NationStates Jolt Archive

Please see the second draft at page 4: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7958728#post7958728

After positive feedback in my region I decided to post this here for discussion. Shoot holes in it, comment, amend, etc, while you can. I've tried to incorporate all concerns about legal prostitution that were mentioned in the repeal discussion.

The main question is: which category does this belong to? After discussion here I'll take it to the mods as well to make sure it "fits".
It's probably human rights, as this increases worldwide civil rights (to be a prostitute or visit one legally, to do with your body what you like). Another option is free trade, because trade barriers are being reduced. This seems to me a less important part of this resolution though.
Strength to me seems at least mild, but probably "significant".

=====proposal=====
The NationStates UN,

RECALLING the resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution" and the repeal of that resolution,

NOTICING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, probably caused by prostitution becoming illegal in several nations,

ALSO noticing an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in nations that outlawed prostitution,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

AFFIRMING that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,

RECALLING that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and can never be eradicated,

1. URGES all nations to legalize prostitution and treat it like all other professions, and allow any person who is mature and capable of making their own decisions to become a prostitute,

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety regulations,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.

One of the main reasons it got repealed was because it was a severe blow to national sovereignty. You're beating a dead horse here.

One of the main reasons it got repealed was because it was a severe blow to national sovereignty. You're beating a dead horse here.

Hm...weren't you the one who exploded in that thread?

Anyway, most of the people who voted against wanted a regulatory clause.
So, now we're making one.
It'll probably get passed, but who knows.
I'm not the judge.

Doesn't require anything. That makes it mild. I would like it better if it required health and safety provisions.

It's too early to re-introduce this, but this is a good draft.

Hm...weren't you the one who exploded in that thread?

Yeah, and I believe you were the one who spammed it up with your one-liners. Nice flamebait, by the way.

Anyway, most of the people who voted against wanted a regulatory clause.

Rephrase that. Most of the people on these boards. Take a look at some of the regional headquarters and you'll find the big issue here was national sovereignty. Check out some of the Pacific forums (I think it was North Pacific) and you'll see why most of the people voted the way they did. Gatesville was another region who voted in the name of sovereignty. While it's nice to think the UN members active on these forums control the majority vote, they don't.

So, now we're making one.
It'll probably get passed, but who knows.
I'm not the judge.

It probably won't, but if it's that big of a deal to you, go for it. Not my time you're wasting.

Yeah, and I believe you were the one who spammed it up with your one-liners. Nice flamebait, by the way.



Rephrase that. Most of the people on these boards. Take a look at some of the regional headquarters and you'll find the big issue here was national sovereignty. Check out some of the Pacific forums (I think it was North Pacific) and you'll see why most of the people voted the way they did. Gatesville was another region who voted in the name of sovereignty. While it's nice to think the UN members active on these forums control the majority vote, they don't.



It probably won't, but if it's that big of a deal to you, go for it. Not my time you're wasting.

But you read it.
And sorry about the flamebait.
No offense.
I don't normally go browsing around other peoples regions, I find it's up to them if they want people sneaking around there.

But you read it.

Out of common courtesy, yes. Doesn't mean I want it passed though.

I don't normally go browsing around other peoples regions, I find it's up to them if they want people sneaking around there.

Sneaking? Hardly. More like getting a feel for the vote. Say one of the Pacifics was discussing voting the other way on that prostitution repeal. I'd step in and try to persuade them to do otherwise. That's how proposals are passed. Through the big regions.

Out of common courtesy, yes. Doesn't mean I want it passed though.



Sneaking? Hardly. More like getting a feel for the vote. Say one of the Pacifics was discussing voting the other way on that prostitution repeal. I'd step in and try to persuade them to do otherwise. That's how proposals are passed. Through the big regions.

But don't you find that a little dirty and underhanded?

But don't you find that a little dirty and underhanded?

No more dirty or underhanded than what the opposition to the repeal was doing. From what I understand, many of them were doing the same thing I was. Look back in that thread and you'll see that. Anyway, persuading someone to change their vote isn't that underhanded to begin with. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

But we're hijacking this guy's thread. I suggest if we want to discuss this any further, you send me a telegram or something.

One of the main reasons it got repealed was because it was a severe blow to national sovereignty. You're beating a dead horse here.

Every resolution is a severe blow to national sovereignity. It's only used as an argument against when a nation disagrees with a resolution. If they'd agree, the national sovereignity is not an issue. Nations really caring about national sovereignity should reconsider their UN membership.

Besides, even with national sovereignity issues, voting on this has been close both times. That means that with enough people agreeing with this proposal because of the positive effects it has, it could pass.

Every resolution is a severe blow to national sovereignity. It's only used as an argument against when a nation disagrees with a resolution. If they'd agree, the national sovereignity is not an issue. Nations really caring about national sovereignity should reconsider their UN membership.

Right, I've heard this argument a million times. The fact of the matter is, 10,000 nations saw things differently.

Besides, even with national sovereignity issues, voting on this has been close both times. That means that with enough people agreeing with this proposal because of the positive effects it has, it could pass.

I just can't see that happening right now. What makes you think a thousand people are going to change their minds right after voting for a repeal for the very resolution you're proposing? I just think our energy should be focused elsewhere.

Right, I've heard this argument a million times. The fact of the matter is, 10,000 nations saw things differently.



I just can't see that happening right now. What makes you think a thousand people are going to change their minds right after voting for a repeal for the very resolution you're proposing? I just think our energy should be focused elsewhere.

Focused into making a better prositution act!

I'm in favour of this proposal. I like the way it calls for regulation but leaves the specifics up to the government.

I should think you will have our support once it is submitted.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I just can't see that happening right now. What makes you think a thousand people are going to change their minds right after voting for a repeal for the very resolution you're proposing? I just think our energy should be focused elsewhere.

I think it is quite possible, because a lot of nations don't come here, and a lot of nations just read the title and think "that would be nice" and vote for it without reading the actual text. (Take "Rights Of Minorities" as an example).

So if you give it the right title ("Adult Worker Safety Act") then it could easily get passed right now.

Who said anyone has the right to use their bodies the way they want to use them?

Who said anyone has the right to use their bodies the way they want to use them?

Who says they don't? If your body is not yours to do with as you wish, as long as you are not harming anyone else, then you are not truly free and will always be a slave of the state you live in.

Right, I've heard this argument a million times. The fact of the matter is, 10,000 nations saw things differently.

I just can't see that happening right now. What makes you think a thousand people are going to change their minds right after voting for a repeal for the very resolution you're proposing? I just think our energy should be focused elsewhere.

10,000 nations didn't see things differently, they voted against. For what reasons, you don't know. Some because they don't want legal prostitution, some because the original proposal simply wasn't good. I probably won't be able to convince many nations that they should have legal prostitution, for the sake of everyone's health, but I *could* be able to get that 10% swing by creating a good proposal. This is the first draft, and I'd prefer if people would comment on the contents of it, rather than the chance of getting it passed. If I wouldn't be convinced that it could pass, I wouldn't propose it.

Basically: if you might want to get prostitution legalized throughout the UN, because of the reasons outlined in my proposal, then tell me how this proposal needs to improve. If you don't want legal prostitution anyway, there's no reason to get involved in this discussion, but you'd better start working on a repeal text.

I think human rights / mild should be fitting for this resolution, so help me to incease your civil rights by inches!

I think human rights / mild should be fitting for this resolution, so help me to incease your civil rights by inches!
Eww.

Human rights should do. Mild, I think.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Isn't that what he said?

Yes... I was confirming what he said.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Wouldn't it be easier to say 'I agree'?

Focused into making a better prositution act!

"Focused into a non sequitur!"

RECALLING that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and can never be eradicated,

I'm not aware that the first clause has been historically established, notwithstanding the old wife's saying to that effect. The latter statement is an opinion as opposed to a fact that can be recalled.

I think the draft proposed resolution can stand without any problem by leaving this entire quoted passage out. And by taking out the reference to eradication, it strenghtens the subject classification as being human rights and reduces the direct impression that it involves free trade.

10,000 nations didn't see things differently, they voted against. For what reasons, you don't know. Some because they don't want legal prostitution, some because the original proposal simply wasn't good. I probably won't be able to convince many nations that they should have legal prostitution, for the sake of everyone's health, but I *could* be able to get that 10% swing by creating a good proposal. This is the first draft, and I'd prefer if people would comment on the contents of it, rather than the chance of getting it passed. If I wouldn't be convinced that it could pass, I wouldn't propose it.

Fair enough.

Basically: if you might want to get prostitution legalized throughout the UN, because of the reasons outlined in my proposal, then tell me how this proposal needs to improve. If you don't want legal prostitution anyway, there's no reason to get involved in this discussion, but you'd better start working on a repeal text.

In other words, if you oppose this resolution, just keep quiet about it? That sounds conveniant.

I think human rights / mild should be fitting for this resolution, so help me to incease your civil rights by inches!

If it's legalizing prostitution in every UN member state, I'd put it higher than mild.

Fair enough.



In other words, if you oppose this resolution, just keep quiet about it? That sounds conveniant.



If it's legalizing prostitution in every UN member state, I'd put it higher than mild.

Fine, we'll put it at resoundingally important.

Stankystan is fed up with this matter.

We will not, in any way, legalize prostitution our country.

But why such interest in legalizing prostitution? Do you think it's good practice? Teaching our children that it's ok to cheat on your partner? Do you think it promotes family values? Do you think it promotes a moral society? Do you in some way NEED prostitution? Dont you think prostitution is degrading?
Do you honestly feel that the freedom of the body goes through prostitution? And all of those STD's, dont you think our behaviour should be re-thinked?

Stankystan just finds question over this matter. We acknowledge that some may think the way we do. Others are that will disagree with us.

We just think prostitution is not a good thing. Therefore we wont legitimate it.

And please, stop opening new threads over this sickening issue!

We will not, in any way, legalize prostitution our country.


It has been legal for the past year or so. Only in the past ten days have you been able to make it criminal again.


But why such interest in legalizing prostitution?


Freedom of choice?


Do you think it's good practice?


Good practice for what?


Teaching our children that it's ok to cheat on your partner?


You don't think single men visit prostitutes? Or single women for that matter?


Do you think it promotes family values?


A person who is willing to do any job to protect their family and provide for it. I think that is a good example of family values. In comparrison to the increasing rate of divorce, the wonderful statistic that on average most children who are sexually abused are abused by their families and the fact that quite a number of children have at least one step parent, I think it is a wonderful example.


Do you think it promotes a moral society?


Who's morals?


Do you in some way NEED prostitution?


A lot of people appeared to think so. It was voted in, and a number opposed the repeal. And yeah - I think we need legal prostitution, because legal or not, it is not going to suddenly vanish just because it has been outlawed.


Dont you think prostitution is degrading?


To whom? And degrading as opposed to what? Being a stripper? Working for sub-minimum wage? Begging on the street for money to feed your children?


Do you honestly feel that the freedom of the body goes through prostitution?


Obviously. A resolution already protects the right of people to have sexual freedom in their own homes, so why can't they charge for what they do?


And all of those STD's, dont you think our behaviour should be re-thinked?


Condoms. Condoms. And - oh yeah - CONDOMS.


Stankystan just finds question over this matter. We acknowledge that some may think the way we do. Others are that will disagree with us.


And TilEnca finds answers.


We just think prostitution is not a good thing. Therefore we wont legitimate it.


It is still legal in TilEnca, and we would support moves to re-introduce a new proposal.


And please, stop opening new threads over this sickening issue!

Wow. Something we can agree on :}

...which should be redefined as "sex work". This is clearly a human rights issue.
See The report disputes the identification of prostitution as a human rights violation akin to slavery which informs the 1949 Convention on the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. The research reveals that rather than facing conditions of slavery, most men and women working as prostitutes are subjected to abuses which are similar in nature to those experienced by others working in low status jobs in the informal sector.

This finding is supported by an investigation of the applicability of existing human rights and labour standards to issues of concern to men and women in the sex industry. The investigation concludes that most of these issues are subject to existing standards, developed to curtail abuses in other industries. However, the marginal position of sex workers in society excludes them from the international, national and customary protection afforded to others as citizens, workers or women. Their vulnerability to human and labour rights violations is greater than that of others because of the stigma and criminal charges widely attached to sex work. These allow police and others to harass sex workers without ever intervening to uphold their most elementary rights.

The report finds that the dismissal of the entire sex industry as abusive obscures the particular violations of international norms which are of concern to sex workers. This approach also fails accurately to reflect the limited nature of the relationship negotiated between sex worker and client in the commercial transaction. This is not an employment relationship as the client does not have enduring power over the worker. Sex work can take place in the context of exploitative employment relationships, even slavery, where someone with enduring power over the worker constrains her power to negotiate with the client. This case does not support an assertion that all sex work is akin to slavery. Moreover, by distinguishing sex work from other forms of labour, such an approach reinforces the marginal, and therefore vulnerable, status of the sex worker.

The report recommends that all national legislation which, in intent or in practice, results in the placing of sex workers outside the scope of the rule of law, should be repealed. The redefinition of prostitution as sex work is proposed as a preliminary condition for the enjoyment by sex workers of their full human and labour rights. Investigation is recommended into the mechanisms which exclude sex workers from the protection of existing human rights and non-industry specific labour standards. It is recognised that existing labour standards may not be adequate to protect the right to security of person in the context of sex work. It is suggested that of the intergovernmental organisations, the International Labour Organization is in principle best suited to the task of regulating working conditions to accommodate the special features of the sex industry.
quoted from Redefining Prostitution as Sex Work on the International Agenda (http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/redefining.html)

World Charter for Prostitutes´ Rights (http://www.bayswan.org/ICPRChart.html)

Resolution for Decriminalization of Prostitution Regarding Immigrant Issues (San Francisco 1994) (http://www.bayswan.org/AAP.html)

"One of the main reasons it got repealed was because it was a severe blow to national sovereignty. You're beating a dead horse here."


If you are concerned about that, why join the UN in the first place?

But why such interest in legalizing prostitution? Do you think it's good practice? Teaching our children that it's ok to cheat on your partner? Do you think it promotes family values? Do you think it promotes a moral society? Do you in some way NEED prostitution? Dont you think prostitution is degrading?
Do you honestly feel that the freedom of the body goes through prostitution? And all of those STD's, dont you think our behaviour should be re-thinked?



Let's see it as a service. A service to lonely people, providing some warmth or at least perceived warmth.

Is eating at a restaurant cheating on your wife? Do you think it promotes family values? Do you think it promotes a moral society?

Don't you think, it is degrading to serve food to someone? Or to clean someone's shoes, or teeth?

Just think of all the diseases that could be transmitted in public transport - like the flu, or SARS - shouldn't public transport be banned?


Prostitution is degrading, if you have to work like a slave and don't have any rights. If a prostitute can go to the police and charge a customer because he didn't pay or because he doesn't want to use a condom, or because he is using violence, would that change that business?


The prohibition in the US has shown, who really benefits from prohibition - the MAFIA.

The representative from Gflekers (damn being on the right all the time :P) does disagree that Gflekers finds prostitution morally repugnant behaviour. Perhaps I should elaborate.

Beginning with a married couple: Legal prostitution makes it much too easy to cheat on one's spouse thereby undermining the whole meaning of marriage as a commitment between two loving people (i'm not even going to get started on the sexual orientation bit... let's not get off topic :P)

Single: This, i suppose, becomes a matter of your moral values I suppose. HOwever, Glefkers honour those who preserve their virginity and offer it as a wedding gift to their spouses on their wedding night. A fitting gift for the one that you usually intend to spend the rest of your life with.

And as for pushing moral values on people... i find it interesting that those who are for the legalization of all these acts considered immoral by many religions seem to think that religious values are the only kind of value that can get "pushed" on people. Amoral values are just as easily pushed upon those who hail of a certain faith background.

The world is much more complex than, "if you don't like prositutes, don't go visit one." Every single person's actions affects another person in some way. No matter how individualistic this society attempts to say that the world is, very little about the world is individualistic. Major actions, even minor actions actually, have repercussions far beyond our immediate lives... thus before we begin throwing "right wing conservative moral values" out the window... let's say that we consider them first?

I am merely proposing that we consider this issue more than just as an individual decision one person makes... does it truly have ramifications beyond an exchange of money for sexual pleasure? If so, then does it not merit some consideration as to what these ramifications are?

Let's see it as a service. A service to lonely people, providing some warmth or at least perceived warmth.

So doing psychological harm to people be lying to them about someone carring about you is also acceptable? And when is it lonely people only go to prostitutes?

Is eating at a restaurant cheating on your wife? Do you think it promotes family values? Do you think it promotes a moral society?
Eating at a resturant is in no way cheating on your wife, it is eating at a busniess establishment that both partners usualy partake in. What part of it doesnt prmote family values or moral society? To be eating out with your family and doing stuff together? That sir is a piss poor example if I have ever seen one.

Don't you think, it is degrading to serve food to someone? Or to clean someone's shoes, or teeth?

Just think of all the diseases that could be transmitted in public transport - like the flu, or SARS - shouldn't public transport be banned?

Being alive causes diseases, having contact with other people can give you the flu, whether it at work or at wal*mart. But we do not ban those things because we do those things out of the nedd to survive. I dont need a whore down the corner to survive.


Prostitution is degrading, if you have to work like a slave and don't have any rights. If a prostitute can go to the police and charge a customer because he didn't pay or because he doesn't want to use a condom, or because he is using violence, would that change that business?

Prostitutes did it to themselves, they chose to be whores and sell their bodies for money, so they must live with the consiquences of those actions. Trying to make it look all pretty wont really change anything.


The prohibition in the US has shown, who really benefits from prohibition - the MAFIA.

The prohibition banned alcohol, something people have been drinking since the begining of civilization, everyone drinks pretty much so when it got banned it hit alot of people, but not everyone in anyway get laid by a hooker, so we can live without.

Alot of marriages and dates are unofficial prostitution. Face it, and this is not a degrading thing, sex is both a right and a service, and thus a commodity that can be traded like anything else. And since it has a widespread demand, there will always be a supply, regardless of laws. It's simple economics. :sniper:

I think the draft proposed resolution can stand without any problem by leaving this entire quoted passage out. And by taking out the reference to eradication, it strenghtens the subject classification as being human rights and reduces the direct impression that it involves free trade.

Thanks, I'll do that.

In other words, if you oppose this resolution, just keep quiet about it? That sounds conveniant.

What I'm interested in for this resolution is "under which conditions will you support legal prostitution". Nations who are against will never accept legal prostitution, so there's no point in commenting because their comments can never be used in improving this resolution.

If it's legalizing prostitution in every UN member state, I'd put it higher than mild.

But a lot of UN nations will already have legal prostitution, which reduces the strenght, doesn't it?

...which should be redefined as "sex work". This is clearly a human rights issue.

I prefer "legalizing", as "decriminalizing" sounds too weak. "It's still bad, but we took away the criminals" as opposed to "it's legal, just like all other jobs".

I do consider changing "prostitution" to something like "sex work" or "adult business".

Beginning with a married couple: Legal prostitution makes it much too easy to cheat on one's spouse thereby undermining the whole meaning of marriage as a commitment between two loving people

This is an issue for the couple themselves, not the state. Do you have government patrols bursting in on people having sex to check that they aren't married to other people? Fidelity and choices about who to have sex with are personal matters, and it isn't the job of governments to interfere with them. Some couples even choose to have open marriages, and for those who commit to be faithful to each other, we feel such promises to be far more meaningful if the government isn't standing over each partner to check that they hold to that commitment.

Sorry for splitting this across 2 posts, I hit the send button by accident when the other was half-done, and didn't want to finish by editing it, as then I couldn't see previous posts.

Single: This, i suppose, becomes a matter of your moral values I suppose. HOwever, Glefkers honour those who preserve their virginity and offer it as a wedding gift to their spouses on their wedding night. A fitting gift for the one that you usually intend to spend the rest of your life with.

Again, this is none of the government's business. Personal commitments are more meaningful when kept solely via the willpower of the individual.

And as for pushing moral values on people... i find it interesting that those who are for the legalization of all these acts considered immoral by many religions seem to think that religious values are the only kind of value that can get "pushed" on people. Amoral values are just as easily pushed upon those who hail of a certain faith background.

The world is much more complex than, "if you don't like prositutes, don't go visit one." Every single person's actions affects another person in some way. No matter how individualistic this society attempts to say that the world is, very little about the world is individualistic. Major actions, even minor actions actually, have repercussions far beyond our immediate lives... thus before we begin throwing "right wing conservative moral values" out the window... let's say that we consider them first?

I am merely proposing that we consider this issue more than just as an individual decision one person makes... does it truly have ramifications beyond an exchange of money for sexual pleasure? If so, then does it not merit some consideration as to what these ramifications are?

Ok fine, what are those ramifications? Spouses might get cheated on - but like I said, that's a private matter for the couple, and would quite possibly happen anyway. STDs might spread to others - but this would happen whether or not prostitution is legal, and when it's legal and regulated it's quite easy to restrict this spread. Brides and grooms might be less likely to be marrying virgins - but this is again a completely private matter, and we in _Myopia_ (I'm talking about society's views here, not what the government does) tend to feel that expecting people to maintain their virginity until marriage can actually be harmful to the health of that relationship.

All the ramifications are either easily dealt with, or personal concerns that are no business of the state.

NOTICING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, probably caused by prostitution becoming illegal in several nations


What?

Prostitutes are supposed to and do use protection with all 'clients'.

What?

Prostitutes are supposed to and do use protection with all 'clients'.

That's regulated prostitution. Unregulated, illegal prostitution - anything goes.

What I'm interested in for this resolution is "under which conditions will you support legal prostitution". Nations who are against will never accept legal prostitution, so there's no point in commenting because their comments can never be used in improving this resolution.

There is a point to posting. This proposal would legalize prostitution in every UN member nation. Including mine. I don't want to see that. So how do I prevent it? Argue against it. In a fairy tale world, there'd be no argueing, and there'd be no opposition. That's not how it works. Accept the fact people aren't going to support your proposal, and that they're going to attempt to persuade others not to either.

But a lot of UN nations will already have legal prostitution, which reduces the strenght, doesn't it?

Well, we can't really know how many UN nations have prostitution and how many don't. So I'd put the strength at least above mild. Keep in mind the nations that don't are going to have the enforce these regulations you've proposed...that means spending greenbacks.

That's regulated prostitution. Unregulated, illegal prostitution - anything goes.

Don't you think regulating condom use would be a little difficult? I mean, how are you suppose to enforce that? Set up cameras in every brothel?

Currencies aren't always dollars.
Might as well say 'spending Euros or Yen or Rubles' or something.
Or just say money, it's less descriminatory.

Currencies aren't always dollars.
Might as well say 'spending Euros or Yen or Rubles' or something.
Or just say money, it's less descriminatory.

I don't want to offend you or anything, but take a look at some of the posts you've made in this thread. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're trying to boost your post count or something; I'd appreciate it if you'd try to stay on topic and add some intelligent discussion to this thread. Your one-line posts have hardly been constructive thus far.

That was more than 1 line. Besides, aren't you flamebaiting?

There's not much going on, and there's not much to go on until Groot Gouda makes another draft.

After positive feedback in my region I decided to post this here for discussion. Shoot holes in it, comment, amend, etc, while you can. I've tried to incorporate all concerns about legal prostitution that were mentioned in the repeal discussion.

The main question is: which category does this belong to? After discussion here I'll take it to the mods as well to make sure it "fits".
It's probably human rights, as this increases worldwide civil rights (to be a prostitute or visit one legally, to do with your body what you like). Another option is free trade, because trade barriers are being reduced. This seems to me a less important part of this resolution though.
Strength to me seems at least mild, but probably "significant".

=====proposal=====
The NationStates UN,

RECALLING the resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution" and the repeal of that resolution,

NOTICING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, probably caused by prostitution becoming illegal in several nations,

ALSO noticing an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in nations that outlawed prostitution,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

AFFIRMING that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,

RECALLING that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and can never be eradicated,

1. URGES all nations to legalize prostitution and treat it like all other professions, and allow any person who is mature and capable of making their own decisions to become a prostitute,

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety regulations,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.


We don't have data that it occured, do we?
I think that might be speculation being used as fact.
You could take that out, or rephrase it.

There is a point to posting. This proposal would legalize prostitution in every UN member nation. Including mine. I don't want to see that. So how do I prevent it? Argue against it. In a fairy tale world, there'd be no argueing, and there'd be no opposition. That's not how it works. Accept the fact people aren't going to support your proposal, and that they're going to attempt to persuade others not to either.

At this moment, there is nothing to support. There's a draft, which I posted here to improve. If I'd be susceptible to arguments against, I wouldn't post the draft in the first place. I am going to post a second draft in a moment with the suggestions made here incorporated. You being against legal prostitution has zero influence. Only when it goes into the proposal queue, which might be some time because the repeal's just passed, there's some point in arguing against, and only when it reaches quorum and is up for vote, there really is something to be gained by arguing against. Right now, it's improve it or leave it.

Well, we can't really know how many UN nations have prostitution and how many don't. So I'd put the strength at least above mild. Keep in mind the nations that don't are going to have the enforce these regulations you've proposed...that means spending greenbacks.

Spending some, but also gaining some - think of reduced health care costs because of less STDs.

Don't you think regulating condom use would be a little difficult? I mean, how are you suppose to enforce that? Set up cameras in every brothel?

Regular checks of brothels. But that won't be necessary, because the costs are very low and it's in their own business interest not to infect clients. Dead customers don't come back. And customers can complain, resulting in the closure of a brothel. The checking doesn't have to be a health inspector looking at the act itself, though I can imagine there'd be some interest in undercover work. But checking the books to compare condom use against number of clients is a method. How a nation is going to check that is up to themselves. National sovereignity, you know.

Just think of it like restaurants: they could ignore all health regulations, and then the customers get food poisoning and you're out of business.

With a big thanks to all who contributed here and on other places,


The Adult Worker Safety Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: significant

The NationStates UN,

RECALLING the resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution" and the repeal of that resolution,

NOTICING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, probably caused by prostitution becoming illegal in several nations,

ALSO noticing an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in nations that outlawed prostitution,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

AFFIRMING that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,

1. URGES all nations to legalize prostitution and treat it like all other professions, and allow any person who is mature and capable of making their own decisions to become a prostitute,

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.

At this moment, there is nothing to support. There's a draft, which I posted here to improve. If I'd be susceptible to arguments against, I wouldn't post the draft in the first place. I am going to post a second draft in a moment with the suggestions made here incorporated. You being against legal prostitution has zero influence. Only when it goes into the proposal queue, which might be some time because the repeal's just passed, there's some point in arguing against, and only when it reaches quorum and is up for vote, there really is something to be gained by arguing against. Right now, it's improve it or leave it.



Spending some, but also gaining some - think of reduced health care costs because of less STDs.



Regular checks of brothels. But that won't be necessary, because the costs are very low and it's in their own business interest not to infect clients. Dead customers don't come back. And customers can complain, resulting in the closure of a brothel. The checking doesn't have to be a health inspector looking at the act itself, though I can imagine there'd be some interest in undercover work. But checking the books to compare condom use against number of clients is a method. How a nation is going to check that is up to themselves. National sovereignity, you know.

Just think of it like restaurants: they could ignore all health regulations, and then the customers get food poisoning and you're out of business.


As much as relating a brothel to a restaurant is desturbing, I think that made alot of sense.

With a big thanks to all who contributed here and on other places,


The Adult Worker Safety Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: significant

The NationStates UN,

RECALLING the resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution" and the repeal of that resolution,

NOTICING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, probably caused by prostitution becoming illegal in several nations,

ALSO noticing an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in nations that outlawed prostitution,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

AFFIRMING that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,

1. URGES all nations to legalize prostitution and treat it like all other professions, and allow any person who is mature and capable of making their own decisions to become a prostitute,

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.


If you got rid of the NOTICING and ALSO parts, which are speculation more than fact, because people could aruge, and neither sides have any actual evidence; I would approve that, because it protects the Adult Workers, and does not directly make you legalize prostitution in your nation, but makes it 'safe' to do so.

Every resolution is a severe blow to national sovereignity.

Nah. It's easy enough to write proposals that leave room for national sovereignty. I've done it, and so have others.

It's only used as an argument against when a nation disagrees with a resolution. If they'd agree, the national sovereignity is not an issue.

Really? I happen to be opposed to the death penalty, but have always voted against "ban the death penalty" resolutions. I have no problem with legalized prostitution, but have always been against the UN legalizing. The same goes for abortion and gay marriage, and many other things. In fact, I vote against over 90% of resolutions, because they interfere with national sovereignty, regardless of whether I agree with the proposal author on the issue.

Nations really caring about national sovereignity should reconsider their UN membership.

Thanks for the update. I've left and returned multiple times. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Besides, even with national sovereignity issues, voting on this has been close both times. That means that with enough people agreeing with this proposal because of the positive effects it has, it could pass.

That is quite true, and I wish you luck. I'll be voting against if it reaches quorum, however.

If you got rid of the NOTICING and ALSO parts, which are speculation more than fact, because people could aruge, and neither sides have any actual evidence; I would approve that, because it protects the Adult Workers, and does not directly make you legalize prostitution in your nation, but makes it 'safe' to do so.

Yeah, the NOTICING clauses are a stretch, assuming too much. Otherwise, I imagine the proposal would pass should it reach quorum, as it's clearly written within resolution convention and isn't incredibly forceful.

If you got rid of the NOTICING and ALSO parts, which are speculation more than fact, because people could aruge, and neither sides have any actual evidence; I would approve that, because it protects the Adult Workers, and does not directly make you legalize prostitution in your nation, but makes it 'safe' to do so.

On the "speculation": a bit, but it's argued speculation. If you outlaw something that was legal before, there's an increase in crime, because more is now illegal. And if prostitution goes underground, without regulation, without contacts with health care and social workers, then it's logical that diseases will increase.

Secondly, as far as I understand (English and legalese are not my first language), by saying "URGES", it means that it does force nations to legalise prostitution. However, a framework is provided by which those nations can minimize impact and even reduce prostitution. At a cost, of course, but a lower cost than with illegal prostitution.

On the "speculation": a bit, but it's argued speculation. If you outlaw something that was legal before, there's an increase in crime, because more is now illegal. And if prostitution goes underground, without regulation, without contacts with health care and social workers, then it's logical that diseases will increase.

Secondly, as far as I understand (English and legalese are not my first language), by saying "URGES", it means that it does force nations to legalise prostitution. However, a framework is provided by which those nations can minimize impact and even reduce prostitution. At a cost, of course, but a lower cost than with illegal prostitution.

Well, people who want it illegal still can.
And I know it's argued speculation, and it's sensible speculation, but we're looking for facts.

Don't you think regulating condom use would be a little difficult? I mean, how are you suppose to enforce that? Set up cameras in every brothel?

We do that too. Our main method, however, is involved in the health checks. Having an STD reported is considered a black mark on a license, and results in a penalty later against renewal. These are cummulative. And the Tax Man is very good at his job.

Well, people who want it illegal still can.

No, that would be violating the resolution. If "urges" isn't strong enough, I'll change it to "obliges" or something similar. The whole point is that prostitution should be legal, but that that should be accompanied by added measures instead of the previous resolution. Nations with illegal prostitution are violating the people's freedom to do with their body what they want, or have sex with who they want, apart from creating a health risk that could spread to other nations.

No, that would be violating the resolution. If "urges" isn't strong enough, I'll change it to "obliges" or something similar. The whole point is that prostitution should be legal, but that that should be accompanied by added measures instead of the previous resolution. Nations with illegal prostitution are violating the people's freedom to do with their body what they want, or have sex with who they want, apart from creating a health risk that could spread to other nations.

Oh, well, urges is more of a 'You should' as opposed to a 'You have to'. I'm for legalized prositution, but maybe you should just pass an act that gives a structure for prostituion. But making it legal is just going to lose you some votes, not mine, but some.

Beginning with a married couple: Legal prostitution makes it much too easy to cheat on one's spouse thereby undermining the whole meaning of marriage as a commitment between two loving people (i'm not even going to get started on the sexual orientation bit... let's not get off topic :P)


So in all the nations in the world where prostitution is illegal no one cheats on their spouse? If osmone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat. Whether its with someone who gets paid, or just someone they met in a bar, they are still cheating.


Single: This, i suppose, becomes a matter of your moral values I suppose. HOwever, Glefkers honour those who preserve their virginity and offer it as a wedding gift to their spouses on their wedding night. A fitting gift for the one that you usually intend to spend the rest of your life with.


So what if you get divorced - are you never allowed to marry again? Or does the gift only count the first time, and after that it's just accepted that you don't get a virgin.


The world is much more complex than, "if you don't like prositutes, don't go visit one." Every single person's actions affects another person in some way. No matter how individualistic this society attempts to say that the world is, very little about the world is individualistic. Major actions, even minor actions actually, have repercussions far beyond our immediate lives... thus before we begin throwing "right wing conservative moral values" out the window... let's say that we consider them first?


Really? Cause I don't think it is. If all of your people believe sex is sacred, then why would anyone set themselves up as a prostitute? Just because it is legal, it doesn't make it mandatory. If no one - absolutely no one - in your nation wants it then no one will do it.


I am merely proposing that we consider this issue more than just as an individual decision one person makes... does it truly have ramifications beyond an exchange of money for sexual pleasure? If so, then does it not merit some consideration as to what these ramifications are?

I don't think it does. If someone is cheating on their spouse, that is not the fault of the prostitutute. In the same way that if a car is used as a getaway vehicle in a bank robery, it is not the fault of the car. And if someone wants to make money by selling a marketable skill they have to offer, and their actions are not hurting anyone else, what right to we have to stop them?

I agree that the assetions regarding disease should be removed. Maybe you could say something about how the UN "BELIEVES that legalising and regulating prostitution lowers STD transmission rates".

And "urges" doesn't force.

I agree that the assetions regarding disease should be removed. Maybe you could say something about how the UN "BELIEVES that legalising and regulating prostitution lowers STD transmission rates".

And "urges" doesn't force.

Excatly, all the proposals with 'Urges' are just 'Urging'.

perhaps it is not the fault of the prostitute that the spouse is cheating (this was repeated in both responses to my initial post). But allowing certainly does nothing to make it any better either.

Legalizing, condoning, allowing... it's all the same thing. Now the argument is boiling down to exactly what the role of the government is and I don't think that's what this was actually meant to discuss.

The argument of just because you legalize it doesn't mean that you have to do it is an interesting argument that I've heard over and over again... but I've had some time to think about it... and I still disagree with it. Lines need to be drawn somewhere, we just happen to think that is where it should be drawn.

Yes I know the above arguments are vague beyond recognition of anything meaning an argument... but I'm rushing my post here because I have an important meeting to attend back in my country and the plane leaves in 5 minutes. (i.e. I have to go to class in 5 minutes :P)

And could you quantify your belief that your action does not affect anyone else whatsoever? If government should be staying out of people's private lives, then why collect taxes? That's taking away from someone's private life. Why make murder illegal? that's also taking away from someone's private life.

Anyway, I've finally decided that talking about these moral issues is like doing the following:

:headbang:

So.... good day :) If I see it, I'll vote on my conscience on it. Am I going to change your minds? no :P

*shakes hands with representative from TilEnca and runs to class*

I agree that the assetions regarding disease should be removed. Maybe you could say something about how the UN "BELIEVES that legalising and regulating prostitution lowers STD transmission rates".

And "urges" doesn't force.

I'll change those in the next draft then. Somthing like "believing" or "assuming", and the "URGES all nations to legalize prostitution" will change into "DECLARES prostitution to be legally allowed in all UN member nations".

perhaps it is not the fault of the prostitute that the spouse is cheating (this was repeated in both responses to my initial post). But allowing certainly does nothing to make it any better either.


Huh? We should ban a profession because there are people who will cheat on their spouses?
We should ban cars because people will use them to steal. We should ban the use of magic because people can use it to go bad magic. We should ban the sun because it could give people cancer. We should kill horses because they sometimes trample people to death.


The argument of just because you legalize it doesn't mean that you have to do it is an interesting argument that I've heard over and over again... but I've had some time to think about it... and I still disagree with it. Lines need to be drawn somewhere, we just happen to think that is where it should be drawn.


Why? You don't accept that people have free will? And that if you say "No - that is bad and forbidden" it will interest some people simply because of that.


Yes I know the above arguments are vague beyond recognition of anything meaning an argument... but I'm rushing my post here because I have an important meeting to attend back in my country and the plane leaves in 5 minutes. (i.e. I have to go to class in 5 minutes :P)


(smirk) Ah - those pesky meetings of government. What would we do without them :}


And could you quantify your belief that your action does not affect anyone else whatsoever? If government should be staying out of people's private lives, then why collect taxes? That's taking away from someone's private life. Why make murder illegal? that's also taking away from someone's private life.


Ok. Imagine Miss Jones is a prostitute. She goes about her business having sex with men (and sometimes women) for money. She is not hurting anyone. Now if the husbands are cheating on their wives then they are the ones who are hurting someone else, not Miss Jones.
So who is she hurting?

And is not because the government should stay out of peoples lives - but because what she is doing is good for her and is not hurting anyone else.
But if you murder someone then at the very least you have hurt that person, and quite probably a lot of that persons friends and family. So the government should stop people doing that cause it affects other people.

I don't get the link you made there. The government is not being asked to actively conduct prostitution, just not to arrest those who get involved in it.



So.... good day :) If I see it, I'll vote on my conscience on it. Am I going to change your minds? no :P

*shakes hands with representative from TilEnca and runs to class*

(smirk) I swear I am open minded on this. If someone (you, or whoever else) can come up with an arguement I find convincing and compelling, then I will be happy to accept that prostitution should be illegal.
But so far it is all mostly moral arguements I disagree with, and do not find a compelling enough reason to make it illegal.

Ok. Imagine Miss Jones is a prostitute. She goes about her business having sex with men (and sometimes women) for money. She is not hurting anyone. Now if the husbands are cheating on their wives then they are the ones who are hurting someone else, not Miss Jones.
So who is she hurting?

And is not because the government should stay out of peoples lives - but because what she is doing is good for her and is not hurting anyone else.
But if you murder someone then at the very least you have hurt that person, and quite probably a lot of that persons friends and family. So the government should stop people doing that cause it affects other people.


I'd like to tack on a bit more and say that this is why prostitution is classified as mala prohibita rather than mala in se. For those who don't know your Latin, mala prohibita refers to crimes that are only bad because the law says so, instead of being bad in themselves, i.e. mala in se (like murder).

That difference ought to be an indication of what kind of harm prostitution commits, if ANY. I do not believe that it can be proven that prostitution is more of a "harm" when it is legal and than when it is not. But we have yet to come up with agreeable regulatory methods when faced with the protection and health of these men and women, though I do like the direction it is taking in this discussion.

Gouda, could I ask a favor? Could you go back to the original post and add a revised current proposal section or something? I can't follow the thread of what we're actually discussing anymore.

Why would I need to U.N. to inform and regulate something that I have the power to research and regulate myself? Every in and out (pun not intended) of prostitution should be the choice of the individual nation and not the U.N.

S.G. Shiruda - Ruler of Salemwin
Gatesville

Thgin fully supports this proposal, but does wish that it were more strongly worded.

I'll change those in the next draft then. Somthing like "believing" or "assuming", and the "URGES all nations to legalize prostitution" will change into "DECLARES prostitution to be legally allowed in all UN member nations".

Powerhungry Chipmunks would prefer URGES.

I'll change those in the next draft then. Somthing like "believing" or "assuming", and the "URGES all nations to legalize prostitution" will change into "DECLARES prostitution to be legally allowed in all UN member nations".

I actually think URGES is prefered to DECLARES when talking about an action that a sovereign government should take, whereas, DIRECTS or MANDATES are fine clauses when the UN is giving directions to an international committee or organization that it has authority over.

Just my opinion ... namely that just because we can type DECLARES, doesn't always mean it is the best thing to do. I rather liked the draft you had posted on our regional forum as is. :)

That said, my advice is just that -- advice. You can count on my government's support, as you've long since earned my government's trust and respect.

If you got rid of the NOTICING and ALSO parts, which are speculation more than fact, because people could aruge, and neither sides have any actual evidence; I would approve that, because it protects the Adult Workers, and does not directly make you legalize prostitution in your nation, but makes it 'safe' to do so.


NOTICING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, probably caused by prostitution becoming illegal in several nations,

ALSO noticing an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in nations that outlawed prostitution,

Nope, there's proof. Compare the rates per capita in Nevada and New York, as reported by the Health Departments (for Noticing). The latter has been proven repeatedly.

We prefer "DECLARES" over "URGES".

We would also like to note the difference between voluntary and involuntary prostitution mentioned in the resolution itself; all it does is declare it a legal career choice.

Nope, there's proof. Compare the rates per capita in Nevada and New York, as reported by the Health Departments (for Noticing). The latter has been proven repeatedly.
You can't use real world examples, as you should know by now. Moreover, it proves nothing. Nevada has not made prostitution illegal, so we cannot compare, and New York has not made it legal, so how can you truly, accurately demonstrate that making prostitution illegal will increase crime if you use two different unrelated sources for justification?

Look at your Nation for an idea on crime - Hirota's crime rate was unheard of before the repeal, and was still unheard of afterwards. There, a legitimate example from a single source....well, more legitimate anyway.

Why would I need to U.N. to inform and regulate something that I have the power to research and regulate myself? Every in and out (pun not intended) of prostitution should be the choice of the individual nation and not the U.N.

S.G. Shiruda - Ruler of Salemwin
Gatesville

Why not the choice of the members of each nation? Since it is their bodies, why can they not make the decision?

:fluffle: we should legalize prostitution as an intertianment for the nations, especially for my nation mulgaar :D

Why? You don't accept that people have free will? And that if you say "No - that is bad and forbidden" it will interest some people simply because of that.

Drawing lines and making rules has nothing to do with people having free will or not. It prevents chaos and disorder. It prevents people from doing whatever they want because often when people do whatever they want, it leads to very bad things happening. If there were no sanctions on assault, then I could go and beat someone if they make me angry. Then that person or that person's friends would then come to beat me up. You get the point.

Now the other problem with prostitution (which the current draft does address) is some of the other reasons that people prostitute themselves. NOt all prostitutes perform such acts voluntarily. THere are those who prostitute themselves because they need money to buy drugs; there are those who prostitute themselves because their pimps will them if they don't etc.

As the draft addresses the issue, I would like to ask how governments are supposed to tell apart "legal" and "illegal" prostitutes? Those involved in illegal activites or a target of illegal activities will often hide the fact that they are being poorly treated.

Drawing lines and making rules has nothing to do with people having free will or not. It prevents chaos and disorder. It prevents people from doing whatever they want because often when people do whatever they want, it leads to very bad things happening. If there were no sanctions on assault, then I could go and beat someone if they make me angry. Then that person or that person's friends would then come to beat me up. You get the point.

Not really. You see, assualt is a direct infringement on another person's freedom to live without being assualted. Assualt directly violates the rights of another individual, and so it is a completely different matter to prostitution, which at most indirectly harms others (and the difference between the levels of harm under prohibition and legality is debatable).

Now the other problem with prostitution (which the current draft does address) is some of the other reasons that people prostitute themselves. NOt all prostitutes perform such acts voluntarily. THere are those who prostitute themselves because they need money to buy drugs; there are those who prostitute themselves because their pimps will them if they don't etc.

Drugs: drugs ought to be legal too. In _Myopia_, where they are, people aren't forced to desperate measures by artificially-inflated prohibition prices, and because we accept drug use as a medical, not a criminal problem, it is much easier to get treatment for an addiction.

Pimps: I assume you meant to say "will hurt them if they don't" - when prostitutes don't need protection from the law etc., and when they have workers' rights including unionisation and minimum working conditions, it is much harder for their bosses to get such a grip.

As the draft addresses the issue, I would like to ask how governments are supposed to tell apart "legal" and "illegal" prostitutes? Those involved in illegal activites or a target of illegal activities will often hide the fact that they are being poorly treated.

If we separate this industry from the underground criminal world, the profession will be less associated with other such activities. If its possible to work legally in a licensed establishment with decent conditions, why would prostitutes choose to associate themselves with old-style criminal prostitution?

Anyway, _Myopia_ operates a licensing system. Clients are unlikely to do business with a prostitute who cannot produce a license, because to get and keep a license, regular medical check-ups (incl. STD tests) are mandatory - these check-ups can also uncover evidence of physical abuse. Our extensive workers rights also apply to licensed prostitutes, and ensure that they are treated decently.

Drawing lines and making rules has nothing to do with people having free will or not. It prevents chaos and disorder. It prevents people from doing whatever they want because often when people do whatever they want, it leads to very bad things happening. If there were no sanctions on assault, then I could go and beat someone if they make me angry. Then that person or that person's friends would then come to beat me up. You get the point.

I'm not TilEnca, but I don't get the point. Prostitution does not violate anyone's rights, whereas assault does.

Now the other problem with prostitution (which the current draft does address) is some of the other reasons that people prostitute themselves. NOt all prostitutes perform such acts voluntarily. THere are those who prostitute themselves because they need money to buy drugs; there are those who prostitute themselves because their pimps will them if they don't etc.

These are misnomers. One could just as easily work a 9 to 5 job to obtain money to purchase drugs (in fact, many people do). The difference is that a prostitute does not have to be at a proscribed place for a proscribed period of time and they can be as high as they like while they "work." These are the real reasons why it is easier to be a prostitute and a drug addict, as opposed to an office worker and a drug addict.

As to pimps... ummm... how much do you really know about prostitution? How do you think the prostitute hooked up with the pimp? He abducted her and coerced her into prostitution? That so rarely happens. Usually the prostitute picks the pimp, not the other way around. And the pimp can beat a prostitute because where is the prostitute to go for help? The police? lol Not if it's illegal.

Using a stereotypical, television promoted view of prostitution as a woman earning say $20 (sorry for the dollar reference) per sexual act is very limited. What about call girls and brothels? Does the perception change once the money amount and the place of the negotiation changes? You bet it does. Now - how about a woman making $200 per sexual act and no pimp is needed or used and she isn't walking the street. Different?

As the draft addresses the issue, I would like to ask how governments are supposed to tell apart "legal" and "illegal" prostitutes? Those involved in illegal activites or a target of illegal activities will often hide the fact that they are being poorly treated.

I don't know how other governments propose to differentiate between legal and illegal prostitution, but in Zamundaland, a prostitute is employed by a brothel. Selling sexual services on the street is illegal. Medical check-ups are mandatory, as are condoms. As to how to know if condoms are being used - you don't, but an STD is a fairly certain sign, as are complaints from customers, other sex workers, etc.

Most of the "harm" of prostitution stems from its status as an illegal activity. Don't even get me started on drug laws. :)

Gouda, could I ask a favor? Could you go back to the original post and add a revised current proposal section or something? I can't follow the thread of what we're actually discussing anymore.

I had already added a text pointing to the second draft; the next draft will go into a new thread because of all the changes.

What we're discussing here varies unfortunately. Some nations are against prostitution anyway, which causes some noise but is not affecting the proposal; some have valuable contributions which I'm saving up to introduce in a next revision (note: the second draft is also in the proposal queue but that's mainly to see how much response it's getting as without a telegramming campaign it'll never reach quorum).

The "problem" with this resolution is that many nations want to comment on it in all sorts of manners; I can't tell people what they should say which inevitably leads to a discussion like this. Still, there's enough for me in it to make sure this proposal is perfected before the real campaign is starting.

"National sovereignity" versus "individual rights" - does the government or the individual decide over this issue? In my opinion, the individual does. It's a Human Rights resolution after all.

Prostitution - good or bad? - doesn't matter, because it'll always be there, so better make it legal and regulate it

How strong should it be? Urge or force, that's the question. My intent of the resolution has always been to force legal prostitution, because of the reasons outline in the resolution of which the freedom to do with your body what you want is the most important.

How to regulate - that's up to each nation. Some guidelines are provided as an assistance, but the details are left to each nation. Don't like prostitiution? The resolution provides suggestions for dealing with it - within a framework of legal prostitution of course.

Presumed effects of illegal prostitution - I can't base that on actual figures. However, it can be argued from theoretical perspective that illegal prostitution has plenty of negative side-effects. This will be dealt with more clearly in the next draft.

The bottom line is: it's left to the individual whether they want to visit or be a prostitute. It's of no business of the government - and this comes from a nation with a strong government influence on daily life. Some things are of no concern of the state. But there's a limit. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. I'll emphasize that involuntary prostitution does not fall under the legalised prostitution of this resolution.

I hope this clarifies my position, whether you agree or disagree. A new draft will be up soon, but don't let that stop you to provide more meaningfull contributions to this draft. I'd like to thank again all nations who have provided comments on this draft, and have helped me to improve this resolution.

"National sovereignity" versus "individual rights" - does the government or the individual decide over this issue? In my opinion, the individual does. It's a Human Rights resolution after all.

How strong should it be? Urge or force, that's the question. My intent of the resolution has always been to force legal prostitution, because of the reasons outline in the resolution of which the freedom to do with your body what you want is the most important.

I hope this clarifies my position, whether you agree or disagree. A new draft will be up soon, but don't let that stop you to provide more meaningfull contributions to this draft. I'd like to thank again all nations who have provided comments on this draft, and have helped me to improve this resolution.

I'm really still hung up on the second point and for good reason -- real life experience. I am aware that there are players that will say this isn't the real world (many of whom will be among the first to point to real world web pages when it helps their case and whom rely upon the quick, "You didn't read the FAQ" flame when they can't support their argument any other way), and to them I would like to say that the difference between "Forces" and "Urges" in the real world applies here just as much.

All NationStates UN resolutions are passed along to our compliance ministries. The ability to work through loop-holes exists with or without words like "DICTATES" or "URGES" as the key word to a clause. In the real world we've seen that President Bush has been able to completely work around many of the real life Genevea Convention provisions on torture with only a bit of creative new definitions based on the writtings of one very small group of people. And yet if this were the real world, if the US had been in whatever group voted YES (not voted YES, but just been a member of that group) there still comes a moral obligation to move ones government in the direction of that document.

For example, if the real life UN were to seriously look at prostitution and pass a resolution, I can promise you that the resolution would focus on the *health* issues related to the status of these women *and* that in recognition of ultra conservative nations like Saudi Arabia or quasi-conservative nations like the United States of America or Israel, that the resolution that would be drafted would use words that *look* on the face as though they are nothing but a "request".

The reason in the real world is that the minute the real life UN starts to over step from the bounds of international issues into dictating domestic laws, a great number of Middle Easter, Latin American, and other religious states would walk. Just that simple.

While people will claim that Max gave us a heavenly ORDER to trick nations and move them in our direction, you get that with the game stats already ... however, for every resolution that can be mistaken or even legitimately protrayed as not having international standing, but instead mucking around with domestic afairs, effectively arms anti-UN nations with one more (valid or not) argument against joining our simulated UN.

While many players will leave our UN when they believe it is steering them off course, they likely return with a puppet. The net result is that percentage of nations in the UN vs. nations in the world has decreased. Plus if the reason for the departure was that nations weren't listening to their unique POVs, then the new UN puppet may in fact be hostile to many forms of legislation ... and slowly vote against other progressive ideas out of sheer anger. (I think that could explain in part why it appears easier to pass conservative legislation now than it did in the past ... but I could be wrong here.)

When a resolution promoting environmental protection or global disarmament hits the floor, the primary argument used against even some of the best written documents of these types has been, "So what if the 35,000 UN member states save all the trees and whales. That just means that the rest of us can harvest more of these non-renewable resources and make *more* in the process" or "So what if the 35,000 UN member states ban nukes, guns, and mother-in-laws, I've created a puppet that will now easily invade your nations using the nastiest mother-in-laws you've ever seen!"

The arguments are kinda true ... in a world of 120,000 nations. But if the ratio of nations to members were say 50%, how big an advantage might a tree eating radioactive mother-in-law really provide if the nations that agreed to ban tree eating radioactive mother-in-laws also boycott the non-UN members that don't make some effort to clean up their houses as well?

I'd like to submit that the difference between "URGES" and "DICTATES" is not only something that in the real world has promoted just about EVERY real UN resolution in the past 60 years to be written with the appearance of being a polite suggestion, but that for those of us that actually want the Saudi Arabias and United States of Americas of NationStates to even consider our human rights, environmental, and global disarmament plans, that there are times when we need to give these nations a big of wiggle room.

And by wiggle room I'm really talking about time. The intent behind "URGES" is really to say, "Hey, those of us that voted yes, *really* think this is a very good idea and are actually planning on paying attention to your domestic polices on this matter. You want our a share of our market? Then don't force us to pop up tariffs and the like, and try entering the global community." Trust me, in NationStates, the "Civil Rights" will be the same no matter how the language of the resolution is crafted. But the way conservative nations will look at those of us in favour of progressive ideas will honestly and truly change if we throw them a small bone.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but I've frequently seen players ask why in the real world does the UN use words like "URGES" and then ask why should we? The bottom line short answer is: it is a way to acknowledging that there is diversity on ideas for most issues, and that if a majority begins to force too much of its will on a minority ... the minority will walk away.

That said, I'd STRONGLY URGE that when it comes to making UN resolutions on domestic laws that our language reflect the true nature of the UN membership ... namely that it is a choice up to nations, and that our ability to pass along advice to sovereign nations is just that: advice. If we want to tell people what to do, we've got UN created committees that should be bossed around. They can't leave us, for fear of not getting their next pay check. ;)

:fluffle: we should legalize prostitution as an intertianment for the nations, especially for my nation mulgaar :D
Several of the nations in my region are renowned for their sex tourism industries.

I would be remiss if I didn't extend an invite to your wealthy from all of the nations of our beautiful island.

I like it. This has my support.

Nope, there's proof. Compare the rates per capita in Nevada and New York, as reported by the Health Departments (for Noticing). The latter has been proven repeatedly.

You can't use real world examples, as you should know by now. Moreover, it proves nothing. Nevada has not made prostitution illegal, so we cannot compare, and New York has not made it legal, so how can you truly, accurately demonstrate that making prostitution illegal will increase crime if you use two different unrelated sources for justification?

Look at your Nation for an idea on crime - Hirota's crime rate was unheard of before the repeal, and was still unheard of afterwards. There, a legitimate example from a single source....well, more legitimate anyway.


We can quote all the imaginary sources we wish during discussion. Such sources, however, may not appear in the body of text submitted as a proposal.

If you wish a real world example, Vastiva's rate of STD infection dropped by seven orders of magnitude following the legalization and regulation of prostitution. Our tax base increased exponentially, without an equivalent raise in the tax rate. Why? We had more tax payers, and the new ones were making buckets of money, legitimately.

There is nowhere an illegalization of prostitution resulted in a real lowering of crime rate. "Reported", yes, but it always comes out the rate was actually FAR higher then reported.

As to how you compare - you compare rates per capita. Simple. Such as "rate of alcoholism (reported) prior to Prohibition" vs "rate of alcoholism (reported) directly after Prohibition repealed". That's how you compare.

Several of the nations in my region are renowned for their sex tourism industries.

I would be remiss if I didn't extend an invite to your wealthy from all of the nations of our beautiful island.

Our "Hedonism" cruises are similarly well-attended.

Perhaps we should work together about tourism packages.

For example, if the real life UN were to seriously look at prostitution and pass a resolution, I can promise you that the resolution would focus on the *health* issues related to the status of these women *and* that in recognition of ultra conservative nations like Saudi Arabia or quasi-conservative nations like the United States of America or Israel, that the resolution that would be drafted would use words that *look* on the face as though they are nothing but a "request".


The real life UN already seriously looked at prostitution and passed a resolution. And it focused on the *human rights* of working women.

U.S. may have to decriminalize prostitution per U.N. Treaty

If the U.S. Senate passes the UN Convention the was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and has been signed by 165 countries this could force the U.S. to acknowledge voluntary prostitution is a legal women’s choice as well as a women’s right to choose of abortion. If passed the U.S. would have to accept these human rights as the treaty provides.

The following summary is from a religious right group, Concerned Women of America (CWA) who of course oppose any such rights of women and want to keep them from having control over their own bodies. [...]

The U.N. General Assembly adopted CEDAW on December 18, 1979. President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed it on September 29, 1994, but the full Senate has not ratified it. So far, 165 countries have signed the treaty, legally binding them to implement its provisions.[...]

Treaty Provisions Includes

Legalized Prostitution
Article 11, section 1(c) of the treaty upholds "the right to free choice of profession and employment." The Committee has included "voluntary" prostitution in that "free choice"—to the detriment of needy women around the world. It has called upon China to "decriminalize prostitution," expressing concern that it is often the "result of poverty." Also, while it urged Germany "to recognize that trafficked women and girls are victims of human rights violations in need of protection," it also expressed concern "that although they are legally obliged to pay taxes, prostitutes still do not enjoy the protection of labor and social law." Even more blatant, its report on Greece stated, "While noting positively the fact that prostitution is decriminalized and instead is dealt with in a regulatory manner, the Committee is concerned that inadequate structures exist to ensure compliance with regulatory framework."
http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/untreaty.html

The United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified CEDAW. By not ratifying, the U.S. is in the company of countries like Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.
Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/cedaw/)

CEDAW at www.un.org (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm)

All real world campaigns demand decriminalization not legalization of prostitution which is the first and more important step and easier to campaign I think, since it always reminds you that the human rights of many working women (and some men) are currently suppressed by nations who criminalize sex work. And the ones who treat us like children are the repressive national governments criminalizing sex work and not the NGOs and international organizations who DEMAND a DECRIMINALIZATION.
World Charter For Prostitutes' Rights (http://www.bayswan.org/ICPRChart.html)

The real life UN already seriously looked at prostitution and passed a resolution. And it focused on the *human rights* of working women.

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/untreaty.html


From that link I was able to find the real life document on an official UN page, but what was more interesting was that the UN also had a list of exceptions and reservations to that convention:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations.htm

The Convention permits ratification subject to reservations, provided that the reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Some States parties that enter reservations to the Convention do not enter reservations to analogous provisions in other human rights treaties.

This to me implies that the reservations were stated on provisions of this convention alone ...

Here is what France (a liberal nation) wrote:

Upon signature:

The Government of the French Republic declares that article 9 of the Convention must not be interpreted as precluding the application of the second paragraph of article 96 of the code of French nationality.

[All other declarations and reservations were confirmed in substance upon ratification.]

Upon ratification:

Declarations:

The Government of the French Republic declares that the preamble to the Convention in particular the eleventh preambular paragraph contains debatable elements which are definitely out of place in this text.

The Government of the French Republic declares that the term "family education" in article 5 (b) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning public education concerning the family and that, in any event, article 5 will be applied subject to respect for article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Government of the French Republic declares that no provision of the Convention must be interpreted as prevailing over provisions of French legislation which are more favourable to women than to men.

Reservations:

.....

Article 14

1. The Government of the French Republic declares that article 14, paragraph 2 (c), should be interpreted as guaranteeing that women who fulfil the conditions relating to family or employment required by French legislation for personal participation shall acquire their own rights within the framework of social security.

2. The Government of the French Republic declares that article 14, paragraph 2 (h), of the Convention should not be interpreted as implying the actual provision, free of charge, of the services mentioned in that paragraph.

Article 16 1 (g)

The Government of the French Republic enters a reservation concerning the right to choose a family name mentioned in article 16, paragraph 1 (g), of the Convention.

Article 29

The Government of the French Republic declares, in pursuance of article 29, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that it will not be bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1.

I'd have to go and read the actual text to figure out what the heck France just said, but that to me sounds like a number of clauses were basically voided.

Ireland had a different set of reservations entirely:


Articles 16, 1 (d) and (f)

Ireland is of the view that the attainment in Ireland of the objectives of the Convention does not necessitate the extension to men of rights identical to those accorded by law to women in respect of the guardianship, adoption and custody of children born out of wedlock and reserves the right to implement the Convention subject to that understanding.

This I quoted, because numerous NationStates players have brought up this exact same argument with respect to the Rights of Minorities and Women resolution some time ago. (NationStates imulating real life!) :)

The convention of course ran afoul of Luxembourg's monarchy ... er Grand Dutchy ...


Reservations:

(a) The application of article 7 shall not affect the validity of the article of our Constitution concerning the hereditary transmission of the crown of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in accordance with the family compact of the house of Nassau of 30 June 1783, maintained by article 71 of the Treaty of Vienna of 9 June 1815 and expressly maintained by article 1 of the Treaty of London of 11 May 1867.

(b) The application of paragraph 1 (g) of article 16 of the Convention shall not affect the right to choose the family name of children.

But again this is interesting, because this is a reservation not covered by many other nations.

Saudi Arabia took the blank check approach:

Reservations:

"1. In case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and the norms of islamic law, the Kingdom is not under obligation to observe the contradictory terms of the Convention.

2. The Kingdom does not consider itself bound by paragraphe 2 of article 9 of the Convention and paragraph 1 of article 29 of the Convention."

That first reservation is diplomat for, only what we like thank you.

OOC: As interesting as this is, it's really beside the point. RW and NS are completely different places and the two united nations are completely different organisations.

OOC: As interesting as this is, it's really beside the point. RW and NS are completely different places and the two united nations are completely different organisations.

I disagree, which I explained in my previous (and lengthy) post. Perhaps if you explained *why* you feel that they are so different I could address that, but as stated I can only say I disagree with your opinion on the level of differences between the two and therefore "URGE" that the proposed draft be modeled after existing resolution language and put back in the word "URGE". ;)

Having glanced at a protion on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, I've yet to see prostitution referenced, however, even that convention follows the passive language I'm advocating using:

Article 11

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular:
(a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings;
(b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment;

(c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining, including apprenticeships, advanced vocational training and recurrent training;

(d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work;

(e) The right to social security, particularly in cases of retirement, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity to work, as well as the right to paid leave;

(f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction.


Or earlier in the convention ...

Article 6

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

Though this isn't saying "URGES", it does include a strong conditional word "appropriate measures".

The examples of reservations (not objections ... there is a huge list of those too) shows how nations can use their reservations to wiggle around a phrase like appropriate measures.

This happens all the time in the real world. The reason this is so is because membership in both the NS UN and the real world UN is voluntary. Nations can come and go as they please. The difference is that in NS players don't realize that by encouraging nations to leave the UN, that we weak our collective ability when negotiating human rights, global disarmament, and environmental resolutions.

I disagree, which I explained in my previous (and lengthy) post. Perhaps if you explained *why* you feel that they are so different I could address that, but as stated I can only say I disagree with your opinion on the level of differences between the two and therefore "URGE" that the proposed draft be modeled after existing resolution language and put back in the word "URGE"

OOC: Well I'll start with nation states.

It is mind-bogglingly diverse. Sure there are differences of 'development' in the real world but nothing on the scale that there is here. We have everything from medieval to DLE.

Now before you talked about France as a liberal country. In the scale of things here there are nations not just more liberal but incredibly more liberal.

And, probably quite a bit more relevant, you keep talking about women (boys play at prostitution too). Most Real world countries have a history of patriarchy. There is nothing to suggest all Nation states have the same history. Some have a history of equality, others of matriarchy. And, as I said the last time we argued this point, arguing on the basis that countries are like the real world can be harmful to the countries that are not.

Now for the United Nations.

Well you can join and resign at will, you can't veto, and the gnomes insure you play along with the resolution.

And, most importantly, we have no mandate other than what pleases the crowds for the time being.

But this really is beside the point.

OOC: Well I'll start with nation states.

It is mind-bogglingly diverse. Sure there are differences of 'development' in the real world but nothing on the scale that there is here. We have everything from medieval to DLE.

Now before you talked about France as a liberal country. In the scale of things here there are nations not just more liberal but incredibly more liberal.

And, probably quite a bit more relevant, you keep talking about women (boys play at prostitution too). Most Real world countries have a history of patriarchy. There is nothing to suggest all Nation states have the same history. Some have a history of equality, others of matriarchy. And, as I said the last time we argued this point, arguing on the basis that countries are like the real world can be harmful to the countries that are not.


Actually I wasn't the one who brought up women, that was another nation. I've maintained during the original repeal debate that *men* apply to the issue of prostitution just as much.

As for the level to which NationStates regulate prostitution, I've already taken that argument (last weekn) to the NationStates forum and asked for feedback. The poll I set up there, similar to the one RomeW set up for me here, had over 85 replies when I last looked. That is starting to be a large sample.

There is nothing in NationStates to suggest that nations have the same history, but there is nothing in the real world to suggest this either.

Simply saying, we are mind boggling diverse, doesn't mean that traditional political science is tossed out the window. Social evolution and the formation of governments is a pretty universal concept, except for in cases where players have godmoded their way around any social problems.


Now for the United Nations.

Well you can join and resign at will, you can't veto, and the gnomes insure you play along with the resolution.

And, most importantly, we have no mandate other than what pleases the crowds for the time being.

But this really is beside the point.

In the real UN you can join and resign, only a few nations can VETO Security resolutions, not General Assembly resolutions, and the Gnomes do *not* insure that you play along with the resolution.

Ask Sophista, Texan Hotrodders, or Frisbeeteria about the Great Double Ball Wars and Sophista's role in announcing its plans to not honor the Law of the Sea. There was no moderation action, and I do believe one player (who frequently supports his arguments with, "Add another newbie to the list that hasn't read the UN FAQ!" and nothing more) actually asked for the moderators to intervene. They didn't. They saw it as roleplaying, and frankly it is no different than claiming to be a robot alien leader from a zillion light years away with the ability to go places "too difficult" for anybody else.

The point here is that in the real world, the UN only uses language like DIRECTS or MANDATES in two situations:

- When giving instructions to an international body under the jurisdiction of the UN,

- In response to continued resolutions that have been ignored (case in point South Africa in the 1980s).

To claim, "But this is NationStates, Max told us to do this" is disingenous. Max did nothing of the sort. He said we *can* try to bring our policies to other nations, and a NationStates resolution does nudge nations in one direction or another. Nothing we can do about that. Max's marching orders are fullfilled each and every time.

But Cog and other mods have stated directed that can and should are two different matters. When the issue of should has been raised, that really begs the question of how we go about doing things.

Max has pointed out numerous times that he finds it really interesting to just sit back and see how we play the entire game: region crashing, resolution writing, flag making, and most importantly the creative roleplay that goes on.

So I'm not saying we can't use strong words like "DEMANDS" or "MANDATES" to encourage a tyranny of the majority, but I will time and time again point out that in NationStates doing so has a long-term political cost on our United Nations. It alienates players, and it does turn their puppets against the UN. Furthermore, it means that their non-UN nation (which many players consider their primary nation) doesn't follow our idealistic human rights, global disarmament, nor environmental resolutions.

They've argued, "By passing more restrictive resolutions, all you are doing is passing a tax burden onto your people or placing silly rules which ...

(sorry, it has been open season on me at work today, god I hate organic carbon right now!) ;)

... give us an advantage over your nations."

To a point we can counter with, "Well yeah, but I've got I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons baby! All the way!" If we do this, we too are throwing out any political model, which begs the question ... why bother with the game to begin with, if we ignore anything inconvienent?

Bottom line, I don't mind progressive UN resolutions. In fact, I frequently support them. But I just think we need to toss a few bones to the minority of really conservative nations. Their opinions matter and our resolutions should strive to do that. For Groot's idea, he has done a remarkable job! I really like the resolution.

But I noticed a few players asking him to change his original URGES to DICTATES and Groot himself said that he really wanted to force a change. Nothing wrong with that at all. But I'd like to be nice about it. ;)

Ask Sophista, Texan Hotrodders, or Frisbeeteria about the Great Double Ball Wars and Sophista's role in announcing its plans to not honor the Law of the Sea. There was no moderation action, and I do believe one player (who frequently supports his arguments with, "Add another newbie to the list that hasn't read the UN FAQ!" and nothing more) actually asked for the moderators to intervene. They didn't. They saw it as roleplaying, and frankly it is no different than claiming to be a robot alien leader from a zillion light years away with the ability to go places "too difficult" for anybody else.

Hmmm. Could you please link me to this request for Moderator intervention?

And it's "The Great DodgeBall War". :D

I noticed a few players asking him to change his original URGES to DICTATES and Groot himself said that he really wanted to force a change. Nothing wrong with that at all. But I'd like to be nice about it. ;)

I say keep the "URGES". That way, nobody can claim that the UN is forcing the Resolution on anyone.

Hmmm. Could you please link me to this request for Moderator intervention?

And it's "The Great DodgeBall War". :D

See, crazy day at work. I wanted to run my model and read some posts, but people in the office keep asking me questions to answers I've answered before. *argh* I like answering questions, but not when I've answered them before ... I'm feeling like that guy from Austin Powers. ;)

You are of course correct.

IIRC the moderator intervention was in the thread about the Law of the Sea, not in the moderation forum. :) I'll see if I can dig it out, but basically it said, "Hey, can he do that! He isn't allowed to even say he can ignore a UN resolution!"

I can see that Mik has a general point, but I disagree on this issue - I can think of 2 main reasons why, in this particular situation, mandating legalisation is more justified that usual, even ignoring the strength of my personal opinions on the issue of individual sovereignty:

1 - Prostitution was, until a few days ago, mandated anyway. This is merely a return to that state of affairs.

2 - We already have Resolution #7, Sexual Freedom, and I don't think that it would be true to the spirit of that resolution (and possibly the words, but that interpretation is debatable) to allow nations to prohibit prostitution.

So I'm not saying we can't use strong words like "DEMANDS" or "MANDATES" to encourage a tyranny of the majority, but I will time and time again point out that in NationStates doing so has a long-term political cost on our United Nations. It alienates players, and it does turn their puppets against the UN. Furthermore, it means that their non-UN nation (which many players consider their primary nation) doesn't follow our idealistic human rights, global disarmament, nor environmental resolutions.

I can see your point. But the question is: does this resolution have the desired effects without forcing legal prostitution? The previous resolution, which did manage to pass without even being written "properly", did force legal prostitution.

I am assuming that nations that have legal prostitution will already have some kind of framework that is provided with this resolution. There isn't much point in the resolution then. The most important is that these are basic human rights, basic values that should be adhered to throughout the UN. Because we *all* benefit from it, both pro and contra. For that, those against prostitution might have to suffer, as well as nations like mine might have to suffer for other resolutions. But again, all this would do is restore the situation from before the repeal, but then in a much better way and with regulation.

That is the goal of this resolution. That freedom to do with your own body is what I'm going for. Nothing less. But at least I can say that I'm doing my utter best to make sure that it's going to happen in a way that is at least slightly acceptable to many nations who might otherwise not legalize prostitution, and not alienate nations in the UN.

This resolution is not in a hurry however, so we have plenty of time to ponder the words of the respected nation of the Confederated Citystates of Mikitivity, whose UN contributions we value ever since we first disagreed on this forum.

That is the goal of this resolution. That freedom to do with your own body is what I'm going for. Nothing less. But at least I can say that I'm doing my utter best to make sure that it's going to happen in a way that is at least slightly acceptable to many nations who might otherwise not legalize prostitution, and not alienate nations in the UN.

This resolution is not in a hurry however, so we have plenty of time to ponder the words of the respected nation of the Confederated Citystates of Mikitivity, whose UN contributions we value ever since we first disagreed on this forum.

This brings us back to my earlier point ... if we are reiterating a human right to sexual freedom, that has been covered before. If we are talking about a human right for economic freedom, there are two existing categories for that:

Free Trade
Social Justice

Human Rights in NationStates are dealt with by three game stats:

Civil Freedoms (Human Rights / Moral Decency)
Political Freedoms (the Furtherment of Democracy / Political Stability)
Economic Freedoms (Free Trade / Social Justice)

Your resolution used human rights has the justification, but to be honest, when we are talking about regulating for the public health, that still is an economic freedom (a taxation). It is something my government endorses ... but the nobody has questioned the right to have sex with strangers. It is the right to profit without government regulation / intervention that is what makes prostitution different than a night at a dance club.

The problem is we are trying to say people have the fundamental economic (human) right to make money however they like. But at the same time we are saying that we often talk about govt sponsored STD programs.

That is why I started a poll in the NationStates forum, as I wanted to provide those of you arguing that this is a fundamental human right (economic freedom) that a Free Trade category would in fact result in *less* regulation.

At present there are between 20-30% of the respondants saying they outlaw prostitution. A resolution in these countries would be deregulation. There are 20-30% of nations saying they have no regulations whatsoever. Regulation via a resolution would in theory not impact them. It is the nations in the middle that really need to be addressed.


As for the old resolution, it ... diplomatically speaking ... was written at a time when many resolutions were better fit for lining bird cages. As a group we've all learned what the frequent NationStates arguments are. And we've learned how to write meaningful resolutions in a page while avoiding real world references (no easy task). There is no doubt in my mind that your drafts are all superior to what was done before. And there is actually some fear in my mind that if we discuss this too long, that a player that isn't paying any attention to the forum will submit a poorly written resolution, and players are going to just say, "Hey, it is better than nothing" and force the issue.

I have no objection to you submitting and telegramming for what you have right now. :) I just think parallel to that effort that we can still talk about drafts ... trust me, the minute the next resolution hits the floor, I'll be using this draft as the yard stick as to what I think should be there.

This brings us back to my earlier point ... if we are reiterating a human right to sexual freedom, that has been covered before. If we are talking about a human right for economic freedom, there are two existing categories for that

Sexual Freedom has only been covered by Resolution #7 which is about "the home". This resolution gives all UN citizens the freedom to do with their body what they want. Considering the amount of nations that seem to be against prostitution, this freedom will need to be enforced more than it is now. That's not an economic issue, but human rights in terms of civil freedoms.

Sexual Freedom has only been covered by Resolution #7 which is about "the home". This resolution gives all UN citizens the freedom to do with their body what they want. Considering the amount of nations that seem to be against prostitution, this freedom will need to be enforced more than it is now. That's not an economic issue, but human rights in terms of civil freedoms.

I respectfully disagree. I think the Sexual Freedom resolution was simply about sexual relationships, and not really meant to target *where*. Moral decency "civil freedoms" could be targeted if we wanted to make it illegal to have intercourse on school grounds or in public view, but that is something I'd argue is better handled domestically.

But ultimately we aren't just talking about sexual relations here, but the ability to profit from them (an economic freedom <--- which is a human right in the basic term, but not game sense). I see no difference between a prostitute and a porn actor / actress. I honestly and truely feel we are ultimately talking about legalizing / regulating a profession and economic activity.

I'd suggest that it is possible to legalize something and regulate is, which for most nations would be a Social Justice resolution.

I'd suggest that it is possible to legalize something and regulate is, which for most nations would be a Social Justice resolution.
social justice-A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

can you tell me how make some kind of job legal (especially prostitution) could reduce income inequality?
also I really can't see how prostitution will increase the basic welfare while her legalization will come as another way for people get out from the poorness. maybe it will go to the opposite, when goverments reduce their welfare and tell the poors to prostitute despite.

social justice-A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

can you tell me how make some kind of job legal (especially prostitution) could reduce income inequality?
also I really can't see how prostitution will increase the basic welfare while her legalization will come as another way for people get out from the poorness. maybe it will go to the opposite, when goverments reduce their welfare and tell the poors to prostitute despite.

If the resolution "regulating" (which can also be legalizing) the sex trade: nude photography, prostitution, porn acting, etc. were to set up requirements for mandatory clinical testing that would be a regulation on economic freedoms.

Remember, Cog (a game moderator) wrote that Social Justice resolutions actually do two things: they decrease economic freedoms and increase taxes.

The key isn't to really look at the one-liners used to describe the resolutions, but look at the longer explanation that Cog provided in the stickied post:

"Before you submit a proposal".

Many players have had their proposed resolutions zapped by the game mods for their proposal text not matching the way the moderators interpet the resolution categories.

Social Justice and Free Trade both slide nations up and down the economic freedoms scale. In simple terms, a "Free Trade" resolution will move a nation closer to the economic system of the United States. A "Social Justice" resolution will move a nation closer to the economic system of the former Soviet Union. This is of course a very "crude" example.

Making prosititution legal or illegal really is IMHO a statement that is secondary to establishing the amount of regulation around the "economic activity". If prostitutes can stand on street corners and never need to even report this to the government, that would be extremely high on the "Economic Freedoms" scale. If instead they are required by law to work only in special buildings (hotels maybe) where security guards are present, and if they are *taxed* and that money is used to pay for special medical services for them (including the distribution of protection devices), then that is moving low on the "Economic Freedoms" scale.

Even in the Soviet Union people were given the "civil right" to have sex. The question is, when they slept with somebody else, could they legally keep the money or were they required to pay some of that money back to "Mother Russia"? (I am aware that in most nations that prostitution was in fact illegal, but the minute we legalize an economic transaction, we really need to consider if we are building more or fewer regulations.)

If the resolution "regulating" (which can also be legalizing) the sex trade: nude photography, prostitution, porn acting, etc. were to set up requirements for mandatory clinical testing that would be a regulation on economic freedoms.

Remember, Cog (a game moderator) wrote that Social Justice resolutions actually do two things: they decrease economic freedoms and increase taxes.

The key isn't to really look at the one-liners used to describe the resolutions, but look at the longer explanation that Cog provided in the stickied post:

"Before you submit a proposal".

Many players have had their proposed resolutions zapped by the game mods for their proposal text not matching the way the moderators interpet the resolution categories.

Social Justice and Free Trade both slide nations up and down the economic freedoms scale. In simple terms, a "Free Trade" resolution will move a nation closer to the economic system of the United States. A "Social Justice" resolution will move a nation closer to the economic system of the former Soviet Union. This is of course a very "crude" example.

Making prosititution legal or illegal really is IMHO a statement that is secondary to establishing the amount of regulation around the "economic activity". If prostitutes can stand on street corners and never need to even report this to the government, that would be extremely high on the "Economic Freedoms" scale. If instead they are required by law to work only in special buildings (hotels maybe) where security guards are present, and if they are *taxed* and that money is used to pay for special medical services for them (including the distribution of protection devices), then that is moving low on the "Economic Freedoms" scale.

Even in the Soviet Union people were given the "civil right" to have sex. The question is, when they slept with somebody else, could they legally keep the money or were they required to pay some of that money back to "Mother Russia"? (I am aware that in most nations that prostitution was in fact illegal, but the minute we legalize an economic transaction, we really need to consider if we are building more or fewer regulations.)
true but create another problem. when you legalize kind of job you "increase economical freedom" because the previous situation was "the job is illegal". therefore
that should be free trade.
you even can reduce your taxes and let the people work in the prostitution industry, despite let them budjets.

as I see it there are 3 stages of legalization:
stage 1- total ban. that the stage we had now, by the time we repeal the legalization (even if the repealing is only said that you could ban or legalize prostitution as you wish, and therefore there isn't reason for that proposal.
stage 2- regulating legalization. that the stage we will went by that proposal.
stage 3- total legalization.
we move from 1 to 2. this is "free trade" proposal

as I see it there are 3 stages of legalization:
stage 1- total ban. that the stage we had now, by the time we repeal the legalization (even if the repealing is only said that you could ban or legalize prostitution as you wish, and therefore there isn't reason for that proposal.
stage 2- regulating legalization. that the stage we will went by that proposal.
stage 3- total legalization.
we move from 1 to 2. this is "free trade" proposal

I agree. Completely. :)

The tricky part though is there are plenty of nations, around 70% that are somewhere at stage 2 or stage 3 already. I'm basing this number of a poll I've been running in the NationStates forum.

Stepping from 2 to 3 could be simulated by "Free Trade", but if we are pushing stage 3 to stage 2, wouldn't that be "Social Justice".

In addition to my poll, RomeW's polls is important in gaging the way these laws are set up in UN states, since ultimately we'll be using a UN resolution and not changing non-UN memebers. I just feel that my poll will pull from a larger population group and give us a better feel for where nations consider themselves to sit.



The reality is, prostitution isn't a cut and dry issue. That is why in the real world it is "problematic" or "troublesome" in the eyes of many politicians. They actually *do* have to fight through the same issues as we do.

Fortunately this is one of those problems that many of us are really trying to reach a consensus on.

Well, sorry for being a stubborn bastard, but this is not an economic resolution. It start with: who decides over your body? You yourself or the government. With this resolution, this is towards self-decision on your body. If you want to prostitute it, that's okay. If you want a full body tattoo, that's okay. It's not the government's decision. That is the main point of this resolution, the very basis, and that is why it's human rights and not free trade.

Well, sorry for being a stubborn bastard, but this is not an economic resolution. It start with: who decides over your body? You yourself or the government. With this resolution, this is towards self-decision on your body. If you want to prostitute it, that's okay. If you want a full body tattoo, that's okay. It's not the government's decision. That is the main point of this resolution, the very basis, and that is why it's human rights and not free trade.
We back this statement. Prostitution isn't about economics- it's about rights; and one of those rights is the right to choose. If the UN- in our opinion- truly wishes to uphold human rights it must uphold prostitution, as it must uphold people's right to choose whether or not they want to sell themselves.

Well, sorry for being a stubborn bastard, but this is not an economic resolution. It start with: who decides over your body? You yourself or the government. With this resolution, this is towards self-decision on your body. If you want to prostitute it, that's okay. If you want a full body tattoo, that's okay. It's not the government's decision. That is the main point of this resolution, the very basis, and that is why it's human rights and not free trade.

This isn't about the body, it is about the transaction of $$$ Geld $$$.

Let's put it this way, if I want to write books and write songs, that is a freedom of expression. If I suddenly want to *sell* my books and songs, that is freedom of economics. Ditto if I want to *buy* other people's books and songs.

Nobody is saying *who* you can sleep with, but governments are regulating economic exchanges related to that.

Now, you and I both will likely agree that the regulations on the economics related to sex workers is not based on controlling an economic transaction, but rather on a moral issue. However, in the game we represent the "Freedom" of a monetary transaction via the "economic freedoms" game stat.

My right as a human being to profit from writing bad poetry, selling inappropriate video games, or baring it all on video is an economic freedom. Nobody is technically saying I can't write bad poetry for myself, design my own video games like GrandTheftAuto to play at home, nor star in home-made video games. But in the United States (a capitalist nation) there still is a fundamental restriction in that for me to do any of these activities, not only am I taxed, but when to whom I tell my poetry, sell my video games, or market my porn to is right now limited to not be minors. In other countries this economic restriction might not be as liberal. For example, I'm pretty sure that if I were selling porn using a Saudi email address that the Saudi police would determine that to be against Islamic law and I'd likely be wishing that the Turks arrested me instead.

{edit: Groot, you don't have to apologize to me for anything. You aren't being stubborn at all! :) You are defending your idea, and I completely understand that. But I do feel as though Cog's notes are being ignored and a bit teamed up here. I really do think his notes should be how we guide ourselves.}

We back this statement. Prostitution isn't about economics- it's about rights; and one of those rights is the right to choose. If the UN- in our opinion- truly wishes to uphold human rights it must uphold prostitution, as it must uphold people's right to choose whether or not they want to sell themselves.

Economics *are* human rights. Specially in NationStates they are called economic freedoms. But capitalism is, believe it or not, based on the concept of "Free Enterprise".

You want to right to "sell" something, in this game it becomes an "economic freedoms" issue. Cog's notes on this are extremely clear.

Prostitution not only spreads sexually transmitted diseases, but gives clear incentive to cover worse crimes, such as a rape. Should a prostitute claim that this crime has been committed, there would be no proof otherwise and an innocent man could be imprisoned, or, on the other hand, if a prostitute really is raped but not beaten how could she prove it?
Although I agree on the issue of sexual freedom, prostitution would turn sexual activity into little more than a business! If sex is something that many people agree should be reserved for marriage, does that not decrease the value of the act in the eyes of all others? Religious and sexual freedom, yes. Sex as a form of business enterprise, no.

The following is taken from the sticky "Before you submit a proposal ..." thread. The thread was designed to give us better insight into the NationStates resolution categories. Cog edited Enodia's original post in part to head off misinterpetations of the one-liners for resolution categories (Cog and I have bumped heads on the issue of economic and political freedoms a few times -- Cog always seems to win BTW). :)

Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

...

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all UN member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all UN member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

The question we've been spinning our wheels around is ...

Do we take the blue pill or the red pill?

I think the answer is above in Cog's rules.

It's a little more complicated than that. The right to sell your body can be both an economic freedom and a personal one, because- although you are providing a commodity- you cannot get more personal than your own body. This is far different than selling cheese or simply selling your body- it's also about maintaining the right to do with your body as you please, which is very much a personal human rights issue.

It's a little more complicated than that. The right to sell your body can be both an economic freedom and a personal one, because- although you are providing a commodity- you cannot get more personal than your own body. This is far different than selling cheese or simply selling your body- it's also about maintaining the right to do with your body as you please, which is very much a personal human rights issue.

How is that different than fingerpainting or being a fashion model? In both cases it is your choice to use your body ... the regulation is in the profit.

If we ban children from selling fingerpainted pictures, we've not told them they can't still use fingerpaints.

If we ban fashion models, we aren't telling men and women that they have to wear Glad Trash Bags and be ugly. They still have the personal freedom to dress in glittery clothing and walk up and down runways.

My vote is red pill ... we are talking about economics. If you want a resolution to say that people don't need government approval telling them whom they can get naked with, we've got two:

1) Sexual Freedom.

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

2) Universal Freedom of Choice.

1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society

You want your lover to read German poetry to you as a part of foreplay, you've got that civil right *twice*.

We are still talking about something else conditional on that first choice, and this something else is economics.

Here is the proposal from the first post in this thread along with my color coding of "blue" civil freedoms vs. "red" economic freedoms. (The color choices are not accidental, internationally red is associated with economic regulation and blue with morality. <-- FYI, the Democrat / Republican, blue pill vs. red pill scheme is actually an accident, even though the Republican party was "Red" long ago in Texas since "R"ed and "R"epublican started with the same letter ... this dates back to the 1800s.)

The NationStates UN,

RECALLING the resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution" and the repeal of that resolution,

NOTICING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, probably caused by prostitution becoming illegal in several nations,

ALSO noticing an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in nations that outlawed prostitution,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

AFFIRMING that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,

RECALLING that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and can never be eradicated,

1. URGES all nations to legalize prostitution and treat it like all other professions, and allow any person who is mature and capable of making their own decisions to become a prostitute,

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety regulations,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.

This issue has been going back and forth with it getting approved and disapproved. This time, if your proposal goes through, could one not add a clause to it to stop this issue from further debate? I'm new to the UN and to NationStates in general, so I'm not really sure if this is possible.

BTW, at this point I'd recommend that a clause be added to reference the "Sexual Freedom" and "Universal Freedom of Choice" resolutions in the preamble.

Essentially, I'm very pleased with the text of the resolution as is. A sensible human rights (economic freedoms) argument has been constructed that points to existing civil freedoms and says, "Hey let's extend this to legalization and government regulation."

The actual text is short, very well written, and displays concern for government responsibility.

I see what you're saying, but my problem is that prostitution becomes personal too, because there are those who are willing to put limits onto what people can do with their bodies, including the banning of letting people sell their bodies if they wish. Prostitution- in my view anyway- is like the creation and selling of "obscene" T-Shirts: sure, it's an economic issue in which it deals with a commodity, but right to be able to make that commodity and sell it is very much a human rights issue. If you restrict what people can or cannot sell, then you restrict what they can buy and, thus, how they can express themselves (because some things that people buy do become "status symbols"). Thus, if expression is curbed, it's a human rights issue. It's a lot more complex than free trade.

This issue has been going back and forth with it getting approved and disapproved. This time, if your proposal goes through, could one not add a clause to it to stop this issue from further debate? I'm new to the UN and to NationStates in general, so I'm not really sure if this is possible.


:) We can't do that. Repeals and Submissions are part of the "rules".

The reason this particular issue has been batted and battered about like an ancient tennis ball is that any time sex & reproductive rights are involved in an issue people tend to have significant differences of opinions.

The point that those of us are debating about today isn't really the issue of prostitution, but the semantics of the type of freedom. I am coming from point of view of an economist where the sex trade is considered an industry, which if carefully regulated, is just as viable as any other profession and can lead to economic diversity and hence freedom. The others are coming from a humanist point of view that claims that the right to earn money is inseperable from being human and the idea that other forces have an interest in the ability to earn money is not the business of anybody or thing else.


When Groot gets his endorsements, we'll all become fast allies and likely use the very arguments we are tossing up against each other against those that will tell us that the profession is immoral or dangerous. Groot is going to have two very different sides with very well polished arguments defending his resolution. ;)


my problem is that prostitution becomes personal too, because there are those who are willing to put limits onto what people can do with their bodies, including the banning of letting people sell their bodies if they wish.

Ignore the preamble and justification.

When the resolution hits the floor, your point about "civil rights" is valid. You will *not* find me arguing against you one bit.

But what I've highlighted is exactly what Cog is going to see. Remember what happened to Hirota's The Rights of Indigenous Peoples resolution before it reached quorum? Hack deleted it *thinking* that Hirota submitted a Human Rights resolution as a Social Justice proposal. Hirota was able to prove otherwise, and Cog reversed his warning against Hirota whom had resubmitted his proposal as a Social Justice proposal (which Cog ruled was Human Rights).

Cog is not going to focus on the justification, but on the game stats impact of the resolution from the numbered clauses. Groot's proposal is mostly social justice. It talks about welfare programs.

I haven't been involved in commenting on this proposal for a while (regional upheaval is a pain), but I like the current draft.

Okay, I give in, for the sake of passing this resolution. I'm going to change it to Free Trade.

Because of all the changes, I've re-submitted it under the new title (Adult Worker Safety Act), to be found on this forum here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391077

Thanks everybody for their input and comments so far. I am planning to make the third draft the final one and release this one into the wild on Monday.

Please don't use this thread anymore.

I agree. Completely. :)

The tricky part though is there are plenty of nations, around 70% that are somewhere at stage 2 or stage 3 already. I'm basing this number of a poll I've been running in the NationStates forum.

Stepping from 2 to 3 could be simulated by "Free Trade", but if we are pushing stage 3 to stage 2, wouldn't that be "Social Justice".

In addition to my poll, RomeW's polls is important in gaging the way these laws are set up in UN states, since ultimately we'll be using a UN resolution and not changing non-UN memebers. I just feel that my poll will pull from a larger population group and give us a better feel for where nations consider themselves to sit.



The reality is, prostitution isn't a cut and dry issue. That is why in the real world it is "problematic" or "troublesome" in the eyes of many politicians. They actually *do* have to fight through the same issues as we do.

Fortunately this is one of those problems that many of us are really trying to reach a consensus on.
ok, I agree. I just thought that the difference between 2 and 3 is smaller a lot than the difference between 1 and 2.
but that isn't important too much, because I will vote for that resolution anyway.

Prostitution not only spreads sexually transmitted diseases, but gives clear incentive to cover worse crimes, such as a rape. Should a prostitute claim that this crime has been committed, there would be no proof otherwise and an innocent man could be imprisoned, or, on the other hand, if a prostitute really is raped but not beaten how could she prove it?
Although I agree on the issue of sexual freedom, prostitution would turn sexual activity into little more than a business! If sex is something that many people agree should be reserved for marriage, does that not decrease the value of the act in the eyes of all others? Religious and sexual freedom, yes. Sex as a form of business enterprise, no.


Hello, alot of dating and marriages are basically prostitution, anyway. Sex is a commodity, and thus going to be traded and/or sold, whether the law acknowledges reality, or not. Face it, if you regard sex as cheapened by free love and prostitution, then pick someone who agrees with you. Then, someone else's act won't "cheapen" it. I don't share your system of evaluation, but then again, I'm a Nietzschian existentialist. That's your business, just don't outlaw someone else's right to trade a service for money or goods.

Hello, alot of dating and marriages are basically prostitution, anyway. Sex is a commodity, and thus going to be traded and/or sold, whether the law acknowledges reality, or not. Face it, if you regard sex as cheapened by free love and prostitution, then pick someone who agrees with you. Then, someone else's act won't "cheapen" it. I don't share your system of evaluation, but then again, I'm a Nietzschian existentialist. That's your business, just don't outlaw someone else's right to trade a service for money or goods.
why bother arguing? it's obvious Sanditenbourg is completely detached from reality.