That was the headline on p. 11 of the China Post, 28 August. (They meant the land, not the people.)
This has been your moment of Zen.
1 Like
Good one.
Only as far as sex with humans goes, though.
So, kind of a quality vs. quantity thing, then?
Jesus wept, you guys have been in Taiwan too long. Youâre automatically adjusting for the crap grammar in the (sort of) English rags. It should be âAlmost half of AustralianS ARE virginsâ, of course. - added to remind you that in the rest of the world we have standards.
Anyway, what does the initial premise mean? Virgin in what sense? IS that like terra nullius revisited?
Oh fuck me, now Iâm acting like those fish wraps are saying something meaningful too!
HG
âŚand here I was thinking half of Australia were liars.
Arthur Calwell, Australian politician, on Australian Communists.
âTwo Wongs donât make a Whiteâ
Arthur Calwell, white Australia proponent in reference to the mistaken near deportation of a Chinese surnamed Wong.
But to be fair, he also said:
âIf any people are homeless in Australia today, it is the Aboriginals, They are the only non-European descended people to whom we owe any debt. Some day, I hope, we will do justice to them.â
Theyâre still waiting.
HG
Just came across his quote randomly, so I donât know him. But I take it he doesnât like a lot of people! 
Also only the second political figure to face an assassination attempt. Just a man of his day, really.
That reference to commies is about the Labor party split in the fifties. Calwell was part of the predominantly Catholic group which rejected the more commie elements of the traditionally socialist party.
HG
I thought it meant half of the people in Australia have never cracked a book.
Also reasonableâŚ
Not really, I think half having cracked a book is way too high.
HG
âAlmost half of Australia is virgin: studyâ
That would explain that slogan. âWhere the bloody hell are you?â
It does point to something that caused in me a sense of both incredulity and fascination: Australia is such a massive country, but the population is so small relative to the landmass. Visiting Melbourne and surrounding areas earlier this year helped me wrap my head around that dichotomy a bit. Seeing that there are parts of Australia that are indeed heavily populated killed the incredulity.
Iâm wondering though, my hosts (a family with three brothers, all married and with kids) had been to Sydney and as far north as Brisbane, but never to Cairns, Darwin, or Perth. As far as exploring Australia, they seemed to have lived their entire lives in and around Melbourne. Yet all of them have traveled the whole of Europe and North America, most of Asia, parts of the Middle East, and one of the brothers spent years living in South America. These Aussies are world travelers who have only seen a fraction of their own country. Is that common? They explained that for most Australians, the southeastern and eastern coast is Australia.
Yes that is very common. I consider myself fairly well travelled within Australia but I havenlât been to Darwin, Alice Springs or Cairns, for example. Not surprising when you think of the costs. For people in Perth on the West coast, itâs less flying hours and (was?) considerably cheaper to take a two week package in Bali then just the flight to Sydney. Unless you know people in Sydney or need to go there for work, thereâs not much else to get you on a plane to go there.
Itâs the tyranny of distance and cost.
HG
Almost half of Australia is virtually uninhabitable. Including several of the capital cities.
Nah mate, after youâve lived in Western Australia there really isnât much point going east, even if they pay you to go. Perth is a great city to live in, whereas Sydney is full of whingeing poms.
I didnât make it to Alice Springs, but I did the overland to Darwin thing and then flew to Cairns. Great places, both of them. And the whole load of nothing in between is brilliant. How can you not love a place where you see names like âEighty Mile Beachâ?
If it wasnâtfor the Gold Coast it would be 90%.
damn you