Youth rights - a partial retraction?

I couldn't give a flying fuck about "youth liberation". - Sick Rose Sometimes, it takes a robustly expressed viewpoint to shake one from one's mental torpor. Admitting that boys should have more responsibility in some areas than they have now, does that means that I believe in something called 'youth rights'? I was reflecting today on the following: suppose (God forbid) that I were living in Yankland, and suppose I had a 13 year old son; and suppose that this son insisted to me that he wanted to get circumcised, because all his friends were, and he didn't fit in. I think in these circumstances I would dig my heels in and absolutely refuse permission (I'm assuming that my permission would be required for such a procedure). Of course, I would be very careful to explain why I thought the way I did. I would explain why I thought it would be wrong for him to give into peer pressure and make a decision that could have an adverse effect on the whole of his remaining life. I would calmly argue with him, listen properly to what he was saying and try to address it, and I would try to make him see my point of view. But suppose, in the end, he was adamant. I think in the end I would have to refuse permission, and tell him that I hoped he understood that I felt his going ahead with this operation is something that he might regret, and that I couldn't agree to. And isn't this right (not whether you agree with me about circumcision, but about my own parental responsibilities)? We recognise, do we not, that adolescence is still a formative time for the personality; that the personality is still in the process of development, and that there may be considerable changes between the boy of 13 and the young man of 20. We also recognise that adolescents (at least in western societies) can be somewhat more susceptible to peer pressure than adults. And after adolescence? Well, if my 20 year old son still wanted to be circumcised, I could surely take this as indicative of a desire that wasn't going to go away. We do tend to think that, in some sense, nothing much is going to change once someone is an adult. From early adulthood, the personality, for most people, is fixed. This is a generalisation, of course, but one I think we recognise as largely sound. With regard to a pederastic relationship, far from opposing my son having a pederastic relationship with a man, I would want to encourage it (provided the man was a good man, that is, one who would continue to be a good friend and helper to my son even after my son had grown beyond the man's age of attraction). I would want to encourage such a relationship because I believe it could do my son a great deal of good; that it would indeed have an impact on the rest of his life - potentially, a highly positive one; and that waiting until the boy was fully grown would be to forgo this opportunity. So my reason for wanting my son to have a (good) lover would not be anything to do with 'youth rights'. Would I veto his choice of lover if I thought the lover was not the right sort of man? No, I don't think so. I think in such a case I would express my views, and advise my son that I didn't think the man was a good choice of lover. But I wouldn't veto the relationship (a) because I might be wrong about the man, and (b) because the worst that could happen would be a broken heart; and for various reasons (that I might be wrong, that to overrule him might cause such resentment as to poison his relationship with me, etc.) this would not be sufficient ground for overruling his own choice. What if my 13 year old son wanted to pose for a porn magazine, or just wanted to have a bit of fun with a man, but not a long term relationship? In other words, what if, instead of a lover, he himself wanted something more casual, perhaps overtly transactional? Again, I would see no intrinsic harm in this, and thus no reason to overrule his choice. So my reasons in each of these cases have really nothing to do with Youth Rights, and simply with considerations of the boy's long term good. But then, if we admit the legitimacy of adults having some responsibility for their children, the only question is: who should exercise that responsibility - parents, or the state? And I must confess that I have a fear of the state replacing parents because one can hardly expect the state to inculcate values opposed to its own authority. Since the state pursues its interests through war and coercion, the undermining of parental authority is likely to lead to a conformist populace that is more inclined to accept the pronouncements of its leaders - a suicidal policy in a nuclear age. Therefore, parental responsibility is to be preferred. So it seems that I don't really believe in Youth Rights; or at least not quite in Pharmakon's sense. Thanks to Sick Rose for leading me on to this train of thought. (Link to S.R.'s post below. N.B. In the Sick Rose quote at the top of this page, I corrected what I assumed was an omitted negative.) (Boychat.org link) Sick Rose's post