Parental sovereignty entails....

...the slavery of boys, so hardly anything we can support. Still I admire your willingness to say that a child should be capable of consenting to sex from the time he can speak. He should!. (Naturally I do not support drowning any boy who is incapable of that, and I am sure such boys exist. I am happy for you that your offspring are not among them.) The boylove movement is historically leftist, and expresses that in its opposition to parental sovereignty. But it finds common ground with you in your contention that, if parental authority is disregarded, a boy's own judgment as to his sexual capacity should in general be respected. Furthermore it seems to me that you take total responsibility for executing your parental responsibilities, that is, you accept that if your offspring should choose sexual self-determination in disregard of your determinations made on their behalf, you accept that that would be a failure of parenting on your part at least as much as an act of unjustified rebellion on theirs. I respect that acceptance of responsibility. The fly in the parental sovereignty ointment, of course, is that many or most parents will not agree with you that the age of speech is the age of consent. And you cede to them the right to make this determination for their offspring. Thus you abandon many or most children to sexual (or antisexual) slavery of the most arbitrary character, dependent upon the chance of birth. Nothing irritates us leftists more than deferral to the accident of parentage. You know, nobility and all that -- it left a bad taste in some of our mouths. hugzu ;-p