13 year old becomes father

DannyinJapan

DannyinJapan

Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,594
It seems odd to me that his is a piece of news. Somehow, I get the idea that most people don't realize that, biologically, we are SUPPOSED to become fathers at that age.
We live far longer and slower than we are supposed to these days. The human body keeps growing until 18, but it reaches sexual maturity somewhere around 14 yoa. There's a reason for that.
If your expected lifespan is 30, (and it was), then you must have a child when you are still young enough to live long enough to raise it to maturity so that he can have a child and keep the cycle going. Half of 30 is 15. 14 is even better.

I am beginning to think that our standards for everything need some serious revising.
 
True. Aside from what would be a desirable state of affairs (no pun intended), modern society seems to have first at tried to replace "nature" with "religion", and then replace both of these with ideologically-determined "bureaucracy" -- largely artificial constructs; but people do tend to forget that the dogmas of the latter two have been historically variable.
 
WHat the two of you are saying may be true, but the facts are we dont live in the dark ages and the society mold does rule our lives. Therefore, it is morally wrong for a 13 year old to be engaging in practices that are WAY beyond his understanding or comprehension of consequences.
It goes even further when the laws in place to protect the moral fibre are flouted just because the child appeared in a tabloid newspaper.
Would you want YOUR 13 year old daughter/son having sex?
When I was that age, I was not even thinking about having a sweetheart let alone SEX!

I do agree, 500 years ago it was possible for certain societies to cope with young parents, but these days and especially in the UK, this is not the case.
The fact that the PRESS has once again has turned this into sensationalist headline grabbing is disgusting, perhaps more so than the actual act that put this child in the position of parent in the first place.
People should be ashamed of this, not getting PUBLIC FUNDING for it!
 
and the society mold does rule our lives.
Click to expand...
But it's an increasingly dysfunctional society. I read Danny's post as a totally dispassionate, objective and factual comment.
He's correct in the suggestion that present-day "law" and official "morality" seem no longer to be consistent with the realities in much of society; constaints fall, revert to an earlier pattern of instinctive behaviour, as the overlaid system increasingly decays -- exactly what to do about it at this advanced stage is a question to which there's no quick and easy solution.....
I'm no more in approval of what's happening nowadays than you are; however -- in Britain, anyway -- the political leaders and their various social "experts" seem to have a rather different view on things.
 
Yes, Britain does not really have political leaders. More liek political celebrities always looking for a way to steal the public's attention with some or other smear...sigh.

Like Rome in its most decadent times, Britain is bound to fall away.
Christ people, I mean, 13 YEARS OLD!!! AND THE LOCAL COUNCIL IS SUPPORTING THEM!!!

I am voting conservative next election, dont know if it will do much good though.
David Cameron is just not a real person
 
DannyinJapan said:
If your expected lifespan is 30, (and it was), then you must have a child when you are still young enough to live long enough to raise it to maturity so that he can have a child and keep the cycle going. Half of 30 is 15. 14 is even better.
Click to expand...

A common misconception is the life expectancy of the middle ages. The reason it was so low was the high rate of infant mortality. A lot of cultures didn't even give permanent names until the child made it to the age of two. There were plenty of folks from the old days to survive into the 70's or even 80's.

However, I agree that today's society artificially extends childhood. This is a great example of the responsibility a 3 year old can have if they are expected to perform. The quote is about halfway down the first page.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18236

At night when the women go to sleep, after an exhausting day of non-stop work. A boyer is used, to keep the tent area heated and warm. He has many responsibilities.

His job is to stay up all night long by himself alone. Keep that woodstove going, by chopping wood using an axe, using very sharp knives cut small pieces of sicpan if needed. Melt snow to wash dishes and clean out the thermoses, Make fresh drinking water for making hot coffee, tea and hot chocolate. Bring the new filled thermoses down to the hunters and grab the empties and fill them up with new hot beverages. He must keep a constant look out for new cracks in the ice around the tent area, and watch that wind, in case it ever shifts to a strong south wind, he is armed with many rifles in case of a polar bear attack. His duties are many and he is very busy all night long alone. So lie down and go to sleep, your in good hands, hand your matches & lighter over to this boyer, he has to go to work.. !
your in good hands with this 3 year old child!
Click to expand...
 
BruiseLeee said:
If the the baby reproduces at 13 as well, the boy can be a grandfather at 26. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Some clever, applied mathematics there my good man.

Still, I'll have to roll my eyes too :rolleyes:...noone but Jed Hillbilly is gonna be a grandpapi at 26.

It was said earlier that people used to do this, but in fact it was only really young girls being married to older men and very rarely the girl being under 14 years of age.
Its just not done, old boy.
 
I never said anything about the middle ages. I was referring to that vast majority of human history that predates agriculture, a span of more than three million years.
 
Okay time for my two cents. I agree with alot of stuff that's been said, particularly from Danny and Tedwca.

First: Yes, in the middle ages life expectancy was low, around 30, so you wanted to have kids in your early teens. That said, as was brought up, the middle/dark ages are not a proper representation. There was widespread disease, malnutrition and poverty. Take the "great" civilizations of the past: Rome, China, Japan... all these cultures had life expectancies well past 60, into the 70's and 80's even. Look at Ancient Greece... all our good old philosopher friends lived well into their 70's or 80's, and that was a few thousand years ago.

Now, are we meant to live this long? I agree we are extending our lives far beyond what was biologically intended. And I agree we are as a result having kids later than we are biologically disposed to. Yes, if you are a woman and hit menopause you shouldn't be having kids. Yes, if you are a man, and at 50 you need cialis of viagra to get it up you also shouldn't be having kids. It's nature's way of saying your past your prime, and we should live with it.

Now, simply because we are biologically able to conceive at 14, I don't think we should. I don't think it's a question of morality, but of ability.

Let's take a step back and look at our primate cousins. Simply because they are at an age able to conceive, it doesn't mean they will. In fact, it will likely be many years after child bearing age that they gain the social opportunity to do so. Males shall have to ascend the social hierarchy to the point they gain access to females. By this point, they will have acquired the experience and knowledge necessary to raise a child by assisting others, and watching others do the same within the group. Even for females in the group, while their first child may come shortly after reaching estrus, it is likely that they shall have assistance in the child's raising from other females.

To conclude, I agree that we are able to have children at a very young age, and I also agree our culture tends to "extend" childhood because of longer lifespans. That said, I think now a days we also have kids far too late in life - far later than our biological clocks would like. Not to say we should be having them at 13, but definitely earlier. As for conceiving, I do not think morality has anything to do with it. I hate to say it, but arguing for sex at 13 to be morally wrong is an extremely ethnocentric argument. In developing nations, kids at 13 are far far more independent than those in North American society. It is different; not morally wrong. Lastly, I agree with those who have posted before that the issue with children at 13 is a question of experience and knowledge, and that it takes a few years past child bearing age for us to acquire the necessary skills. I believe the bottom line rests with the ability of the parent to care for their child, and I am positive there are 13 year olds out there who will do a far better job raising a child than some 30 year olds, 40 year olds, or 20 year olds, living next door.
 
Well, this all depends on if you like your current lifestyle ie North American, 1st world, democratic nation. Or if you would be willing to live like someone in starving, 3rd world Africa.
You could well get away with the "father at 13" scenario, but would you be willing to live in the environment that goes with that?
I for one, would like nothing more than to return to ancient times before Empires and advanced civilisation, but the fact is unless the WHOLE world is like that, our bohemian nation would be taken over by a superior power and made into slaves.
eg. nubian people enslaved by Egyptians.

So in retrospect, you might like to say that things are generally better for most people the way they are.

Now. We just have to get this "Violence in the name of religion" issue sorted out.
 
Western civilization does artificially prolong the childhood, sometimes well into the 20's, no question about it, and this is a sign of cultural decadence as good as any, I believe. Sheltering youth from the responsibilities of life for too long inevitably makes then unable to cope with these responsibilities as adults. This is a crucial part of adolescence, and if basic survival skills aren't learnt by the age of 20, odds are they'll never be learnt.

However, I don't it's productive to society that 13 year old kids have babies, and while modern society makes this possible through wellfare and support, I don't think this constitutes a natural mode for us humans, irrespective of sexual maturity. I believe that this might even be more strickly "controlled" in primitive, tribal cultures, as they, sans wellfare and medicine, fully understand the fact that while kids can make kids, raising a child is a job for grown-ups.
 
I think there's a huge gap between biological preparedness and emotional preparedness. I think having kids at 14 is a little like using a grenade launcher for room clearing: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Is a 14 year old really emotionally developed enough to put an infant's needs completely over his own? Or is this a complete state of nature, where the kid is on its own as soon as it grows teeth?
Besides, society does play a major role. At 14, a kid isn't trusted for skilled labor and can't earn a viable income so support his kid. Of course, if this is state of nature I suppose the 14 year old can scrape together some grubs and tubers to feed himself and his progeny. But in any resemblance of civilization, 14 is entirely too young to give birth and expect the child to live. I guess it doesn't matter if there's no expectation for the child to live, though, like an the third world.
 
But in any resemblance of civilization, 14 is entirely too young to give birth and expect the child to live.
Click to expand...
In most pre-modern cultures, a human is capable of surviving on its' own and raising a child to that same level of capability by the time it is 9 years old. A 13 yr old has 4 years of added life experience. The idea that you need to be older is simply a very recent change in social conditions. Let's say, the last 500 years or so? That leaves about 3.5 million years of unchanging history behind in this regard.
Our bodies don't change simply because society does.
If the society has ways for a 14 yr old to work and earn and care for his child, then there is no problem.
I know this for a fact, being the great grandson of a woman who was married at 14, ran a farm and had 5 kids of her own.
Not quite the middle ages...
 
Not arguing the possibility of it happening, I'm just skeptical of whether or not that's civilization. Only perhaps the last 10,000 years of our presence here has had anything defined as such.
Now, a 14 year old with 5 kids, is that the exceptioh or the rule? I think that more than likely a parent with that many kids expected at least 3 of them to be dead within a couple of years.
 
MagenDavid said:
Not arguing the possibility of it happening, I'm just skeptical of whether or not that's civilization. Only perhaps the last 10,000 years of our presence here has had anything defined as such.
Now, a 14 year old with 5 kids, is that the exceptioh or the rule? I think that more than likely a parent with that many kids expected at least 3 of them to be dead within a couple of years.
Click to expand...

In most cases i would say it is the exception, Nowadays.

Not too long ago in this very century it was not uncommon in certain parts of this country for a woman to be married and have at least one child at age 14.
Right or wrong, scenarios like this have been happening for a very long time all over the world. Only since the age of the "Moral Majority" have things changed and made it "Taboo" and illegal. My personal belief is that it is wrong for children to be bearing children, as it not only puts one helluva burden on them, but usually puts one on society as well.
 
This was never a discussion about civilization. My original post concerned biology and evolution. We can't ever forget what we really are. When you do that, you start making demands that cannot be fulfilled and that is the road to misery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top