Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13
Original Post by andie-joe:
The funny thing is Alfie could be done for having sex with an underage girl (the police have decided not to).
How could Alfie have been in trouble for having sex with an underage girl when he is younger than her? I would think she would get in trouble?
Original Post by hatamoto:
In today's society it's unusual, but in agrarian societies of the past it wasn't at all strange for people to be married and popping out kids at the age of 16 and under.
Today we tend to put kids into a permanent state of adolescence that lingers for a long time, sometimes lasting well into their 30s. Back in the day, there were more clearly defined boundaries between when someone was meant to be treated as a child and when to be treated as an adult. Because those rites of passage are essentially removed now, there's a general perception that these proto-adults are still children until some arbitarily decided age.
... but back in the day, I guarantee you that 13 year old would have known every aspect of how to operate a farm, including how to populate it with some of his own offspring to help out.
FWIW, it's not unusual for 13 year olds to have sex. It's unusual for progeny to result as most young women recognize they're ill equipped to deal with a child.
But back in the day . . . life expectancy was only 39 (in 1850). You were middle aged by the time you were 20, so you had to start popping kids out younger.
As education in a society increases, so does the life expectancy and the age at which people have children. Conversely, the birth rate decreases because you don't need 10 children to help run the farm any more. So comparing modern day London to an agarian society is comparing apples and cows.
Original Post by jenniferthepennifer:
Original Post by andie-joe:
The funny thing is Alfie could be done for having sex with an underage girl (the police have decided not to).
How could Alfie have been in trouble for having sex with an underage girl when he is younger than her? I would think she would get in trouble?
Because in the UK it is not illegal for a boy to have sex underage but it is for a girl, girls are not allowed until they are 16yrs old.
Thanks andie-joe.
Does anyone else feel sorry for the actual kids? What the hell is the problem with the media these days? These families not only have to deal with an extra kid, but they have to fight off all the publicity as well! The media shouldn't be making money off these personal stories - whatever happened to the right of privacy?
I don't feel that sorry for them. I'm pretty sure they knew that having sex without protection could lead to a baby. I just think what they did was pretty dumb! Given they have given interviews to the media and had their photos taken with permission, they don't seem to mind the publicity too much. Maybe they're getting paid for the story?
Yeah. Maybe they're weird and actually do like the publicity. Still though, I can't help but feel sorry for the kids. They played it dumb, but hey they're kids. They slipped up once, and now they're screwed for life. I find it sweet in a helplessly sad way that they're at least trying to be good parents. Far from ditching the baby and prancing off to act like typical teenagers, they're actually taking on some responsibility.
Original Post by enzyme1:
I dont really like the idea of children having sex so does that mean I have to go **** myself, but I didnt develope early so I dont know what it is like, probally annoyign since few others would be at the same stage if you develope early,
It wasn't annoying for me. Of course, I was two years ahead in school, so that helped, as did being a girl - there are always older guys who will be interested. I suspect that early-blooming boys might also have some sort of chance with older girls, as well. I, for one, wasn't a child at 13. Some, however, are -and I don't like the idea of them having sex either.
Sorry, parents, I know that sounds scary, but it doesn't have to be. My first boyfriend was significantly older but was very good to me and for me.
Original Post by enchantingimage:
Exactly. It's a much bigger "OOOPS. My child was having a sleepover with someone of the opposite sex. They both have/had raging teenage hormones and our approval for a sleepover." Duhh. As the teenagers would put it. . . Just duhh.
It wasn't appropriate to allow a sleepover of that nature without adults/parents there to take shifts standing watch,imho. The parents may've been disillusioned by the appearance of their children. Some parents never acknowledge the fact their teenage children have hormones. They still see baby faces long after the baby stage has come and gone.
Honestly, I look at that boy and the LAST thing that comes to mind is "raging teenage hormones". Especially as I imagine he appeared nine months ago at TWELVE, possibly not even 4 feet tall yet.
I wouldn't let my kid sleep over with anyone they called their boyfriend or girlfriend at that age, just in case, but honestly - if that were my son I'd be shocked that he were having sex and even more shocked at the person doing it to him. If my son looked like that and wanted to sleep over at a female friend's, saying it was just a friend, I don't know that I would have suspected anything sexual behind it either. He does not just have a baby face, he has a baby body, from the article, a baby voice.... and now an actual baby, worse luck.
Original Post by shaded44:
Original Post by hatamoto:
In today's society it's unusual, but in agrarian societies of the past it wasn't at all strange for people to be married and popping out kids at the age of 16 and under.
Today we tend to put kids into a permanent state of adolescence that lingers for a long time, sometimes lasting well into their 30s. Back in the day, there were more clearly defined boundaries between when someone was meant to be treated as a child and when to be treated as an adult. Because those rites of passage are essentially removed now, there's a general perception that these proto-adults are still children until some arbitarily decided age.
... but back in the day, I guarantee you that 13 year old would have known every aspect of how to operate a farm, including how to populate it with some of his own offspring to help out.
FWIW, it's not unusual for 13 year olds to have sex. It's unusual for progeny to result as most young women recognize they're ill equipped to deal with a child.
But back in the day . . . life expectancy was only 39 (in 1850). You were middle aged by the time you were 20, so you had to start popping kids out younger.
As education in a society increases, so does the life expectancy and the age at which people have children. Conversely, the birth rate decreases because you don't need 10 children to help run the farm any more. So comparing modern day London to an agarian society is comparing apples and cows.
Well, conversely, one doesn't actually need 14 children NOW either...maybe we need to get that octuplet mom her own FARM. She could milk cows and plant veggies...and her kids could learn self-sufficiency as well !!!
Back to the subject....
My son is 22. He is definitely not mature enough to be a father yet. And NO...we did not " infantilize"him. Just because one has the equipment...doesn't mean he or she is ready to be a parent. I really hope that IF Alfie is indeed the biological father, that they do not try to make him a "daddy". What kind of damage could that do? Having a parent who could be your sibling? Actually, I know some mothers who had their children at 14. They aren't doing such a good job. How could they? They still needed parenting themselves.
Original Post by trustwomen:
I wouldn't let my kid sleep over with anyone they called their boyfriend or girlfriend at that age, just in case, but honestly - if that were my son I'd be shocked that he were having sex and even more shocked at the person doing it to him. If my son looked like that and wanted to sleep over at a female friend's, saying it was just a friend, I don't know that I would have suspected anything sexual behind it either. He does not just have a baby face, he has a baby body, from the article, a baby voice.... and now an actual baby, worse luck.
I totally agree with this. Kids shouldn't be over-sexualised, and banning sleepovers in case they are sexually active just encourages boys to think of girls as sex objects, and vice versa. The pregnancy was probably more a result of a general laisse-faire attitude to getting a woman pregnant (the boy was one of nine) than caused by the sleepover itself.
Original Post by coffincritter:
Though last I heard now others are claiming THEY are the father of the child, so there may have to be a paternity test.
Why on earth would anyone be compelled to claim that they're the father of that poor child? O_o
Original Post by merylwhite1:
Original Post by trustwomen:
I wouldn't let my kid sleep over with anyone they called their boyfriend or girlfriend at that age, just in case, but honestly - if that were my son I'd be shocked that he were having sex and even more shocked at the person doing it to him. If my son looked like that and wanted to sleep over at a female friend's, saying it was just a friend, I don't know that I would have suspected anything sexual behind it either. He does not just have a baby face, he has a baby body, from the article, a baby voice.... and now an actual baby, worse luck.
I totally agree with this. Kids shouldn't be over-sexualised, and banning sleepovers in case they are sexually active just encourages boys to think of girls as sex objects, and vice versa. The pregnancy was probably more a result of a general laisse-faire attitude to getting a woman pregnant (the boy was one of nine) than caused by the sleepover itself.
Not to mention that banning sleepovers at opposite-sex friends' houses but not same-sex friends' houses assumes your kid is exclusively heterosexual. I know a lot of GLB kids who got plenty of mileage (and pubertal/teenage action) out of their parents' assumptions. Now, it's true that you won't wind up with an accidental baby in those kinds of situations, but still...
And yes, I just don't know if I would start worrying about my kid being sexual (with anyone) before the changes of puberty. I guess maybe that's short-sighted of me...especially since a lot of early sexual activity is not even entirely wanted by the participants, but the result of pressure. Just because I was lucky enough to have desire (that hormonal kick) preceding activity, that may not always be the case.
Food for thought.
Original Post by gadzooks:
Original Post by coffincritter:
Though last I heard now others are claiming THEY are the father of the child, so there may have to be a paternity test.Why on earth would anyone be compelled to claim that they're the father of that poor child? O_o
Evidently they decided to name the boy for the money the story would generate. I bet we'll find it was one of the 15 year olds that really fathered the baby.
What a creepy, creepy story.
Original Post by trustwomen:
Original Post by enchantingimage:
Exactly. It's a much bigger "OOOPS. My child was having a sleepover with someone of the opposite sex. They both have/had raging teenage hormones and our approval for a sleepover." Duhh. As the teenagers would put it. . . Just duhh.
It wasn't appropriate to allow a sleepover of that nature without adults/parents there to take shifts standing watch,imho. The parents may've been disillusioned by the appearance of their children. Some parents never acknowledge the fact their teenage children have hormones. They still see baby faces long after the baby stage has come and gone.
Honestly, I look at that boy and the LAST thing that comes to mind is "raging teenage hormones". Especially as I imagine he appeared nine months ago at TWELVE, possibly not even 4 feet tall yet.
I wouldn't let my kid sleep over with anyone they called their boyfriend or girlfriend at that age, just in case, but honestly - if that were my son I'd be shocked that he were having sex and even more shocked at the person doing it to him. If my son looked like that and wanted to sleep over at a female friend's, saying it was just a friend, I don't know that I would have suspected anything sexual behind it either. He does not just have a baby face, he has a baby body, from the article, a baby voice.... and now an actual baby, worse luck.
The sex talk starts at a wee age and progresses as your child grows. It's a conversation that's always appropriate at different levels. Parents are so disillusioned by the appearance of their children,imo. People should stop worrying about a child being too young. They should start communication with their children.It's our job as parents to moderate the activities and behavior of our children. Some things simply aren't appropriate. It's a matter of supervision not banning every activity.
It's beyond me that people wait until receiving a sign. Some parents never see their children beyond a baby face. They never catch the ' signs ' they were waiting for either. Instead they receive the harsh consequences of their own negligence as parents.Teens have hormones regardless of whether or not their parents acknowledge it. Parents shouldn't wait until they've been given a sign their children have hormones, Lol. That's when the conversation escalates not begins. There's never a time too soon to set appropriate guidelines. This a duhh moment on the parents behalf in retrospect of what their child appears to them and is actually capable of. imho
omg! That is just insane. I'm 14 and I cant imagine how horrible it would be to get pregnant at my age, and have a child. And 13 year old boys are well...that's just it their BOYS not men. In my opinion you should be at least 14 years old to have sex and even then that's a pretty dangerous age. You would have to make sure you understand the situation and are mature enough to handle any consequences that could happen. But hopefully in the first place you wouldn't have unprotected sex. *sighs* All I can say is that I feel bad for the baby, and I hope that other kids are smart enough to avoid this mistake.
Original Post by tofu_freak:
omg! That is just insane. I'm 14 and I cant imagine how horrible it would be to get pregnant at my age, and have a child. And 13 year old boys are well...that's just it their BOYS not men. In my opinion you should be at least 14 years old to have sex and even then that's a pretty dangerous age. You would have to make sure you understand the situation and are mature enough to handle any consequences that could happen. But hopefully in the first place you wouldn't have unprotected sex. *sighs* All I can say is that I feel bad for the baby, and I hope that other kids are smart enough to avoid this mistake.
