‘Macca” in response to a direct question about premarital sex Abbott replies “It happens” and then goes on to volunteer hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions hypothetically posed by his (very real) daughters. The issue here is that Tony Abbott is a man who feels for whatever reason that his daughter’s sexuality is a ‘possession’ (of his as their father, presumably) to such an alarming extent that he feels no discomfort in discussing it unsolicited in a very public forum. Abbott in fact pre-empts all of his responses on sexual issues with; “Let’s start, if we may, [on] the traditional moral teaching in this area, which until a generation ago, was not regarded as the Catholic Church’s teaching. It was regarded as the accepted wisdom of Western civilisation”. I wonder whom Abbott believes the custodians of this “accepted wisdom” to have been, since the fall of the Roman Empire, for example?  What do you make of Tony’s response to a question about contraception that; “People should do their best to follow the rules and, if they can’t, they should take suitable precautions or something to that effect.” Just whose ‘rules’ are we talking about here? Or is this more “accepted wisdom”?  The ‘beat-up’ appears to be generated by all those, like yourself, who seek to defend Tony Abbotts ‘right’ to distort history to his own ends, to impose his and his church’s perverted ‘morality’ onto us all and to exercise ‘dominion’ over his daughter’s ‘chastity’. You probably still can’t see it so I’ll reiterate; Tony Abbott wasn’t asked about his family but took it upon himself to discuss his daughter’s as though they were his ‘goods and chattels’. That may not have been his intention, but how someone who aspires to be Prime Minister can arrive subconsciously at such a position needs to be questioned by us all. I’m not convinced it’s the work o f “accepted wisdom”.

    • Tim says:

      12:13pm | 29/01/10

      Or Maybe Turner,
      you are just seeing what you want to see.
      I still can’t find any part of the interview where Abbott even slightly claims or seems to claim he has “dominion” over his daughter’s sexuality.
      What I do see, is a parent, who through his own experiences, wants to protect his daughter’s from similar mistakes.
      I would much prefer that more parents took “ownership” of their children and gave them good advice rather than letting them listen to people like you.

    • Turner Garfield says:

      06:17pm | 29/01/10

      @Tim,
      perhaps it’s more a case of you not wanting to see what you don’t want to see; Abbott’s implied ‘dominion’ over his daughter’s sexuality is that he rasied the issue in the first place. He wasn’t asked about his daughters (who at 21, 18 and 16 are hardly ‘children’). Don’t forget the entire exchange took place in Tony Abbott’s mind; it was entirely hypothetical. Could you please expand on the sentence;
      “I would much prefer that more parents took “ownership” of their children and gave them good advice rather than letting them listen to people like you”. What are you afraid of? That they’ll find out; the earth isn’t flat? That the sun doesn’t orbit the earth? There is no easter bunny?

    • Peter says:

      11:57am | 28/01/10

      Maybe you would have been happier if Tony advised his daughters to open their legs up to every tom dick and harry, and not to be too concerned about who they have sex with. Maybe you think it would have been better if Tony advised his daughters to be promiscous at a young as age as possible, so people might think he doesn’t have “old fashioned views”.

      Not a fan of Tony, but this was a disgusting witch hunt. As for Julia Gillard, i think she should reconsider her role as Education Minister because obviously she has no idea about what parents really want for their kids..

      Reply

    • S says:

      12:21pm | 28/01/10

      Tony Abbott is an attention seeker…...

      One would think that his intelligence would not allow him to speak so publicly about particularly as his private past goes over that subject.  So much for his intellectual capacity, it doesn’t say much about it other then his mind.  His thoughts must be constantly on that part of anatomy of a females bodily structure and makeup along with its’ composition from and structure.

      Tony is probably constitutionally wandering whether he would or would not navigate around it.  Perhaps his preference has changed gender wise? May-be it is both? 

      He is now gathering the information, facts, details, particulars, data, knowledge, reports, inside story; informal info, dope, skinny, lowdown to see if it in fact it is a worthwhile thingy to indulge publicly speaking wise into.  What do you think?

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      02:04pm | 28/01/10

      Hi S, I think what Tony Abbot said would mirror what 95% of Australian dads would want for their daughters. Do you think Tony should advise his daughters to have sex with anyone and lead a promiscous life style? That would be irresponsible parenting. Tony was asked what he would advise his daughters to do. He wasn’t asked what other parents should say and he certainly wasn’t suggesting that he would legislate to make his views law.

    • MATTHEW says:

      01:01pm | 28/01/10

      ah Liz, your vote here(and let’s pray like the rest of Australia) is insignificant to the overwhelming remainder with common sense on this page. But you know, it’s a free country, and if you think it is better for your mum, daughters and sisters to be ‘easy’, then help yourself, and bend over.
      I am curious if Rudd would be as equally ‘honest’ in his opinion on this issue, without the usual rhetorical yahoo.

      Reply

    • IMHO says:

      04:10pm | 28/01/10

      I think that’s pretty offensive MATTHEW…there’s a middle ground between absolute premarital chastity and raging sexual promiscuity! Let’s get some balance!

      Lumby was wrong and uprofessional to let her obvious distaste for Abbott’s views of premarital sex, flavoured as obviously as they are by a religious tradition that would see it as sinful, cloud her ability to report more truthfully and objectively on the comments he made in the magazine. In fact I think she pretty much has outed herself as a bit of an anti-religious Abbott hater (along with much of the media).

      However disagreeing with Abbotts preference that his daughters try not to engage in premarital sex doesn’t make one an advocate for the other extreme. It doesn’t make you think that your “mum, daughters and sisters…” should be “easy” and “bend over”. How churlish and mysogynist!

      I would suggest Abbott is wrong to say that virginity is a gift that you “save” for some prospective life-long partner…I do think that smacks of a kind of old-world paternalistic view of human relationships. Equally, there are plenty of good, non-religious, reasons why uncontrolled promiscuity is not generally beneficial to those practising it.

      So there you go…some refreshing balance in these otherwise ridiculously polarised discussions!

      Reply

    • The importance of the media says:

      04:51pm | 28/01/10

      The importance of the media and the position it takes. But who controls and steers what is allowed to be publishes?

      It is the role of the media in shaping politicians and swaying public opinion. 

      Please leave my alone with the sex before or after marriage Abbott thing.  For god sake every parents want only the best for their children.  And only the best will do when it is all said and done for them.  What ever the best is in your heart of hearts as far as being a parent goes.

        Just pull up a bit here please!! Abbott doesn’t care a rat’s A about his children’s feelings as far as his sex before or after speech.  It is all about him.  I know for a fact that our kids are rather sensitive about making such an issue public considering his our past.  Children take it that you love them and trust them.  If they have an issue to discuss over the dinner table or parent/child private talk thingy they would like to know that it doesn’t make the head line news.

      Pull that Abbott head you have on your shoulders and think about another topic that may give you a bit of leverage and gain that public attention and public opinion you a wanting.

      Even better Tone Abb, why not just go to confession, get the past stuff ups off your chest, say your penance and get on with it son.  Use the media and the role it takes for better coverage and not on the account of your childrens’ feelings.

      Reply

    • Johnno says:

      04:51pm | 28/01/10

      What a huge beat-up.  The man was asked HIS OPINION regarding advice he would give to his daughters - typically, Julia Gillard - notably without daughters or sons, and as usual abetted by the press - takes the political opportunity to take the comments out of context to beat up an anti-Abbott story.

      Reply

    • Amy says:

      06:54pm | 28/01/10

      Having actually read the whole article and understood the point being made, I fully support the notion that the sexual double standard is ridiculous and that it’s a shame our society hasn’t moved beyond it yet.  As far as I’m concerned, whether I am or am not a virgin is no ones business and has been such an irrelevant factor in my life that the concept of it being a gift is absurd.  But as most of the comments show (except for the considered words of IMHO and a few others), the madonna-whore complex is still running rampant in our society.

      It’s like that scene in Glee where one of the girls says to the Celibacy club “You wanna know a dirty little secret none of them want you to know? Girls want sex just as much as guys do.”  Gasp.  The horror.

      And in response to the Abbott angle… I thought after various radio affairs that the media had learned to stop asking about teenagers and their sex habits, even if so indirectly.  I might have actually had a modicum of respect if he had refused the question, but seems my opinion of the man is not yet meant to change.

      Reply

    • Catharine Lumby says:

      09:27pm | 28/01/10

      I’m thrilled to see that gender, ethics and sexuality provoke so much debate. And so they should. We’re still a long way from a world in which men and women are treated equally. But at least we’re able to have fiery debates about it. I grew up in an era and a working class town when almost no-one talked about these issues and when rape in marriage was still legal. So thanks to all of you for your contributions. And particular thanks to Turner Garfield who I suspect has a more expertise in the legal and political history of marriage than the pseudonym suggests.

      Reply

    • Catharine Lumby says:

      09:53pm | 28/01/10

      @Amy: Yes, yes and yes. It is true that he confined his comments to his view on his daughters. But the whole point of that - which I was attempting to point up in my column - is that he feels free to express a view on their virginity as if it is something he has a right to discuss (and implicitly to ‘protect’). That’s the underlying contract: fathers pass their daughters on to appropriate husbands intact. The same fathers - and I’ve met a lot of them having gone to law school at Sydney Uni - would enthusiastically encourage their sons to screw around before they find the ‘right’ woman.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      11:01am | 29/01/10

      One too many degrees i think. As a parent, Tony Abbott has the right to protect his daughters (ie minors) in anyway he sees fit. If that means giving them advise about sexuality if he’s asked by them to do so, he is entitled to do it. Eventually all kids grow up and follow their own path. Advise is best given to kids by the parents that know them, and not you, just because you’ve got a couple of degrees. I feel so sorry for your 10 year old son. Take this advise, teach him about growing up to be a man rather than a feminist, you’ll be doing him a favour as opposed to harm. Just ask other women on your forum who they would prefer, a man, or these wimps that you trying to create with your loony ideals..

    • Mr Mudgeway says:

      05:22pm | 02/02/10

      Again, the innuendo: ” The same fathers ... would enthusiastically encourage their sons to screw around ...”  The implication is that Tony Abbott would be just the same as one of these fathers with whom Catharine Lumby is so well acquainted.  This is a monstrous accusation, just adding another brick to the pile of misrepresentations that she has so assiduously constructed since Abbott’s interview.  An apology and a quick exit from the scene would be the ladylike thing for Ms. Lumby’s to do for now.

    • Sam says:

      03:22am | 29/01/10

      Catharine Lumby hasn’t misrepresented anything at all. No one is debating the context in which Abbott made the comments—in the guise of a concerned parent—but as the Leader of the Opposition and PM Wannabe, if he makes those comments in the media they are loaded very differently than if Joe Bloggs makes the same comment to his next door neighbour over the back fence. Why would he choose to discuss the sexuality of his daughters in the media (when it’s really not any of our business; nor, I would add, his) if not for the political significance of his doing so? He gets to make a socially conservative point about female sexuality in the media (protected by the guise of the concerned and loving father), knowing full well that a lot of people will agree with him (most of whom post in the Comments section here, it seems).

      And, of course, the most inane of these Comments disavow Lumby’s position while reaffirming the importance of a woman’s virginity (and *only* a woman’s), and by linking the idea of a woman having sex before marriage to such red herrings as rampant ‘STDs’, uncontained promiscuity (‘any Tom, Dick or Harry’), and ‘shoving’ children into day care (as presumably, that’s solely women’s business, too). Heard of irony?

      And let’s not forget to throw in the obligatory attack on tax-payer funded Humanities research at tertiary institutions. Because ultimately Lumby can be easily dismissed as a ‘ranting feminist’, as if feminism is a bad thing, and only women can be feminists, and only women who are ‘disgraceful puppets for the sex industry’ even. And the fact someone has a proven academic track record in researching the way female sexuality is represented in the public sphere can’t possibly mean they might have something more interesting to say about the way that female sexuality is represented in the public sphere than your next door neighbour, because then you’d actually have to *read* what they were saying and critically engage with it at a level beyond calling them a ‘smut-monger’ because you disagreed with them.

      Reply

    • carl Palmer says:

      02:17pm | 29/01/10

      He didn’t make “a socially conservative point about female sexuality”, he was speaking about his daughters. Outside of his family he may have a completely different view about “female sexuality”. I’m sure he understands that adults - i.e. males and females make their own decisions and live with the consequences. As for the article, it is a beat up and irrelevant to the TA interview.

    • Sam says:

      03:07pm | 29/01/10

      Carl, I don’t think Abbott is a dumb man. I think when he made those comments to the AWW he knew full well that they would be taken up by the wider press and would garner sympathy from the ‘return to traditional moral values’ evangelists. I don’t believe for one second he was just speaking about his daughters. And the Liberal Party’s response to Gillard’s rebuttal doesn’t make me think otherwise, either.

      But, for argument’s sake, let’s say Abbott made those comments only within a familial bubble,  and was just talking about his daughters. My description of his comments as a ‘socially conservative point about female sexuality’ still stands, but only in regards to his daughters. But why does a father get to comment on the sex life of his daughters? Why does a man get to describe female virginity as a ‘gift’? Why does female sexuality have to be monitored in a way that male sexuality doesn’t? Why is female virginity so important?

      If my daughter was a virgin on her wedding day because she thought her virginity was a ‘gift’, I’d feel like a complete failure as a parent (while of course recognizing she has every right to view her virginity in such a way). So as a parent, I disagree with Abbott’s comments made in the guise of a parent, and I disagree with them when taken in the broader political and social context in which they were made.

    • Peter says:

      04:09pm | 29/01/10

      In the “guise” of a parent. What are you saying, he’s not really a parent because his on TV. Honestly. He care for his kids as much as anybody else. I can’t believe this, im a left wing socialist, who has spent the last 2 days sticking up for Tony Abbott. If you guys were trying to hurt him, i think you’ve failed dismally. This issue will help him big time..

    • Peter says:

      11:30am | 29/01/10

      Im loving this, you feral feminists are all over the place and you don’t even know what you are talking about. So much for all your degrees and proven record in academia. Only a parent has a right to give his/her sons or daughters advise on sexuality, the rest they pick up on through their own personal journey through life. They don’t need feminists or anyone else for that matter to preach to them what to do. Why is Tony Abbott any different to Joe Bloggs when it comes to his responsibilties as a parent? They are both parents.. In fact if Tony Abbott put his politcal career ahead of the interests of his kids, then he probably wouldn’t be worthy of being in the position that he is in. I am a left wing socialist, but i am 100% behind Tony on this one. Only if Rudd had the balls to come out and agree with him (as most dads would)..

      Reply

    • Sam Stevenson says:

      12:34pm | 29/01/10

      (Banging. Head. Brick. Wall.)

      Peter,

      Thank you for skimming my post.

      I’m particularly taken by the fact you use the term ‘feminist’, as do many others on this thread, as a form of insult. At its most very basic level, feminism is about women having equal rights, so I’m guessing seeing you use the term as an insult you are constructing yourself in opposition to the idea that women should have equal rights. That’s a shame.

      Also implicit in your use of the term ‘you feral feminists’ is that we are all the same. That’s actually not true, either. While we may all agree that women should have equal rights, we often disagree as to how this should be done. There are feminists who may disagree with Lumby’s views who are still feminists.

      As to why Tony Abbott is different to Joe Bloggs, read my post again. Joe Bloggs doesn’t get a photo shoot in the Australian Women’s Weekly. Joe Bloggs doesn’t have the power to set the terms of debate as to how female sexuality is represented in the public sphere. I think it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise, or to pretend that Abbott made those comments purely as a parent and not for political effect (not that his daughters’ sex lives should be anyone’s business).

    • Sam says:

      12:51pm | 29/01/10

      P.S.
      ‘Only if Rudd had the balls to come out and agree with him (as most dads would)..’

      But why should a father have the right to comment on his daughter’s sexuality in the first place? Why does he have any kind of ownership over it? And if you really think ‘most dads would’ share Abbott’s views, then why not most mums as well?

    • Peter says:

      03:43pm | 29/01/10

      Hi Sam, thanks for your reply. I wil keep it short as it’s Friday afternoon, but would love to hear back.
      Firstly, men and women should be treated as equals and no-one is suggesting anything different.  Have you noticed, that out of all the attacks that Tony Abbott has recieved in this and other forums, not one of them offered an alternative bit of advise of what they would say to their daughters. They were just attacking Tony.

      I am aware that mothers would give their daughter different advise as to what a father would say. In terms of why should a father have a right to say anything, Tony was asked what he would say if he were asked. Are you suggesting he doesn’t have a right to give his daughter an opinion if he is asked? In terms of having “ownership over his daughters sexuality, he doesn’t and no one else should either. But as a parent he has 100% responsibility to look after a minor until he or she is grown up enough to look after themselves. You might not like hearing this, but every parent has 100% ownership over their young growing children, the reins are gradually loosened as they are growing up.

      Sexuality is a very personal and private journey we all make through life. It is best started, in my opinion, later in life. I was 11 when i was taken “advantage of” by a 14 year old girl. Although I didn’t realise it at the time, that had a profoundly negative impact on my life and I shouldn’t have been exposed to sex when i was 11. I should have had other things to worry about. But life goes on and we can’t let these things impact us too much..

      In terms of feminism, i do believe it’s done more harm than good. We all have a primal instict to get married and have kids, but these feminist ideals of putting off babies for career first has only seen them lining up in IVF clinics because they forgot that biology does not listen to ideology. Maybe you should speak to some female friends of mine who really regret having kids late in life because they now fear that they may not be around to see their grand kids. We can have all the ideology that we like, but if we ignore our most basic instincts, it will only be to our detriment. Feminism should be looking at taking care of that first and then looking at ways we can then integrate women into working life after that. I’d rather my tax dollars (and yours) look at better solutions of how a women can function successfully in today’s modern life, rather than that money being spent on IVF clinics that may or may not produce the results that women are looking for…

    • Sam says:

      04:31pm | 30/01/10

      Peter, I tried replying to your post as you requested me to, but found it is impossible to do so. Suffice to say that I disagree with what you say.

      I will say that I am very sorry to hear you had a negative sexual experience. Without being disrespectful, I don’t see this as a justification that feminism is bad or virginity is good, however. I see it as a need for more open and honest debates about sexuality, including in all schools and from an early age.

    • IMHO says:

      01:43pm | 29/01/10

      For those of you who grew up in households where discussing sex with your parents was creepy and a little bit wrong, I’m sorry for you. For those of us who had a happy healthy relationship with our parents, we understand that we could discuss anything with our parents, and they with us. For Tony Abbott to dare to “feel free to express a view on (his daughters’) virginity as if it is something he has a right to discuss” is obviously an affront to some people, probably those who couldn’t talk to their own parents about anything important.

      Sorry Catharine, but who are you to suggest what Abbott has a “right to discuss”?  Why does ‘daring to discuss’ necessarily imply he wants to ‘protect’ his daughter virginity (as if he could!) I agree his comments are old fashioned, but I think you’re reading way to much into it, much as an idealogue would! Yet you, funded by the taxpayer, with degrees in journalism, should be striving for objectivity. I think you’ve lost it.

      Thanks too Sam for your input. Obviously a colleague of the UNSW or whatever, coming in to lend a hand! Cheers.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      02:19pm | 29/01/10

      Interesting assumption. But no, I’ve never met Catharine Lumby. I’m able to support her views here because I agree with them. Nor do I think she needs anyone to lend a hand; I’m sure she’s more than capable of defending her views herself.

    • Guy says:

      03:23pm | 29/01/10

      I love these so called debates….. Catharine, I find it interesting that you are marked with the fanatical feminist brush, when your original article is leveraging off, a media beat up of a few words that in what ever contexts can be manipulated to meet political point scoring. Yet the main body of your opinion piece (and that is what it is meant to be, your opinion, and you are lucky enough to be in a position to make your opinion publishable), and not like us poor people that have to wait for a chance to reply to such as this, is about the still accepted double standard of sexual freedom.

      The misogynistic, so called well educated, cretin you were lucky to be sitting next to at dinner is the real issue in this piece, he is proud of his sons conquests, as that is what he measures his own success on, the number of ‘loose women’ his son has been able to sow his wild oats with (chip of the old block), but when you reversed the scorecard by comparing his daughters activities, he came unstuck. As you inadvertently pointed out to him though I doubt he consciously registered the point, that though they are not his daughter(s) his son is sleeping with, they are somebodies who probably has the same beliefs as Abbott and Co.

      Abbott would not have chosen to answer this question as he did if he did not see political value in it, nor Gillard use it to as she did to also score political points.

      Abbott prides himself on his conservative belief in his faith, and sprouts such dribble as talking about his feelings, and again opinions, on what his daughters should do if they are horny and willing to take a relationship, or a one night stand for that matter, to the next level.

      Politicians constantly pull the family card when issues about their own family are not to their benefit, but are happy to open flood gates like this when they can push an agenda item that might buy them some much needed political points. Though politicians seem to have very short memories, as does the Australian public, do we not forget the scare Abbott had a couple of years ago about having a son out of wedlock, that lucky for him and his bank balance, did not pan out to be a fact. Did he think to give the same advice to the lady in question that he was sleeping with at the time?

      So ultimately your use of Abbott to indicate the double standard in this issue I feel is justified.

    • Daddy's girl says:

      03:41pm | 29/01/10

      If it was my dad in the interview his answer would have been more like this:

      “I have a .45 and a shovel, I doubt anyone would miss him”

      Dad’s are the way they are because they know what goes through every young blokes mind, because they were young perverted boys once too, so Tony Abbott’s public comments ini regards to his own daughters, to me seem very level headed!!

      My dad asked me why I ever spend the night at my partners house, when I have a perfectly comfortable bed at my own place…...that was last year and I am 29 years old.  I love him for that overprotective perceived ownership of my virtue and the grey hairs I am directly responsible for since the day I went on my first date with a boy!!!

      In my dad’s mind no bloke was ever enough for me, I am a princess and a daddy’s girl and love being the centre of attention I have NO qualms with admitting it…..eeek I am going to cop it i know…but before you judge I will say I have a uni degree I paid for, a job that I work incredibly hard at and love and I paid for my own place (still am).

      I am probably every feminists worst nightmare but my dad is responsible for making me believe that I am worthy of nothing less that complete and utter devotion from any bloke…......and for some reason I have one who wants to marry me…....maybe I ought to get his head examined…or i can just wait till we have daughters and then he’ll definitely need “shock” therapy!!

      I am sorry if this offends anyone but…..I am happy for others to disagree, that’s what makes life interesting!!

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      06:35pm | 29/01/10

      Daddy’‘s girl

      You are exactly the type of young woman I hope my daughters grow up and aspire to be like. You sound like a very sensible level headed woman and I bet your dad is immensly proud of you..

      As someone wise once said. The best thing you can do for your kids is to simply love their mother. With this will bring a sense of value and comfort for a child that no amount of toys/presents can replicate. By showing children what real love is in the home, you remove a big burden off their shoulders.

      My daughters could not give a schmick about an ETS, interest rates etc, all they want to know is that Dad loves Mum and visa versa. They are told many times a day that Daddy and Mummy love them unconditionally.

      Good luck with your future.

      Well said IMHO

    • Luke says:

      03:53pm | 29/01/10

      This was started by Julia Gillard to keep the focus on the Opposition and away from themselves. They did this constantly with Malcom Turnbull if you remember. Every time he opened his mouth it made headlines, and it always started from someone in the Rudd Government and then the media ran with it, as has happened here with Abbott. If Gillard didn’t run to the press with comments about his womens weekly interview comment no one would have cared less and most people would have taken little notice.

      Reply

    • Concerned of Crow's Nest says:

      08:03pm | 29/01/10

      The Opposition keep the focus on themselves by abandoning their chance to finally close the book on the reprehensible ‘The Howard Years’. By dumping a genuine small ‘L’ liberal in Malcolm Turnbull and instating on of his most fanatically loyal leiutenants to their leadership, they are refusing to recognise the decision of the Australian public, delivered in no uncertain terms in November 2007. You’ll get to see ‘democracy’, Liberal party style, after the next federal election loss. Abbott is just a stop-gap scapegoat that reflects the very real disarray and division of the federal Liberal party.

    • Nelly says:

      04:03pm | 29/01/10

      Yep it was started by Gillard running to the media with her comment to keep the focus off Rudd and it worked for 24hrs. And yes this is what they did to Turnbull. If Gillard didn’t run to the media with a comment no one would have even cared about what he said in a womens magazine. They have been waiting for him to slip up and he hasn’t so this was the best they could come up with.

      Reply

    • IMHO says:

      04:55pm | 29/01/10

      I wonder, Nelly, if plagiarism is acceptable on The Punch comments section! Your comment is nearly word for word Luke’s below including sentence order!

      Or are you really Luke?

      Weird!

    • Helena says:

      04:21pm | 29/01/10

      I agree Luke, if the media were serious they would have picked up on Rudd last night. In October he said “I support a Big Australia, and make no appology for that, 35 million sounds about right” Since that comment there have been reports from analyst’s that with an incresed population of 35 million which Rudd has been championing, it would be impossible to reduce emmisions by 5% in fact emmisions with that population and Rudds ETS will increase.
      When he was confronted last night in an interview with Kerry O’brien about this, he said I don’t really have an opinion on that. Kerry reminded him of his previous comments and again he said he had no opinion on a Big Australia.
      Now that should be in the headlines He also said Immigration was a large part of the increase in population, and that was out of the Governments hands. HELLO? The Government have control of Immigration numbers don’t they? This ridiculas comment should also be headlines, but no the media and everyone are concerned about Abbott in a womens magazine.

      Reply

    • catharine Lumby says:

      04:51pm | 29/01/10

      @Sam: Thanks for your comments. From my point of view, you’ve gotten to the core of what I was trying to say in a scant 500 words.

      More generally, it’s been really interesting to read all the different views on this. And whatever some respondents presume about feminists with too many degrees - and I agree we are very easy to parody because my children openly refer to me as Professor Blah Blah over toast in the morning - I am someone who respects different opinions. I think Tony Abbott is a smart and well-intentioned man. I think he’s a decent man. He’s equally a politician and as Sam points out he knows very well that when he makes controversial comments, even about his own family, they will spark debate. But then that’s the whole point of this dialogue we’re all having. Ethical behaviour is not a black and white zone. It involves making choices every day. Members of my extended family are devout Christians who believe absolutely in remaining chaste until marriage and I respect their views.

      As a codicil: I don’t think having three degrees makes my opinions more important or ethical than anyone elses. On the contrary. I’d love to see some of the critics in this thread publish their own pieces having a go at me. You don’t need a degree to get published in The Punch - just a well-written and argued opinion.

      Reply

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      06:55pm | 29/01/10

      Abbott’s comments were not controversial. As has been said here by others, many, many fathers would concur. If his views in this case are so widely shared, where’s the controversy? The only controversy IMO is that resulting from the distortions that you, Catharine, and others with an anti-Liberal agenda, have sought to sell to us. Chief of these is Ms. Gillard.

      Oh, and full marks for finding a way to use the word ‘codicil’ in an everyday blog. I would probably have said, “Oh, and by the way…..”.  Now I believe you when you say you have three degrees.

      Y’know, it’s probably much more rewarding when people figure out how incredibly clever you are without you telling them first. wink

    • Carl Palmer says:

      05:56pm | 29/01/10

      @ Sam says: 03:07pm | 29/01/10

      Sam, sorry but I doubt very much that he was making a generalised comment. I believe that he honestly answered a very difficult question that the AWW asked of him. I doubt that he would have requested that the AWW ask the question so that he could “garner sympathy from the ‘return to traditional moral values’ evangelists.” That’s a very long bow.

      This is the strange bit, TA is often referred to as the “Mad Monk” which would suggest that people have an idea of his background. As previously posted, given he was in a monastery studying to become a Jesuit priest, what did anyone seriously expect him to say - that it was ok for his daughters to stand on the corner of a highway at 2am making a few extra bucks. Seriously.

      Many of the adjectives he uses reflect his background and his upbringing. These terms are regularly used in religious circles eg “this that or the other was God’s gift to you”. I also have no doubt whatsoever that in his mind there wouldn’t be any differentiation between Daughters or Sons – he would have said the same thing to both.

      As you have probably worked out, I don’t have a problem with what TA said so I won’t comment on your daughters as I have a few of my own. As parents, my wife and I would not consider ourselves a failure if one got married as one and the other didn’t. They are individuals who have made their choices (any and yes this is general observation) and will live the consequences.

      Reply

    • Donald says:

      10:43am | 30/01/10

      How can a person like Ms Lumby possibly comment on this “issue” if she deliberately misquotes and misrepresents Mr Abbott? Honesty is a pre-requisite of any debate, and Ms Lumby falls at the first hurdle.

      We do have names for people who misrepresent others to promote their own tawdry views. None of them are pleasant.

      Tony Abott offered nothing to anyone except his own daughters and then only if they had asked for advice (which they had not). And what caring and loving father would recommend anything else? Perhaps some trailer trash would have different views.

      Ms Lumby proudly reminds readers she has three “tertiary qualifications”! I would remind readers there is a yawning gulf of difference in the quality of such items, and I don’t think her’s come from Downing or Balliol ! Ye gods!

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      03:54pm | 30/01/10

      @ Carl, I don’t think he asked the AWW to ask him about his daughters at all. I think that when he was asked, he knew that his response would likely be made public, and that influenced his answer. I think he knows that anything he says outside the family home has the potential to be (mis)represented in the media.

      So, because I believe he knew the likely consequences of answering such a question, and answering it in such a way, I am concerned that his intentions were to make a broader point about female sexuality that would appeal to many voters.

      Therefore, I don’t find his comments surprising at all. He is a socially conservative Catholic, and his view of women in this issue are consistent with his previously expressed views of women in regards to abortion and marriage, for example. They are all paternalistic.

      If you read Othello, a huge part of the conflict is about who has ownership over Desdemona; her father or her husband. Desdemona has no control over her sexuality or the way it is represented by various male characters. Because she ultimately defies her father and marries Othello, she is seen as being (to paraphrase Peter, above) ‘loose with her morals’—a reading which even Othello buys into at the end. Spoiler: things don’t work out to well for her.

      Now of course Shakespeare was writing at a time when fathers and then husbands had full legal rights over women, and when the reigning monarch was celebrated for being a virgin. No one debates that Shakespeare’s era was a patriarchal one. But while women now have equal legal rights in marriage in Australia (some of them gained incredibly recently), symbolically it appears still to be okay for a father, who happens to be a powerful public figure, to publicly express the preference that his daughters be virgins on the day they marry their husbands. Female virginity remains a ‘gift’ to be given; to be championed by fathers and presumably celebrated by husbands just as it was in the days of The Virgin Queen.

      Yes, women have more rights today than our Elizabethan predecessors, and we are indebted to the generations of women before us who fought to give us those rights, just as we are indebted to future generations of women in that we must continue the ongoing struggle, and never take those rights for granted. That includes fighting the symbolic, too. Interesting then, Carl, that the only two options you give as advice Abbott could have shared with his daughters, are virginity or prostitution. Shakespearean, almost.

      Reply

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      04:19pm | 31/01/10

      Are you REALLY still fighting to right the wrongs perpetrated by those evil Victorian-era men? Wow. I bet you can recite examples of terrible things done by evil men to doughty, loving women going back thousands of years.

      And ‘paternalistic’ isn’t an insult, unless you believe behaving in a fatherly way is a crime, as you clearly do.

      I think you’re damaged and should get help.

    • cam says:

      01:50am | 03/02/10

      My Dad once said to me, ” son, would you rather be a master key to open many locks or would you rather be a lock that can be opened by many keys ? “
      That’s all Abbott needed to say.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 05:55PM

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:32PM

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:31PM

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:09PM

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

by Laurie Oakes

92

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

by Mark Kenny

64

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

by Wendy Tuohy

25

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed