Radfords

[Overstuffedburitto]

I just saw in the news that the Redford family have had another baby bringing the count to 20.

I have seen them in passing but thought the mum looks very young so googled it and saw she had her first at 13 when her partner was 17. AIBU to think that she was the victim of grooming and coercion by an older male?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radford_family

Or are they a lovely happy family and I am a crazy woman?

The last thing I want to do is offend anyone here so apologies if this is seen in bad taste about a woman who's just given birth, but I genuinely don't understand how this family are played out as media darling when they met under what I think are pretty unpleasant circumstances when I consider the 13 and 17 year olds I know.

Treacle - you're mixing them up with the Duggar family.

Treacle - that's the Duggars. Read an article about them last year, disturbing reading. Authorities overlooking older siblings abuse of younger children, just terrible. Poor kids.

As far as people thinking the age gap more acceptable 30 years ago, it certainly wasn't! It would not have been acceptable 50 years ago, and it would still have been shocking for a 13 year old to have a baby.

She had the baby at 14 but yes, was pregnant at 13.

It happened to my parents. I was shocked when I found out. But who are we to judge really?

40 years ago my mum got pregnant. She had an abortion aged 15. My Dad was 3 years older.

Yes, it was illegal as she was underage but these things do happen.

Like the Radfords my parents stayed together, only had 3 kids though. I'm the oldest, except I'm kind of not. There could have been children before me.

People talking about countdown to Sam Fox turning 16 - didn't they do this to Charlotte Church and possibly Emma Watson too?
I don't think times have changed that much...

Wasn't the purpose of the Sam Fox count down that on her 16th birthday they could print topless photos of her? (which must have been taken aged 15 for them to be ready the morning of her birthday). I don't think they had topless photos of Emma Watson. It was literally a count down to be able to publish soft porn of someone who was, currently, below the age of consent rather than just a nudge nudge wink wink 'she's legal now, innit'. (which is still very grim, but has de-escalated from topless pictures of a well developed child with your morning cornflakes)

@Icantreachthepretzels not that it makes a big difference who it was, but I don't think it was Sam Fox and the Sun. From what I can tell it was the Sunday Sport and a woman called Lindsey Dawn Mackenzie. She was working as a swimwear model and a non-topless glamour model whilst aged 15, and the Sunday Sport found out about her and decided to do the countdown to her 16th birthday, when they could then print topless pictures. I sincerely hope they had enough self preservation to take the photos and print them after she was actually 16. This was in 1994! It's not like it was ages and ages ago, which is crazy. To treat a child like that, publicly, it beggars belief really.

I have been warned it'll be deleted and if that's what MN do I am interested why?

The Radfords went down the legal route the last time there were threads on the family (because the threads always refer to Noel's behaviour relating to the conception of the first child) so MN take the better safe than sorry option.

So I wouldn't want to judge the father by modern day standards more than I'd judge the whole culture

Completely agree.

Honestly I'm 32, loads of 13/14 year old girls at my school went with the older boys and it really wasn't grooming. We were more mature than boys our age in development and mentally. So we naturally gravitated to those on a similar level. I'm not saying its right but it really was pretty common.

Thankfully these days it's not.

How many of them were having sex, getting pregnant at 13 and having babies at 14? It would have been really shocking for that to have happened when I was at school, which was around the same sort of era as Sue Radford.

As far as people thinking the age gap more acceptable 30 years ago, it certainly wasn't! It would not have been acceptable 50 years ago, and it would still have been shocking for a 13 year old to have a baby.

I think it was. Look at Bill Wyman.

There was a couple of girls above us got pregnant at 13/14, none in my year but one below us did and a couple below that.

There were lots having sex, lots. And it was a pretty good school. The local private school my cousin went to was much worse. And they started taking drugs younger too because they had the money too that we didn't.

horrified by the countdown to 16. That's disturbing as hell

Honestly I'm 32, loads of 13/14 year old girls at my school went with the older boys and it really wasn't grooming. We were more mature than boys our age in development and mentally. So we naturally gravitated to those on a similar level. I'm not saying its right but it really was pretty common

Again, I agree ( I'm 47)

I'm 31. I remember girls at school (14/15) going out with older boys (17/18/19) I thought it was creepy then aged 14/15.

A well thought of girls grammar school, now often cited as one of the best in the country. At 13 quite a few girls were having sex, larger numbers at 14. Two babies in my year. in those days you felt very grown up at 13 and would generally date boys around 3 years older. The Grammar School boys were not nearly as attractive as those at the secondary modern.

I'm 39 - went to a fee paying girls school. A few were having sex at 13/14 and more were at 15/16 with boys a few years older. A few were having sex with men in their 20s at that age. With hindsight I find that disturbing (and I was one of them!) but it wasn't uncommon.

And people say kids today are maturing much faster.