Once of the most common and important methods in argumentation in a debate is comparison and comparative analysis. In a debate between proponents and opponents of intergerational sexuality the significance of this method is even higher – because of persistent emotional barrier that thwarts thinking of our opponents and prevents understanding of our argumentation. Such barrier exists in the minds of most “antis” (by “antis” here I mean both anti-MAPs and anti-contact / “virtuous” MAPs) and it is quite noticeable by sudden disappearance of rational thinking capabilities (a lot of persons who are generally notably rational immediately lose their skills of critical thinking then child-adult intimacy is mentioned), combined with intense emotional overdose, when the possibility of consensual and harmless child-adult sex is mentioned. Being in such enraged and unthinking state, “antis” oftentimes cannot objectively evaluate information concerning intergenerational sexual contacts and relationships.

Yet, we still have to debate them if we want to spread the message, haven’t we? So, we have to find some arguments that may overcome the emotional barrier – or avoid it. I think, using comparison as a debate device may be useful here – it allows us to present and explain some characteristics of child-adult sexuality by using examples that are not in themselves sex-related and thus less distressful for “antis”.

I think, the best way to demonstrate how comparative examples work is to propose one myself. In my opinion, one of the best of such examples is SWIMMING: while being definitely different process from sex, it still does have some interesting similarities with it that can be used to explain some characteristics of intergenerational sexuality to “antis”.

Let’s now look at these similarities and how they can be used in comparative explanations.

1) AN INNATE DRIVE AND ABILITY

Swimming is one of the basic human abilities that, along with walking, talking, socialising etc. appear to be an inborn potential of a human being. It is a wide-known fact that infants have an inborn breath-holding reflex which they demonstrate under water, and they can easily learn (and enjoy) swimming and diving if being taken together with adults in the water pools. So, the drive and ability of (under)water movement is apparently with us since birth and need only some external, socially provided stimulus to be activated fully.

If an “antis” understood the notion of inborn ability that is easily activated in socially provided circumstances, you may try to explain that the same logic applies – and to the much stronger degree – to the sexual desire and response of children. In fact, unlike swimming skills, sexual activities of children do not even need some external activating stimulus: every child can and will masturbate without ever being told so, and this process is quite pleasant and desirable for him or her. And, in sex-friendly society, this innate drive can and should develop further in the process of socio-sexual contacts with other, more experienced human beings, including adult paedosexuals.

2) A PRIMARY EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE

When children are taken by adults with them to swim in some water pool for the first time in their lives, they do not know anything about this process. Yet, they are not required to acquire an intellectual knowledge of swimming before they are allowed to swim: no one would demand that kids should learn the theory of swimming styles and practices, physiology, liquid physics etc. before they come to an actual water pool. Instead of it, they are allowed to acquire their initial, primary knowledge of the process in a practical, experiential way: they are just taken by adults with them into the water and are allowed to try and feel the process themselves. And it is the exact way the children learn about the world – experientially, by trying and living through. Intellectual knowledge comes later.

The same works with sexuality: the absence of knowledge on child’s part is not an argument to prevent the child to acquire such knowledge by practice and experience. To participate in consensual sexual activities, no knowledge of sexology, social psychology, genital anatomy, theory of communication etc. is needed; such intellectual erudition will come later. And in the early age, living and trying is the basic way to acquire knowledge and skill – this is true to the whole spectrum of child’s basic activities, from speech to sexuality.

3) A SIMPLE, PROCESSUAL, RESCINDABLE CONSENT

When child is learning to swim, it is crucially important to watch and respect child’s desire and willingness to learn: it is for child to decide how far the activities in a water pool can go. For example, a child may be happy and excited when playing with his parents near the shore, yet ask the parents to stop (or to show clear signs of unwillingness by movement, facial expression and voice) if being taken to deeper waters. Of course, the parents should not frighten the child and give up for this day. If they do it, everyone would agree that child’s participation in swimming was entirely consensual.

What is important to note concerning such consensual participation is what the child’s consent was simple, not “informed” in the intellectual sense – the child was learning in the process of action itself – yet it was definitely valid. It was also processual, in the sense that where was no singular act of agreement given before the process; the agreement to participate was continuously demonstrated during the swimming itself, until the child was taken to deeper waters and, then, expressed disagreement – and this disagreement was respected, so the activity stopped. Because of such readiness to stop the generally pleasant activity in the moment the pleasure of one of its participants is over and the activity is thus no longer desirable for him or her, such consent is also rescindable.

And such simple, processual and rescindable consent is exactly the one which is practiced in sex, be this sex between adults, or between children, or between adults and children. When we have sex, we are not supposed to fill “informed consent” forms, like before the potentially unpleasant or dangerous medical procedures or scientific experiments; what we need is the mutual demonstration of desire, pleasure and willingness to the partner, and the readiness to stop if the partner demonstrates them no longer.

4) PREVENTABLE DANGERS AND ADULT PARTNER’S RESPONSIBILITY

Swimming and diving are not dangerous processes in themselves; yet, if something has gone wrong, they may become dangerous, and even lethally so. The big numbers of people who drown every year, including many children, is a sad reminder of this fact. Yet, the understanding that swimming may be dangerous if approached without necessary caution does not lead to demand to ban it for the children until they are deemed capable and responsible enough to practice it; there is no “age of swimming consent” being enforced. To prevent the danger, experienced adults accompany children in the water to guide their actions there and to be able to prevent the problems. And the adults accompanying children in the water are held morally (and, oftentimes, legally) responsible for the children’s safety. And, as children grow up, they learn to act responsibly in water themselves and are no longer in need of adult guidance.

The same works for sexuality: sex as such is a safe practice. But, as any practice in general, it might go wrong if approached recklessly and irresponsibly – sexually transmitted diseases and (for adolescent and adult females) unwanted pregnancy are two examples of such sex-related dangers. Yet, acknowledging that responsibly approached sex is safe, there is no reason to forbid it for anyone, including children; what is necessary is acceptance of moral responsibility by the adult partner of sexual contact and relationship, and his or her acts to ensure the safety of the child, as well as teaching the child to act responsibly himself or herself. And, when intergenerational sexuality will be accepted by society (I’m certain this day will come), such responsibility may be communally ensured and enforced, and teaching of it may become widespread.

5) AN EXPLORATORY AND SOCIALISING POTENTIAL OF ACTIVITY

And, last but not least – both sex and swimming, beyond being desirable by themselves, provides additional benefits, such as exploration of the world (it may be highly exciting, as well as informative, for child to travel to some new lakes, rivers or seas) and social contact (one may start some informal communication with people with whom you are in the water or on the beach).

And for the sexuality, such additional positive results are much more noticeable – there is a lot that a child might learn from his or her adult sexual partner, or together with such partner. The social relations beyond the family, including ones with sexual element, will facilitate children’s socialising. And the absence of numerous restrictions designed to prevent sexual learning of children, from forbidding them to roam the streets by themselves to preventing their informal social contacts with adults to censoring their information access, will provide children with yet another range of additional possibilities.

So, this is what I think about the sex-swimming comparison and its usefulness in a debate with “antis”.

Now, I want to ask you: what do you think about the usage of comparison and comparative examples in debates with “antis”? Do you like the example of sex-swimming comparison that I used? Can you propose some other comparative examples?