Alfie - 13 year old Dad
Have you heard
this story yet?
INNOCENT-eyed Alfie Patten spent his first night acting as a 13-year-old dad and declared: “It was easier than I thought.”
The four-footer — who looks no more than eight — said: “I know I’m young, but I plan to be a good dad.”
As he went on the PlayStation with 15-year-old girlfriend Chantelle Steadman, he added: “I think we’ll be good parents. I’ll have to work extra hard at school.”
But
the plot thickens...
Alfie Patten has reportedly demanded a DNA test to prove he really is a father at age 13 after two other teenagers are said to have claimed they had slept with his girlfriend.
The schoolboy was described as another symbol of 'broken Britain after it emerged that he and Chantelle Steadman, 15, had parented baby Masie, born five days ago.
But today the scandal took another twist after it was claimed Richard Goodsell, 16, and Tyler Barker, 14, may have fathered the child.
. . . it was claimed Richard Goodsell, 16, and Tyler Barker, 14, may have fathered the child.
Surely they meant "or." :angel:
Why are they giving out the names of minors?
'Cause they just want to be famous?
They posted it on their MySpace pages...
What's it all about, Alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
or are we meant to be kind?
And if only fools are kind, Alfie,
then I guess it's wise to be cruel.
And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie,
what will you lend on an old golden rule?
As sure as I believe there's a heaven above, Alfie,
I know there's something much more,
something even non-believers can believe in.
I believe in love, Alfie.
Without true love we just exist, Alfie.
Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie.
When you walk let your heart lead the way
and you'll find love any day, Alfie, Alfie.
Why are they giving out the names of minors?
I don't know. Maybe their parents allowed it? Seems to me they must have a fairly 'flexible' group of parents for them all to be underage and doing the dirty...with the same chick, who really doesn't look like a sluzza at all.
ah, I see now, it's because The Sun paid them wadges of moolah
250,000 quid was what I read. For that money even I would knock up a ... 14 ... errrmmm... no, don't think I would...
250,000 quid was what I read. For that money even I would knock up a ... 14 ... errrmmm... no, don't think I would...
buys a truckload of diapers and playstation games after the fact, though
There's something wrong with her lips. did they do cosmetic surgery back then?
Goodness...:eek: My friend is a middle school teacher and such news aren't strange to her. She's heard them one too many times.
it's completely insane. She had sex with that kid, who claims to be 13.
I don't even know what to say it's so bizarre. I don't even know if I spelled bizarre right.
What's it all about, Alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
or are we meant to be kind?
And if only fools are kind, Alfie,
then I guess it's wise to be cruel.
And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie,
what will you lend on an old golden rule?
As sure as I believe there's a heaven above, Alfie,
I know there's something much more,
something even non-believers can believe in.
I believe in love, Alfie.
Without true love we just exist, Alfie.
Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie.
When you walk let your heart lead the way
and you'll find love any day, Alfie, Alfie.
I love Dionne Warwick doing Bacharach and David tunes.
I think the real surprise here is the amount of surprise, although I guess that this isn't all that regular an event over on the other side of the pond.
I've dealt with 13 year old Baby Mommas, and at least one 12 year old Baby Daddy.
It's whole big buckets of wrong.
But the DNA testing could prove interesting.
Does Alfie have to give the money back to the Sun if he's not the baby daddy?
I think the real surprise here is the amount of surprise, although I guess that this isn't all that regular an event over on the other side of the pond.
The Sun jumped at it because although the boy is 13 (and is not the youngest father in Britain) he looks about 8. That made for a visually arresting front page story.
The majority of the tabloids are right wing, so they loved this story - got them all frothing at the mouth about the state of the country and how it was going to hell in a handbasket yada, yada, yada. Wet dream of a story for them (all spurt and no substance) because of course the girl will get benefits, it's about underage sex in our "permissive" society, the Mum lives on a council estate, etc etc. Luckily none of those involved were immigrants, otherwise The Mail and the Express might have spontaneously combusted.
The broadsheets have been able to weigh in, as they are read by the educated classes, and their children are sent to single sex private schools and tied up with music lessons, sports clubs and drama until they are 18, so they have as little time for underage sex as possible. And of course if their sons or daughters do propagate it is handled within the family, shrugs and sympathy all round and they all get on with it quietly.
The bottom line apparently is it's Gordon Brown's fault. It wouldn't have happened if we still had corporal punishment in schools, it's the fault of sex education (or not enough of it) the Welfare State, swearing on television (probably Russell Brand has some culpability) and the only solution is to bring back hanging and National Service.
So you don't see a link between decreasing conservative values and increasing social decline?
Nope.
I've been hearing it since I was a child.
We don't seem to be in hell yet, handbasket or not.
People have always been degenerate, one way or another.
Dickens wrote accurately about the times he lived in for example, he only invented the characters. Hogarth's famous Gin Street etching was about society on the verge of collapse.
I doubt he's the first 13 year old to have fathered a child. And he won't be the last.
So you don't see a link between decreasing conservative values and increasing social decline?
Oh PLEASE expound on this. I need a good spanking!
*runs around gleefully*
Oh, I'll spank you, alright, and don't even need a reason, you minx!!
Amazing, all this talk and the kid may not be the father.
I see teens prego all the time. It really is a problem world wide. The youngest I have seen was prego at 12 and delivered at 13.
Kids need better education about birth control options and access to it. Not talk.
Just think. This could happen to your kid.
So you don't see a link between decreasing conservative values and increasing social decline?
Nope.
I've been hearing it since I was a child.
We don't seem to be in hell yet, handbasket or not.
"What is happening to our young people these days?
I see a deterioration of values that worsens with every passing year."
- Baltasar Gracian, 1658
Amazing, all this talk and the kid may not be the father.
I see teens prego all the time. It really is a problem world wide. The youngest I have seen was prego at 12 and delivered at 13.
Just think. This could happen to your kid.
You really should be dating women around your own age, Merc ;)
Srsly, this is an old problem. Our bodies are capable of reproduction years before our minds are capable of making sensible decisions about it.
I don't see how this can be "solved", but it can be managed by, as Merc says, better information, access to contraceptives, and also discouraging kinds from doing it (and keeping them busy with other things), but not condemning them if they do.
So you don't see a link between decreasing conservative values and increasing social decline?
Define social decline.
This is such a non-story. Sundae's right, it's his baby face that's brought the tabloids in.
My part of England (my borough) has one of the highest teenage conception rates in the country. We've also brought those figures down at a faster rate than anywhere else, because it's something the local authority and partners (health trust, police, anti-social behaviour units, neighbourhood management, CYP Directorate) have concentrated a hell of a lot of effort, time and resources into: reaching at-risk youngsters, outreach education programmes in schools in the area etc.
Why does my area have such high levels of teen conception? It's nothing to do with permissiveness, and a lot to do with the kind of social breakdown that goes hand in hand with poverty and economic distress. Much of my borough is no different to the rest of the country; but we have two areas within it that rank in the top ten on the multiple deprivation index: which means we have two of the most deprived areas in England. No prizes for guessing which parts of my borough are contributing most to those figures. The life expectancy of children born in those two parts of the borough is ten years lower than children born in my village. That is not a slipping of conservative values, it's poverty plain and simple. It never went away.
Why does being poor increase teenage (& preteen) conception rates?
They have nothing else to play with?
Despair/seeking solace in sex?
Poor = poor parenting?
laissez faire attitude about life results in poor and poor parenting?
The parents probably had kids when they were too young, which is why the parents (and thus their kids) are poor. Parents who had kids at a young age probably create an environment where it is likely that their kids will have kids at a young age.
And it will happen again with the next generation. That little baby will also be having kids as a teen.
"Rich, liberal-elite" kids don't have nearly as high a pregnancy rate as "rich conservatives" -- mostly on the basis of information, goals and role-models. And it goes beyond teens.
In Regnerus's survey, the teen-agers who espouse this new morality are tolerant of premarital sex (and of contraception and abortion) but are themselves cautious about pursuing it. Regnerus writes, "They are interested in remaining free from the burden of teenage pregnancy and the sorrows and embarrassments of sexually transmitted diseases. They perceive a bright future for themselves, one with college, advanced degrees, a career, and a family. Simply put, too much seems at stake. Sexual intercourse is not worth the risks." These are the kids who tend to score high on measures of "strategic orientation"--how analytical, methodical, and fact-seeking they are when making decisions. Because these teen-agers see abstinence as unrealistic, they are not opposed in principle to sex before marriage--just careful about it. Accordingly, they might delay intercourse in favor of oral sex, not because they cherish the idea of remaining "technical virgins" but because they assess it as a safer option. "Solidly middle- or upper-middle-class adolescents have considerable socioeconomic and educational expectations, courtesy of their parents and their communities' lifestyles," Regnerus writes. "They are happy with their direction, generally not rebellious, tend to get along with their parents, and have few moral qualms about expressing their nascent sexuality." They might have loved Ellen Page in "Juno," but in real life they'd see having a baby at the wrong time as a tragic derailment of their life plans. For this group, Regnerus says, unprotected sex has become "a moral issue like smoking or driving a car without a seatbelt. It's not just unwise anymore; it's wrong."
(From
here.)
Here's the problem:
Lack of realistic, attainable goals.
Lack of role-models.
Lack of
accurate information.
Lack of affordable, easily available contraception.
As this is a UK-specific post, at least in terms of the OT, you can take the last item off the list.
Possibly the last two - I had sex education from the age of 11 at my Catholic school. Including information regarding contraception. And every year after that at my grammar school!
And contraception in all forms is available free here, certainly for teenagers. You can even pick up handfuls of free condoms at the local family planning centre.
Add to the list - probably already covered generally - is the lack of parental assumption that teen pregnancy is a bad thing. My schoolfriends and I would have been mortified if we fell pregnant in our teens. Absolutely curl up and want to die and hide our faces forever more. It's not a sensible reaction (and not one that girls at the extremes of the social scale would have) but it was what we learned from our parents. So, yes - the fear of the shame was a huge motivator in ensuring we used contraception, or even abstained from sex altogether. It was like being fat, and having a tattoo saying "stupid" across your forehead. And having to wear gross clothes too! And that going on for none months and then maybe even forever!
Poor girls - poorer than me I mean, and I've explained before I'm from a council estate - and rich girls lived without this shame. The poor because their Mums had them at 17 anyway, and their sisters got pregnant at 15 and got their own flats from the Council. The rich because indulgent parents sorted things out one way or another, and the girls still ended up at University or working for Daddy's friend. Gross generalisation, but this was how it seemed at the time. And yes, I knew girls from different social strata who got "in the family way".
Us in the middle? Our Mums would have skinned us and got our sisters to wear the skin as a warning that we should never ruin our lives in that way.
Hmmm. Maybe that's why I didn't want children?!
Related to Evangelicals - C'mon Pie - Thats the broadest of all brushes. Sheesh. Do you really think ALL R's are Evangelicals or worse?
"Why Do So Many Evangelical Teenagers Become Pregnant?"
By Margaret Talbot
(Areas of Expertise: Civil Liberties, Elections & Political Parties, Family & Children, Feminism)
New America Foundation The New Yorker
No, just the stupid ones. :bolt:
The poverty factor mainly relates to a greater level of social breakdown, higher levels of drug and alcohol use, higher levels of unemployment, low-paid, unskilled employment, and (in the case of the areas I was talking about) a culture of low expectations and social dislocation.
I say cultural, because these factors have coalesced into a kind of cultural identity. It's generational.
But does the poverty cause the social attitudes, or do the attitudes cause the poverty?
There are young teenage parents all over the world. We have them here although I don't know of any personally, but they are out there. When I was in high school one of the girls got knocked up at 16 and spent her last year at school as a social outcast just about. I had no idea what to make of it at that time. I was pretty naive about sex back then. We heard about other girls who'd gotten pregnant younger, but then they mysteriously weren't anymore.
I came from a pretty solid middle class area as did most of the kids I went to high school with. I'm sure poverty has something to do with it, but early pregnancy is definitely not the problem of one social group. At least not here.
But does the poverty cause the social attitudes, or do the attitudes cause the poverty?
I'm inclined to think that the economic pressures came first. The areas I was talking about follow a farly common pattern for the old industrial North: textile town, strong working-class culture, loses its manufacturing during the 80s and 90s. The town becomes effectively a dormitory town (in our case for Leeds and Bradford) and service industry base, the old textile communities adapt or die. In the case of the two areas mentioned, they died. As the town struggled with high unemployment in the 90s, areas of high depreivation began to form. The old social structures that came with the working-class culture of old have dissolved in those parts of town, but not been replaced by anything. Those areas become the cheap and nasty areas which is where the poorer families end up.
Economic and social collapse in some areas has left a hell of a legacy. It is all encompassing. The schools expect less of their pupils, parents have lower expectations of their children. Family breakdown, exacerbated by unemployment, debt etc, leaves kids without the parenting and support they need. They then become more likely to parent in the same way (without some kind of intervention). The sense of dislocation amongst some of these communities is palpable.
Related to Evangelicals - C'mon Pie - Thats the broadest of all brushes. Sheesh. Do you really think ALL R's are Evangelicals or worse?
Her post stated;
"[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Rich, liberal-elite[/COLOR]" kids don't have nearly as high a pregnancy rate as "[COLOR="royalblue"]rich conservatives[/COLOR]"
Where does she say all rich people are evangelicals?
Think he meant "Rs" = "Republicans"
read the link Bruce. It was the author I was referring to not her. I then made the ASSUMPTION that Pie was lumping all R's in with evangelicals.
Oh and R's does equal republicans too - :)
Amazing, all this talk and the kid may not be the father.
I see teens prego all the time. It really is a problem world wide. The youngest I have seen was prego at 12 and delivered at 13.
Kids need better education about birth control options and access to it. Not talk.
Just think. This could happen to your kid.
Aww shit Merc! Why did you have to say THAT? I have 3 daughters, and the middle one turns 13 next month.
Kids need better education about birth control options and access to it. Not talk.
Good luck brining this up at the next RNC convention.
The "if you don't teach them about it, they won't do it" crowd is going strong.
Look at this list of
state marriage laws. Most of them have some accommodation for teen pregnancy, and most of these laws have been on the books for decades, if not a century.
Good luck brining this up at the next RNC convention.
The "if you don't teach them about it, they won't do it" crowd is going strong.
Nearly $1.5 billion in federal funding for abstinence only education in the last 25 years, starting with Reagan (the "keep govt out of our lives" guy) and increased significantly in the last eight years (by the other "keep govt out of our lives" guy)
The History of Federal Abstinence-Only FundingI don't understand how kids get pregnant these days??
you can't go into a music store or supermarket without falling over displays of condoms,you can get the morning after pill without doctors presciption in any chemist store.
They get taught sex education from a very early age so it's not that they don't know how babies get there..
Strange days
I don't understand...
Read
this book... it offers some perspective.
I don't understand how kids get pregnant these days??
you can't go into a music store or supermarket without falling over displays of condoms,you can get the morning after pill without doctors presciption in any chemist store.
They get taught sex education from a very early age so it's not that they don't know how babies get there..
Strange days
No morning after pill w/o a Rx if you are a minor (under 18) in the US.
And the more extreme social conservative movement in the US prefer their 8 point plan for abstinence only education, including baseless scare tactics:
[INDENT] sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society[/INDENT]
Think he meant "Rs" = "Republicans"
read the link Bruce. It was the author I was referring to not her. I then made the ASSUMPTION that Pie was lumping all R's in with evangelicals.
Oh and R's does equal republicans too - :)
That's what I thought, but didn't want to say anything based on an assumption.
The author of the article (Talbot) is making comparisons Republican/Democrat, red state/blue state and attributing liberal/conservative with a broad brush.
That said, The "social scientists and family-law scholars" that are actually providing the data and conclusions the author quotes, like the one Pie put in her post, are not concerned with politics but religion, values, and actions of the teens. I think their conclusions sound quite reasonable.
And the more extreme social conservative movement in the US prefer their 8 point plan for abstinence only education, including baseless scare tactics:
sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
What, you've never heard of Hot-dog-down-a-hallway Syndrome? It's in the DSM-IV.
bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society
I think you'll find it pretty hard to argue with this one as it's written. Single parents have a harder life, their kids have a harder life, and society is asked to support one or both of them more often than married couples. I can't imagine anyone sanely arguing that having unplanned babies is a fine idea. Obviously there can be plenty of debate as to the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancies, but you really can't call the above statement a baseless scare tactic.
What, you've never heard of Hot-dog-down-a-hallway Syndrome? It's in the DSM-IV.
I think you'll find it pretty hard to argue with this one as it's written. Single parents have a harder life, their kids have a harder life, and society is asked to support one or both of them more often than married couples. I can't imagine anyone sanely arguing that having unplanned babies is a fine idea. Obviously there can be plenty of debate as to the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancies, but you really can't call the above statement a baseless scare tactic.
[INDENT]sexual activity outside the context of marriage is
likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
bearing children out-of-wedlock is
likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society
[/INDENT]
I would have no argument if it were described as "possible" rather than "likely"....there is no study that I have seen that supports the conclusion that harmful psychological and physical effects or harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society are
"likely"....to describe it in that manner, IMO, is a scare tactic.
I don't think having children out of wedlock necessarily means the child is that of a single parent.
I have two kids out of wedlock but I wasn't a single parent till my relationship failed. At the time they were concieved I never expected to be a single parent ever.
Shit happens.
True, but the "choice" in "pro-choice" really ought to be this:
The active choice to conceive a child in the first place.
Until we've worked out the medical, societal and ethical issues that surround blocking conception itself, everything else will be less than optimal.
Despite a rather shiny liberal veneer, I do have a deeply conservative heart.
I genuinely believe that the best possible upbringing for a child results from having two adults living in the same home. Ideally one male and one female. Preferably the child's biologicial parents or their replacement (guardian, adoptive parents of foster carers) simply to omit two-household complications.
A bad person as a parent is by no means preferable to only one of course.
Then again, I believe 13 year old girls should get 3 year contraceptive implants (it's illegal to have sex before 16 anyway).
And that if children can't be taught to make a joyful noise then they are better off seen and not heard.
Oh and that once someone reaches a weight which tips them over the line into obesity, they should be sent to some sort of Fat Camp. Or at least have the option of it. Obesity is a killer, and people slip into it, burger by burger. Or pint by pint in my case.
I believe that public trasnport and emergency services should have the right to shunt illegally parked cars out of the way.
And that children truanting on a regular basis should be put to use cleaning the streets and parks - they might have something to say to litterers after a while. With the option to go back to school the minute they request it of course - it will teach them that school isn't hard work compared to real life.
I blame my reactionary views on my parents of course ;)
The author of the article (Talbot) is making comparisons Republican/Democrat, red state/blue state and attributing liberal/conservative with a broad brush.
Red Sex, Blue Sex
Why Do So Many Evangelical Teenagers Become Pregnant?
By Margaret Talbot, New America Foundation
The New Yorker | November 3, 2008
THAT is the title of the article in the link. The bold is mine, but IS what the author wrote. Now where is the misunderstanding? There seems to be some confusion in what appears crystal clear.
I can't imagine how I'd feel if Aden became a father this year. He turns 13 in 6 months. As far as I know, he's maybe pecked a couple of girls on the lips, but I don't think there's been any deep kissing even, let alone heavy petting, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad. I hope he can save that sort of thing for at least another couple of years if not 3 or 4.
I guess we have all the baby infrastructure at home, so if he did somehow become a father young we'd be able to help him out, but it'd really change the structure of our family. For one thing, I think it would really put a strain on the bond between Aden and Mav which is something I'd hate to see happen.
Ultimately I can't really control that situation if it ever arises, but I can try and educate the kids and hopefully they'll somehow find the wisdom to not make a bad decision in that regard.
THAT is the title of the article in the link. The bold is mine, but IS what the author wrote. Now where is the misunderstanding? There seems to be some confusion in what appears crystal clear.
I said before, the author of the
article is trying to make a red/blue, rep/dem, case with a broad brush. But in writing this article Talbot based it on the work of researchers that make no political connection.
They are working with religion, values, attitudes and goals of the teens. They make no connection with the politics of the teens or their parents. That's why I said although the overall article is obviously bias, the conclusions and reasoning of the actual researchers, look sound.
This is another case of someone with an agenda taking valid research results and trying to twist or embellish it to prove their agenda. That's partisan and dishonest, but doesn't negate the validity of the researcher's results, which is what Pie quoted. For example, if you just read the quote in the post without going to the link, it's not political.
Are you implying that I did that?????
The title of the article clearly states what I previously posted. To disconnect from that is, in my opinion, partisan and dishonest.
I don't understand how kids get pregnant these days??
you can't go into a music store or supermarket without falling over displays of condoms,you can get the morning after pill without doctors presciption in any chemist store.
They get taught sex education from a very early age so it's not that they don't know how babies get there..
Strange days
I have a friend who's in dental school. Scored high in his DAT, high grades in his undergrad classes, so yeah, he thinks and claims that he's smart. He was living with his gf (now ex) who got pregnant. I later found out she aborted. I asked him why and he gave me several reasons. The bottom line, they didn't want the baby. The conversation dragged on a bit because I was really against abortion. Anyways, finally I wondered out loud, "Weren't you using protection?!?" He said no because they didn't think she'd get pregnant. Hmm....... :neutral:
Are you implying that I did that?????
No, I didn't say you did that, I said the author (Talbot) did that.
The title of the article clearly states what I previously posted. To disconnect from that is, in my opinion, partisan and dishonest.
Did you read what I wrote?:rolleyes:
Yeh - sorry, I thought it was directed at me.
What a horrible blow this is to the tabloid press. I hope they'll be able to pull through this disappointment.
Well really, the 15-year-old is going to be able to provide for the child better anyway, since his allowance is probably way bigger.
Well he's allowed to get a newspaper round, so all is well -as soon as he turns 16 he'll be able to get a Saturday job. The nipper'll be fine.