NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda

The NationStates UN,

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

ALSO RECALLING Resolution #7 (Sexual Freedom), and Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), which make sex a private issue, instead of a government issue, and stating "a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society"

AFFIRMING in accordance with the above mentioned resolution 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,

ASSUMING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in a situation where prostitution is illegal,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

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

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 in towns and cities,

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions (End slavery, Child Labor, Outlaw Pedophilia, The Child Protection Act, Ban Trafficking in Persons, etc) and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.

*thumbs up* I like it.

Supported

I like it as well. However, we were between 40 and 55 endorsements short last time, with the only nation telegramming to my knowledge being Groot Gouda. If others would like to help out, I'd be happy to send you the list of 10 or more (your choice) Delegates whom we (the IDU) feels may be receptive to this proposal.

Telegramming can make a difference and any help offered would be very appreciated. :)

Yup, every help is welcome. I do feel positive, as a shortage of 50 approvals with relatively little telegramming is not bad for a proposal which is for some nations very controversial.

If you were, like my nation, disappointed with the repeal of "Legalize Prostitution", please TG Mikitity or me to help out. And remember that last time, the difference was small enough for one or a few large regions to be decisive, so with the improvements made compared to the original "Legalize Prostitution" this should have a good chance or getting implemented.

*seconds thumbs-up*

One piece of pedantry though:

1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

If you have resubmit again, please move the comma to be directly after mature.

If you have resubmit again, please move the comma to be directly after mature.

:)
Having additional eyes is always a great thing!

When I submitted my "International Disaster Assistance" proposal back in Sept, I was very thankful when East Hackney tged me with a list of typos.

On to other news, I've finished telegramming a number of nations and will take a short break before continuing again. Thus far it looks like many Delegates may be away for the weekend.

Not long ago RomeW and I ran to independent polls. One poll was run here in the UN forum and asked if nations felt that the UN should get involved in the issue of prostitution, and a very similar poll was conducted on one of the other NationStates forums asking nations how they would describe their domestic regulations concerning prostitution. Both polls were designed to use the same five options, ranging from highest degree of regulation to lowest degree of regulation of prostitutes.

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/SexWorkers.gif

{note, I'll remove this image in a few weeks, so save it if you want it}

It is important to note that the other forum had more responses, 122, compared to the 38 nations that voted in the poll on this forum. This is not surprising, given that this forum does not have the highest traffic on NationStates.

I was hoping to go back and list some of the regulations, but I figured that by sharing the comparision chart now, that I may be able to make a case for interest in Groot's proposal.

Although the nations from the other forum represented what I'd describe as being a bi-modal distribution (i.e. more nations answered that their government has no laws regulating prostitution and more nations answered that prostitution is completely illegal -- representing the two opposite ends of the spectrum), that UN members actually felt that the UN should promote moderate level regulation on this issue.

I feel that is actually an interesting compromise, and might suggest that UN members find some issues relating to standardization to be benefical enough to move towards a centrist position.

What is not clear is how many nations that replied two both surveyes (as my nation did).

This is clearly a proposal to re-legalise prostitution by the back door.

While it "declares prostitution legal throughout the UN" it only "emphasises, "recommends", "requests" and "condemns" regulation, education and welfare programmes and measures against people trafficking and child abuse.

Should this proposal reach quorum, which - no offence to the author - I hope it doesn't it will become yet another reason for petty debate between conservatives and liberals (a debate which has already taken place on this issue twice, with the original resolution and its repeal). Instead, conservatives and liberals should be co-operating on resolutions such as Tsunami Warning System, which we can all agree on.

Also, maybe I've missed something but how can it possibly be a free trade resolution?

This is clearly a proposal to re-legalise prostitution by the back door.
Back door? They have been saying that all along....

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

You won't get my support, and I guarentee my region and I will be campaigning against this resolution vehemontly if it makes quorum. I think the issue of legalizing prostitution should be left alone; it's a waste of time and energy.

This is clearly a proposal to re-legalise prostitution by the back door.

Also, maybe I've missed something but how can it possibly be a free trade resolution?

First, I'd say front door. When telegramming we are trying to be very up front about the fact that this is a resubmittal of the concept (not language) of legalizing prostitution.

As for your question about why this is free trade, I think that is a honest and fair question to ask. I was the major proponent that a resolution about regulating or deregulating the the ability to work in the sex industry deals with economic freedoms.

Look at my graph located just a few posts above. According to this I see two things. First in NationStates in general nearly 1/3 of governments currently have what they'd describe as "the highest" degree of regulation on prostitution. Another 1/3 has no (or the lowest) regulation on prostitution. This is the blue bars.

A UN resolution designed to allow men and women to work as sex workers, be it porn actors and actresses (where they are paid for sex) or as a type of prostitute or "escort service", would take that 1/3 of UN members (non-UN members wouldn't be impacted) and it would increase the economic freedoms (a type of human right) by allowing them to work in an environment where this was legal in some way.

Naturally if this proposal were to reach the UN floor I'll dig up the links to the two surveys, but if it would help to read the responses from nations on how they currently regulate prostitution, I can find the links now.

I honestly think that we've made it clear that people can have sexual relations via a number of other resolutions, particularly the "Sexual Freedom" resolution adopted in March of 2003 (nearly two years ago). What we are doing is extending that concept of sexual freedom to also say, that people have the right to get paid while having sex ... be it on camera for smut or in some other way.

My government licenses special "hotels" where guests and request the service of a "bedwarmer". Sometimes these are called houses of ill repute, but the law requires that private security guards be on hand to prevent sexual abuse and that the workers of these establishments are entitled to regular benefits, especially health care. Many a foreign traveler stops by these establishments, but I'd classify my government's position on this issue as being "high" regulation. Sex workers have some economic rights, but the government does keep a very watchful eye on the quality of these work environments, as we feel it is a dangerous and abusive environment.

This is clearly a proposal to re-legalise prostitution by the back door.

Then our definition of backdoor differs. In the People's Republic of Groot Gouda, we call this "blatantly obvious front door". Legalising prostitution is the main aim of this proposal - but with added delights of regulation, education and welfare. Exactly the things that were missing in the original "Legalize Prostitution".

While it "declares prostitution legal throughout the UN" it only "emphasises, "recommends", "requests" and "condemns" regulation, education and welfare programmes and measures against people trafficking and child abuse.

That is done because not everything should be prescribed by the UN. Basically, the freedom to prostitute your body is being given where it belongs - to the individual. The rest serves as a guideline, but each nation might have its own peculiarities and might want to do things differently. That's up to them. National Sovereignity, but with an international UN framework.

As far as trafficking and child abuse is concerned, that is already covered by other resolutions. There's no reason to do more than condemn it, because this is not an "outlaw paedophilia" resolution.

Should this proposal reach quorum, which - no offence to the author - I hope it doesn't it will become yet another reason for petty debate between conservatives and liberals (a debate which has already taken place on this issue twice, with the original resolution and its repeal). Instead, conservatives and liberals should be co-operating on resolutions such as Tsunami Warning System, which we can all agree on.

The stuff we all agree on doesn't need a lot of work. That's done in an instant, because we all agree. Well, compared to resolutions like this anyway. And that's why efforts have to be put in a resolution like this.

I know this issue has been debated over and over, but that's no reason not to try it again. Because this proposal is a result of that debate. I have tried to pick up points that might change nation's opinions on legal prostitution. In my completely unhumble opinion, this is a well written and balanced proposal. Many nations have contributed, though they are not mentioned specifically - too many small bits that have been improved since the first drafts. In the end, this proposal is as good as you can get it as far as legalizing prostitution goes.

Also, maybe I've missed something but how can it possibly be a free trade resolution?

It was a point of discussion in earlier drafts (called "Legalize and regulate prostitution" and "The Adult Worker Act" should you want to search this forum for them), and it could have been Human Rights. However, because the main point of this resolution is reducing barriers in an economic sense, it has been made Free Trade. The human rights part is, when you look at the actions, a relatively minor part.

I know that many nations will object to legalizing prostitution on principal grounds. They should also realize that whatever your opinion, prostitution will still exist. No nation can say they have no prostitution. They all bear the problems that result from it, but only nations with legal prostitution are able to regulate it and in that way reduce the resulting problems. Which gives them time and money to focus on more serious crimes than two (or more) people having sex.

Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations? A violation of a nation's sovereignty is commendable, or even imperative in some situations, such as genocide, it is clearly not necessary in this issue. It is my position that a nation’s sovereignty, while not inviolable, should only be broken the strictest of circumstances. Any potential benefit by this resolution is dwarfed by the harm in allowing the international community to write domestic laws.

Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations? A violation of a nation's sovereignty is commendable, or even imperative in some situations, such as genocide, it is clearly not necessary in this issue. It is my position that a nation’s sovereignty, while not inviolable, should only be broken the strictest of circumstances. Any potential benefit by this resolution is dwarfed by the harm in allowing the international community to write domestic laws.

The right of every person to have self-determination is something I think the UN should have a voice in. And what someone does with their body, even if they sell it for sex, would be a large part of self-determination.

Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations? A violation of a nation's sovereignty is commendable, or even imperative in some situations, such as genocide, it is clearly not necessary in this issue. It is my position that a nation’s sovereignty, while not inviolable, should only be broken the strictest of circumstances. Any potential benefit by this resolution is dwarfed by the harm in allowing the international community to write domestic laws.
That's why Groot Gouda made all the secondary points "Requests" and "Recommends" and non-binding words like that. The implementation specifics are left up to individual nations. Heck, this resolution allows governments to impose significant restrictions on prostitution.

But if passed, it will reflect the will of the UN that nations can't just declare prostitution illegal and try to sweep everything under the rug.

Self determination is a finicky business, your say that a person has a right to determine what to do with their own body, but why should this same right not extend to a government, which is (or at least should be) simply an extension of the people's will. Take for example if you had a nation that was 99% devoutly Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other group that would be morally opposed to prostitution. Who are you to force legalized prostitution on them? Once again, I could understand if this was a resolution recognizing people's rights to, for example, have sex period, or a serious issue like that. But to force a controversial issue down the throats of the rest of the world like this is simply unconscionable.

Self determination is a finicky business, your say that a person has a right to determine what to do with their own body, but why should this same right not extend to a government, which is (or at least should be) simply an extension of the people's will. Take for example if you had a nation that was 99% devoutly Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other group that would be morally opposed to prostitution. Who are you to force legalized prostitution on them? Once again, I could understand if this was a resolution recognizing people's rights to, for example, have sex period, or a serious issue like that. But to force a controversial issue down the throats of the rest of the world like this is simply unconscionable.

It depends on what level you think the choice should be made. For most things I really do believe it should be at the individual level, not the national level. But I accept that people disagree with me - that is their choice :}

But I am sure that you agree that you do not have absolute control over your body, the old "Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose". If a nation feels that in their circumstances prostitution would cause harm, whether that harm be moral, religious, economic, or anything else, do they not have a right to outlaw it?

But I am sure that you agree that you do not have absolute control over your body, the old "Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose". If a nation feels that in their circumstances prostitution would cause harm, whether that harm be moral, religious, economic, or anything else, do they not have a right to outlaw it?

You don't have absolute control, but you have the ability to decide what you do with it. Someone punching you is different from you taking the decision to sell your body - they are making the choice to hit you.

And no - I don't think it should be in the purview of the nation to choose. I accept that other people, and other nations, disagree, but in my nation prostitution will always be legal because it is the choice of the person. My nation has around 800 million people in it. I haven't met all of them and I don't know most of them personally, so how could I - a mere mortal - possibly justify saying that a woman in Divalia should not be able to make a living by selling her body? Am I happy with that? Maybe not - but it's not my position to chose for her, and it is not the position of the "moral majority" to decide that anyone who disagrees with them should be made a criminal.

Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations? A violation of a nation's sovereignty is commendable, or even imperative in some situations, such as genocide, it is clearly not necessary in this issue. It is my position that a nation’s sovereignty, while not inviolable, should only be broken the strictest of circumstances. Any potential benefit by this resolution is dwarfed by the harm in allowing the international community to write domestic laws.
I am a big proponent of sovereign rights - that being the point of having a nation as opposed to say a state.

In this instance, however, I think the benefits gained from regulation would have to outweigh the outrage from the "moral" crowd or even the sovereign crowd. I see nothing in the proposal which would stop a country who vehemently is opposed to the practice to regulate it to death, making it an unprofitable proposition. Let's face it, money is the motivator here and if no money is made, time to move on to something that pays better. Probably criminal in nature, but that's your problem.

It seems to me that the UN should be involved in issues that relate to basic human rights. It should be a basic human right that a person be allowed to choose how they earn a living, provided that earning does not violate the rights of anyone else. While sensibilities are a great thing, they aren't a "right" and are violated on a regular basis by a variety of activities people have a tendency to engage in. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to engage in them.

Those countries who vehemently condemn prostitution tend to be overwhelmingly religious, with the religion being of the uncompromising patriarchial kind. These religions tend to be vehemently opposed to anything that gives women the right to make basic decisions concerning their bodies, period. When they talk about the sanctity of the home and family what they are really talking about is the sanctity of men to decide what women can and cannot do. This isn't an issue the UN should be involved in?

Self determination is a finicky business, your say that a person has a right to determine what to do with their own body, but why should this same right not extend to a government, which is (or at least should be) simply an extension of the people's will. Take for example if you had a nation that was 99% devoutly Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other group that would be morally opposed to prostitution. Who are you to force legalized prostitution on them? Once again, I could understand if this was a resolution recognizing people's rights to, for example, have sex period, or a serious issue like that. But to force a controversial issue down the throats of the rest of the world like this is simply unconscionable.

If you're saying that as long as the majority gives it the thumbs up, then it's ok to force principles like this in law, then you should have no objection to this proposal being discussed and voted on. After all, if a majority of the UN wants it to be legal, then by your logic, they're justified in forcing it upon the minority.

If you disagree, then why do you apply your principle within arbitrary lines on maps, but change it as soon as we cross those lines?

Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations?

Everything falls under the United Nations. Except game mechanics, of course.

This issue does respect national sovereignity, but limits it where the freedom to prostitute one's body is concerned. It is vital that this is implemented throughout the UN (or even NationStates, but that cannot be accomplished as easy as UN-wide), because of the positive side-effects. Those nations that object to prostitution are provided with a framework within this resolution that they can implement in their own, national way, without having to resort to dangerous, disease spreading, crime-instigating measures as criminalizing prostitution.

Quite apart from that, thousands of nations are interested in this, looking at the previous resolutions on this subject. That alone makes it worthy of UN attention.

This draft is considerably different from the original Legalise Prositution resolution. If the intention of the authors is to improve a resolution, they can only be commended.

I was not aware of the previous incarnations of this draft, which is why I said it was relegalise prostitution by the back door.

I am still of the opinion that this proposal would have a better home in the Human Rights category.

This is undoubtably a well-written proposal that has clearly been through several drafts but on principle, I cannot support it.

But I am sure that you agree that you do not have absolute control over your body, the old "Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose". If a nation feels that in their circumstances prostitution would cause harm, whether that harm be moral, religious, economic, or anything else, do they not have a right to outlaw it?

Prostitution causes way more harm when illegal than when legal. It's just another way of suppression. The individual should make a choice on whether they want to prostitute their body. Economically it'll do no harm. One could argue that is does moral harm, but hey, if your nation is on such a high moral level, surely your people wouldn't do anything like prostitution? Because if they do, they aren't harmed by it - they're free to visit or ignore prostitutes.

As long as you're not forced to visit a prostitute, no harm is done.

I am still of the opinion that this proposal would have a better home in the Human Rights category.

This is undoubtably a well-written proposal that has clearly been through several drafts but on principle, I cannot support it.

I think those involved in the language of this proposal have done an excellent job.

As for the issue of Human Rights vs. Free Trade, please consider that there are three existing Human Rights resolutions that address sexual freedom, one of which actually addresses the legalization of prostitution. However there are no resolutions that talk about prostitution in terms of economic rights -- i.e. pure old capitalism.

The three Human Rights resolution (which impact civil freedoms, but not economic freeoms) are:

Sexual Freedom (Resolution #7)
The Universal Bill of Rights (Resolution #26)
Ban Trafficking in Persions (Resolution #68)


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.).


Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.


Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers.

Voting ends tomorrow night, and we're still 60 votes short.

We need a bigger and better list of delegates who might be favorable to the proposal.
Sure wish I'd thought to save the delegate votes list on the repeal proposal.

Sure wish I'd thought to save the delegate votes list on the repeal proposal.

You and me both. For some reason I thought that I did grab the delegate votes, but I couldn't find it on either of my machines. I do have the final list for the Tsunami Warning System of course.

There have been at least four of us campaigning for this. :/

Still it's odd that thousands of nations voted against the repeal, but so far it's still just short of reaching quorum. But last time it was on Page 1 it managed to pick up about 40 votes, so it's still possible that it reaches quorum before it expires...

Still it's odd that thousands of nations voted against the repeal, but so far it's still just short of reaching quorum. But last time it was on Page 1 it managed to pick up about 40 votes, so it's still possible that it reaches quorum before it expires...

Based on one reply that was given to me while campaigning is that there is a bit of voter fatique. Not on the issue, but on our use of the UN resolution format. The Delegate hinted that he disagreed with the opinions of others and was happen to endorse the proposal, but that some of the lack of interest might be in the format.


I like the format and think the resolution is very transparent. It is easy to see what we are saying and doing.

But I also value the advice telegrammed back to me by other Delegates. They wouldn't telegram if they didn't want to help out.

:/

I'd like to hear what the problem is with the format. As a former delegate, with the task of browsing the proposal queue, I can say that I highly favour this format over others because it's easiest to see what the resolution does.

And I don't know what one person's opinion means regarding that. I mean, I've received two replies that they couldn't support the proposal because of religious reasons - but that's no indication that that goes for a significant number of nations.

It's only 20 approvals short now, so Delegaes: Approve, Please!

The complaint about using a resolution format for a resolution is baffling to me, as well. Should I ever serve as a delegate, I don't plan to endorse any proposal that isn't in a resolution format.
[rant] That said, part of the problem may be the way the proposal page is worded because it never makes clear that submission of a vaguely worded idea or description would go into the queue for a vote as written and there's no mechanism to clear it up, correct any spelling or grammarical errors, or convert into a resolution format for the vote on adoption. A lot of people just don't read the sticky threads at the top of the furums, and maybe the game mods could insert those. [/end of rant]
In any event, when I checked a couple of minutes ago, this proposal was 10 endorsements short, and I sincerely hope those materialize in time.

I'd like to hear what the problem is with the format. As a former delegate, with the task of browsing the proposal queue, I can say that I highly favour this format over others because it's easiest to see what the resolution does.

And I don't know what one person's opinion means regarding that. I mean, I've received two replies that they couldn't support the proposal because of religious reasons - but that's no indication that that goes for a significant number of nations.


It is 8 away now. :)

The format complaint wasn't the UN Delegates. He is aware of the format and actually likes the proposals many of us have asked him to endorse.

He just said that nations in his region don't like it, and it is something we should at the very least be aware of.

My telegram back was to ask him to just tell those nations that we are only trying to copy the format used by the real-life UN. Personally I agree, this format is much easier to follow, because it is a numbered shopping list.

I figure its hard enough just to get people to read the FAQ before submitting a proposal, so there's no point in arguing over particular formatting styles in an excellent resolution so long as the language is clear.

I find the resolution to be very well written. I urge just half a dozen more of y'all to find it on Page 1 and approve!

Groot, congratulations to you and the others on this latest version of the proposal making quorum.

Groot, I must congratulate you on this. You have my vote in favor.

I'm glad to see this proposal got the numbers of endorsements required. As a brand new first time delegate, I was happy to endorse it last night.

Well done to all involved in it :).

To everybody involved in the telegramming, thanks!

I have a minor suggestion ... let's start this resolution on a new foot via its own thread. I think the first post should probably be Groot's and should have the resolution text, but Groot may have retired for the day.

Second, a followup post should point to this thread, the previous draft thread for this resolution, the debate for the repeal, and the debate for the original resolution. I'll dig up the links for all four of these tonight and post them here.

We should also post the text of the original resolution, the Ban Trafficking in Persons resolution, the repeal, and any other resolution referenced in the text of this resolution (like the Universal Bill of Rights). Just an idea designed to make it so we can just ask people to read the begining of their thread.

If we wanted to make an FAQ, the no brainers are "Q: Is prostitution already legal in UN members?" and "Q: Why is this Free Trade?". We've seen many nations ask these questions and we'll be answering them many more times.

Yeah, people wouldn't read it anyway.

I'm happy to see a resolution I looked at in it's infant stages be finally in queue.

*sniff* it's just so...beautiful...

On a more serious note, I suppose we should make an 'offical thread' because it is in queue.

We did it? You're kidding me!

I guess it's too late to mention this "news" story someone just posted on my messageboard:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Germany_prostitution.html

We did it? You're kidding me!

I guess it's too late to mention this "news" story someone just posted on my messageboard:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Germany_prostitution.html

Lest anyone be tempted to take that seriously, it's a well-done fake by neo-nazi david irving of stormfront.

Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of the passage of Kepone's "Legalize Prostitution" resolution, and since that time international attention on the subject of sex industry workers has not disminished.

The following are some of the significant NationStates discussions on this topic.

New Draft Proposals:
Resubmitted: The Sex Industry Work Act (Free Trade proposal)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393313
The Adult Worker Safety Act
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391077
Draft: Legalize and regulate prostitution
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389496
Re-institution of prostitution?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389314


Prior Resolution Debates:
Repeal “Legalized Prostitution” [OFFICIAL TOPIC]
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386527
Repeal the Legalization of Prostitution
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=385749
North Koster’s Ban Trafficking in Persons only 2 approvals away!
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343522
“Legalize prostitution” proposal
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=308196


Surveys and Summaries of Domestic Sex Industry Laws:
What are your government’s policies on prostitution?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389468
How much should the United Nations regulate prostitution?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389237
Requesting Help
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388057


A brief history of this particular subject since I've been around (Jan. 2004) is that Kepone's resolution (#46) was the first time anything directly focusing on the sex industry (in this case just prostitution) made it to the UN floor. Though the early debate may have seemed limited, NationStates was not on Jolt at the time, and it was difficult for nations to communicate using the old forums.

Months after the close vote on Kepone's resolution, North Koster introduced the Ban Traccking in Persons resolution, which included a very significant reference to the decriminalization of prostitution for women (only), but instead criminalized men involved. This point is often ignored in most debates, but the implication is that prostitution was only somewhat regulated at the time.

The Powerhungry Chipmunks introduced a repeal to the original resolution, which though not the first attempt to repeal Kepone's original resolution, did approach the debate on the subject of public health risks. Most notable about that repeal (resolution #87) was that it re-affirmed a host of other public health related issues, implying that even though the repeal of #46 might give nations the sovereign choice on the legality of women's involvement in prostitution, that government's still had an obligation to offer medical protection to prostitutes under existing UN law.

Groot Gouda's proposal is one of a few that resulted from the Repeal "Leagize Prostitution", but will be significant because this will be the first time that a resolution that was repealed will have a replacement or "re-implimentation" submitted to the UN. Naturally this proposal was not drafted in a vaccum, but instead represents an analysis of several NationStates forum polls as well as careful consideration of the points raised in the debates of several resolutions.

Please feel free to copy my post into the official debate of this new resolution.

For future reference, in case we need to repeat this exercise another year from now. Here is the list of heroic delegates who has endorsed the new proposal:

Approvals: 172 (Republic of Freedonia, High Spiritus, JS Nijmegen, Gaiah, NewTexas, Asshelmetta, Metal Poets, Tariol, Monadnock, Yelda, Acada Demada, Laueria, Grumioland, Shanagolia, The Black New World, Sulon, Coprinsteland, Dahlk, Al-Zar, The Cariebbean, DragonSpeartopia, Nomikia, Tzimiscie, Domintora, The Belima, WZ Forums, 1 Infinite Loop, Ataraxics, The Derrak Quadrant, Dominicalius, Dafidutopia, Jake 4, Knuckles Promised Land, Kubersland, Lotharisia, Kadield, Jibba-Jabbia, Fenor, Shenanigoat Junction, Novus Terra Reborn, Bohemia and Moravia II, Sinns right hand, Lichto, Funky Celtic Kleptos, Baribeau, Shadow GOYakitaN, Nunograd, Dolich, Annenburg, Rekistan, Hidlberg, La Commune Quebecoise, GizzmoAsus, Magiqa, Great Kienholz, Lamoni, Scattered Islands, Oscarina, Catt-man-do, Northern Nukeland, G_Wiz, JayRoddia, Nielston, Fees Maudites, Kyndcat, The Red Lair, Grand Teton, Master Tom, Tanthe, La Tropicana, Hockey Fandom, Bulgarian Legion, Hkdl, Crazy irish ppl, SlowRoll, TheBongos, Ashualiat, Manfredonia, Galaxy Bright Star, Javelindon, Zapvilla, NaMonde, Unrestrained Anarchy, Killtron, Dem Deadbeats, Sam99978, Racoonesia, Sputnikov, Crydonia, Looplyness, Great Britain---, Spartanious, Juxtaposed Borderlines, Cachay, Aquatnis, Dark nipple people, Itsdawhitebunny, Ellensborough, Rhody, Beach Bay, Knowledge of Dragons, Markodonia, Alexein, Fastnet, Teews, N00t, Steven Kyle, America---, Arro Gance, Carlos Santos, Womblinia, Spartans mark2, Punk-ass Ninjas, Doodania, Omairia, Alomogordo, Constellia, Nenuial, Signamarcheix, Varasa, Conservative Haters, Dizziness, Oil Trough, Bedouin States, Radona, Thgin, Molnervia, The Borg Subconscious, Daltwood 2, LouFerringoland, Dutch Berhampore, The Talisman, Bijanian Utopia, Aston, North-Baltia, Kemdoph, Tomaa, Bill-kalamata 999, Adam Island, Amaris Ursana, Memorial Park, The Hollow Eye, DaJonesians, TheBeave, The Mighty Pump, Borgoa, Pyro Kittens, Purpleation, Freedmark, Ceskeland, Cunnyfuntbooboo, Tierra del Queso, Buaness, Transplanetary Peoples, Cockeysville, Graceofseppuku, Innerfilth, David Schnell, The Marine Infantry, Luna Amore, UpsilonUC, Erroneous Errol Island, Visochka, The 2nd Foundation, Dyvan, Kinkle, Norig Ellison, Crvena Zvezda, Communist Socialists M, Catanacia, Phelton, Pottervillia)

Hope you don't mind me snagging this list for my own agenda. (Don't worry, it's not for illegalization of prostitution)

Lest anyone be tempted to take that seriously, it's a well-done fake by neo-nazi david irving of stormfront.

Proof, please.

Prostitution as legal? No it is moral indecency.
Only sex hungry animals would make prostitution as legal.

Let's be realistic here, people. It isn't fair to future generations if we legalize prostitution. Think of the little girl that's sitting at home, watching TV, while mommy goes out and haves sex with Joe Blow up the street. Not a good rolemodel for that little girl at all.

Or that baby that was born and nobody wants because the Mom is to busy.... making money, and the baby sits at home neglected and unloved.

This resolution is irrelavant and only feeds the evils of the world around us. Don't be one that voted for this to be passed.

Right said JFriends.
The little girl would also take up prostitution.
Who doesn't want sex and that too while earning money and that too legally !!!! ???

it is strange to know that 500+ are with the resolution and 200+ only against.

Reject the Resolution and if we consider religion. No religion gives green for it.

This resolution we see many social benefits from Legalising the Sex Industry.

The sex industry exists any way, in some places it is driven underground where it becomes seedy and expensive. Sexually communicable diseases increase when the industry is unregulated because the product is harder to find and there are no health controls.

Protection for sex workers should be the same as for other workers, but I fear that some sex workers will oppose this because they forsee a possible reduction in their earnings when this resolution is passed.

So we say stop linking sex with criminals, free the sex worker, allow them dignity in their profession.

The sex-industry must be banned.

How can we just allow people to spread all this shit into the society? We must ban prostitution and make reproduction a private act and totally prohibit it in public. Also it should not be compulsory to educate the people in reproduction of human beings.

well, now after I see all the posts against the resolution, and all the hate against it, one thing is sure: this resolution will passed.
the forum was against many resolutions lately (like the great library). they always passed. I could say that you have problems with the luck, but I have no problem with the proposal.
continue with your anger, this resolution will going to the UN books.

See, if you want to stop a resolution, then you need to stop it from ever reaching quorum. There are very few resolutions that are defeated at this stage. Why? Many UN members probably don't even read this board and just vote based on whether they like the issue or not. Those who are involved in brining resolutions to quorum are usually the ones that post here.

And then, with a sticky issue like prostitution, neither side is going to change their mind very much no matter how much we argue. Which is why I just stopped bothering with the abortion and the prostitution thing... .and why i left the UN :P

(i'm just bored right now so I felt like I would drop by for a visit)

From The Desk of Queen Wyntarra Siddiah:

The Kingdom finds this resolution disgusting and vulgar to everything this nation believes in. Our citizens are not at all interrested in such a resolution passing for more reasons than just moral beliefs. The fact that infection and disease could be readily passed on from customer to prosititute then to the next customer is scary enough, but for said customers to take these illnesses home to their partners is frightening. The Kingdom understands that not every person infected with a disease or infection will want to tell their sexual partner of this infliction and while it is possible to have the prostitutes checked regularly for such things, how can you be sure their customers are not already infected before first contact? Getting back to the morality of it, The Kingdom's citizens holds marriage as a sacred thing. Most, if not all, of our citizens are virgins before marriage as that is how our society and culture demands it. If it looks as though this resolution will pass, then The Kingdom is sorry to say, but we WILL be forced to leave the UN before the final vote is in.

The Kingdom of Anandria IS a nation that respects it's people and their freedoms, but we are also a safe and virtually trouble free nation. This resolutions begs for trouble to enter where it is not at all wanted and it will not be tolerated here!

the eastern bloc believes that this law should be passed...

I will make only two points, as this whole thing seems ludicrous and I could rant forever.

When writing a resolution, repeal or not, you need to fully define terms that set limits and plateaus of rights. For example, the word maturity is used as the definitive point when someone can sell their body. Maturity is about as vague as you could get. With such, you need to set age limits and the like, not just restrict something to a word to be taken to interpretation.

Secondly, when saying that government restriction and interference is inherently bad, isn't it just that when you restrict prostitution to only the 'mature.' I think a little rewording is in order.

The Nation of Moritoriad votes against the resolution in the name of morality, safety, and poor-forethought on the writers part.

Im in favour of legalizing prostitution under the conditions outlined.

excellent idea. the Rogue State of Emmental supports any motion that will ensure the future civil and personal rights and freedoms of its people. We see only one problem with this resolution, perhaps someone could speak to it here before our (tiny pathetic) delegate decides to vote:

"ALSO RECALLING Resolution #7 (Sexual Freedom), and Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), which make sex a private issue, instead of a government issue, and stating "a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society" "

does this mean that a new resolution is needed to take the place of the 'Universal Freedom of Choice' resolution? I can understand how it would nead to be recalled in its current state to allow for this excellent new resolution to be legal, however is there not a way that we can reword the 'Universal Freedom of Choice' and 'Sexual Freedom' resolutions to preserve its original spirit? If this particular resolution is gone, governments will be free to make certain sexual acts illegal. They could decide that homosexuality is illegal, or put everone caught jerking off in jail. A noteworthy Canadian politician once said that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the people (not an exact quote, hence no quotation marks).

if anyone would like to comment on this or telegram me regarding thier views, pls feel free! maybe i'm completely off, if so, let me know that too!

thank you,
The Rogue State of Emmental

What the heck!
Are most of you people mad?? Prostitution is wrong for goodness sake! Just wrong. I despair.

What the heck!
Are most of you people mad?? Prostitution is wrong for goodness sake! Just wrong. I despair.

you personally believe that, yes? how many people are in your country? have you spoken to each one personally to ensure every single one agrees with you? People are entitled to thier own opinion. as much as i disagree with yours, i will defend your right to state it. perhaps however, you could give a reason for your view instead of name calling those who disagree with you. the Rogue State of Emmental feels sorry for your nations people.

"ALSO RECALLING Resolution #7 (Sexual Freedom), and Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), which make sex a private issue, instead of a government issue, and stating "a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society" "

does this mean that a new resolution is needed to take the place of the 'Universal Freedom of Choice' resolution?

The word "recalls" is this sense has the same meaning as "remembering" and does not mean a repeal of the referenced resolution. The clause merely calls the reader's attention to and acknowledges the action that is being remembered. It's used as a way of pointing out earlier resolutions whose subject matter overlaps with the current resolution. There is no change in the status of the earlier resolutions.

thank you, Grosseschnauzer. it was unclear as to whether we were talking about the word recall, like 'remember', or recall like 'i had to take my car back to the shop, because it was recalled'. thank you again. i can now vote with complete confidence.

Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations? A violation of a nation's sovereignty is commendable, or even imperative in some situations, such as genocide, it is clearly not necessary in this issue. It is my position that a nation’s sovereignty, while not inviolable, should only be broken the strictest of circumstances. Any potential benefit by this resolution is dwarfed by the harm in allowing the international community to write domestic laws.


Though I stand against the proposal, your argument is a good one and should take the day. The UN should not be dealing with domestic laws.

Prostitution as legal? No it is moral indecency.
Only sex hungry animals would make prostitution as legal.

Ah, yes. The illogical morallity arguement.

Not everyone shares your morals. Stop trying to shove them down the throats of others. Oh, and provide evidence for that claim or admit it's false.

Let's be realistic here, people. It isn't fair to future generations if we legalize prostitution. Think of the little girl that's sitting at home, watching TV, while mommy goes out and haves sex with Joe Blow up the street. Not a good rolemodel for that little girl at all.

How is that any different from mommy having sex with Joe Blow up the street because she likes him and is dating him? She doesn't have to tell her child what she does at work, and responsible parents will have a babysitter for that anyway.

I also fail to see how she is being a bad role model. She is practicing her sexual freedom and is making money from it. Most children of porn stars in the real world don't grow up to work in porn.

Or that baby that was born and nobody wants because the Mom is to busy.... making money, and the baby sits at home neglected and unloved.

No different from if the mother is a single mother and works a job to support herself and the child. Illogical arguement.

This resolution is irrelavant and only feeds the evils of the world around us. Don't be one that voted for this to be passed.

Once again, useless moral arguement. Unless you have something that applies, don't bother arguing.

Right said JFriends.
The little girl would also take up prostitution.
Who doesn't want sex and that too while earning money and that too legally !!!! ???

Quite a few people, actually.

Also, do you have evidence for that statement about the little girl? As it stands, the statement is unsupported by evidence and illogical to assume.

it is strange to know that 500+ are with the resolution and 200+ only against.

Not really. This is early in the voting. It doesn't get strange until we get 4000+ votes.

Reject the Resolution and if we consider religion. No religion gives green for it.

We don't share your religion, and some religions do give green for it if it is the person's choice. Stop trying to shove your morality down the throats of others and try logic.

The sex-industry must be banned.

How can we just allow people to spread all this shit into the society? We must ban prostitution and make reproduction a private act and totally prohibit it in public. Also it should not be compulsory to educate the people in reproduction of human beings.

Emotional arguement, no logic to support it, arguement invalid. Find some evidence and maybe I'll consider it as worthy of being read.

The Kingdom finds this resolution disgusting and vulgar to everything this nation believes in.

Your morality, your problem.

Our citizens are not at all interrested in such a resolution passing for more reasons than just moral beliefs. The fact that infection and disease could be readily passed on from customer to prosititute then to the next customer is scary enough, but for said customers to take these illnesses home to their partners is frightening.

Wow. Someone who obviously didn't read the resolution and just looked at the title. All of that talk about health regulations in the resolution wasn't there as window dressing. Try actually reading the resolution before talking about it.

The Kingdom understands that not every person infected with a disease or infection will want to tell their sexual partner of this infliction and while it is possible to have the prostitutes checked regularly for such things, how can you be sure their customers are not already infected before first contact?

Blood screenings and medical exams before the customer is allowed to see a prostitute. It's not exactly difficult.

Getting back to the morality of it, The Kingdom's citizens holds marriage as a sacred thing. Most, if not all, of our citizens are virgins before marriage as that is how our society and culture demands it. If it looks as though this resolution will pass, then The Kingdom is sorry to say, but we WILL be forced to leave the UN before the final vote is in.

Feel free to leave now. In fact, just go ahead and get out. Threats of leaving are not a good tactic and deserve the nation making them to be ridiculed and disrespected until they leave.

Here, let me guide you out. I'll take you to the express elevator. It'll get you to the exit faster than any other.

Also, that morality thing is your problem, not ours.

The Kingdom of Anandria IS a nation that respects it's people and their freedoms, but we are also a safe and virtually trouble free nation. This resolutions begs for trouble to enter where it is not at all wanted and it will not be tolerated here!

Evidence for this? Or is it just another unsupported and desperate claim from someone who is using morality to oppose something they didn't even bother to read?

I will make only two points, as this whole thing seems ludicrous and I could rant forever.

Then actually rant. Don't claim you can do something. Either do it or don't waste the text talking about it.

When writing a resolution, repeal or not, you need to fully define terms that set limits and plateaus of rights. For example, the word maturity is used as the definitive point when someone can sell their body. Maturity is about as vague as you could get. With such, you need to set age limits and the like, not just restrict something to a word to be taken to interpretation.

Ah, yes. Someone who is ignoring the reality of NS.

NS has more species and more varieties of lifespans than Earth does. Sentience creatures in NS have lifespans ranging from less than a decade to hundreds of years and, in the case of vampires and artificial lifeforms, multiple cases of as close to immortality as you can get.

Defining a range of ages makes some people mature when, for their species, they are still children and others mature long after they have passed the mark of maturity or even the mark of death.

I would like to see you try to set age limits with that kind of variety.

Secondly, when saying that government restriction and interference is inherently bad, isn't it just that when you restrict prostitution to only the 'mature.' I think a little rewording is in order.

Rewording beyond this only makes it exclude nations in the UN.

The Nation of Moritoriad votes against the resolution in the name of morality, safety, and poor-forethought on the writers part.

Morality is a poor arguement not deserving of respect and used as a crutch by those who cannot use logic, safety has already been covered by the resolution, and the writer of this had to deal with the age issue in a way that actually includes all species in the UN. You have no arguement.

What the heck!
Are most of you people mad?? Prostitution is wrong for goodness sake! Just wrong. I despair.

Enotive, moral arguement with no logic or evidence to back. Arguement invalid.

Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations? A violation of a nation's sovereignty is commendable, or even imperative in some situations, such as genocide, it is clearly not necessary in this issue. It is my position that a nation’s sovereignty, while not inviolable, should only be broken the strictest of circumstances. Any potential benefit by this resolution is dwarfed by the harm in allowing the international community to write domestic laws.

Then you have no place in the UN and no business being here. Most of the resolutions passed are domestic issues the UN decided to tackle.

Though I stand against the proposal, your argument is a good one and should take the day. The UN should not be dealing with domestic laws.

His arguement will fail to take the day because it is illogical and ignores the reality of the UN. Take a look in the passed resolutions section and count the number of resolutions that are domestic issues the UN has tackled. His arguement, while nice, ignores the fact the UN deals primarily with domestic issues on an international level.

Ah, yes. The illogical morallity arguement.

Not everyone shares your morals. Stop trying to shove them down the throats of others.

Only once you stop shoving your immorality down other's throats.

How is that any different from mommy having sex with Joe Blow up the street because she likes him and is dating him? She doesn't have to tell her child what she does at work, and responsible parents will have a babysitter for that anyway.

I also fail to see how she is being a bad role model. She is practicing her sexual freedom and is making money from it. Most children of porn stars in the real world don't grow up to work in porn.

Any responsible parent would be willing to tell their child their place of employment unless it puts their child in jeopardy. I would also like to see your evidence of your claim about the children of porn stars. Aren't Hugh Heffner's children also involved in the porn industry?

No different from if the mother is a single mother and works a job to support herself and the child. Illogical arguement.

Women do not typically get pregnant in other industries. However when performing sexual acts for payment there is, oddly enough, an increased chance of becoming pregnant.

Once again, useless moral arguement. Unless you have something that applies, don't bother arguing.

Judging by the fact that over 70% of the population of the world believes in some form of religion that involves morality I once again fail to see how the argument of morality is irrelevant.

Quite a few people, actually.

Also, do you have evidence for that statement about the little girl? As it stands, the statement is unsupported by evidence and illogical to assume.

See my statement on Hugh Heffner.

We don't share your religion, and some religions do give green for it if it is the person's choice. Stop trying to shove your morality down the throats of others and try logic.

Once again, you do not have the voice of every member of the U.N. Many nations in fact do share their religious beliefs. Stop trying to discredit the morality of others when you fail to provide any "logic" for your rebuttals.

Emotional arguement, no logic to support it, arguement invalid. Find some evidence and maybe I'll consider it as worthy of being read.

Many of the laws past by this quorum are based on nothing but the emotion of "Feel Goodism" or pity. Much as the Tsunami Alert System past only because of the Tsunami that occured outside of the game. You once again seek to provide logic but you provide absolutely none in your defense of this bill.

Your morality, your problem.

Your immorality, our problem.

Wow. Someone who obviously didn't read the resolution and just looked at the title. All of that talk about health regulations in the resolution wasn't there as window dressing. Try actually reading the resolution before talking about it.


Actually it truly is nothing but window dressing as you put it. No definitive action is required in the regards of education and health. The only definitive action is the legalization of prostitution.

Blood screenings and medical exams before the customer is allowed to see a prostitute. It's not exactly difficult.

Why should the government have to pay for such things? Shouldn't the "consumer" have to pay for them out of his or her own pocket?

Feel free to leave now. In fact, just go ahead and get out. Threats of leaving are not a good tactic and deserve the nation making them to be ridiculed and disrespected until they leave.

Here, let me guide you out. I'll take you to the express elevator. It'll get you to the exit faster than any other.

Also, that morality thing is your problem, not ours.

Once again your arrogance and lack of moral scruples show your true lack of character. All nations are allowed to be members of the U.N. Furthermore, you have no right to make it a place of immorality simply because you believe your lack of faith puts you on a pedestal above all others who don't share your lack of beliefs.


Evidence for this? Or is it just another unsupported and desperate claim from someone who is using morality to oppose something they didn't even bother to read?

You have no evidence to disprove their claim. It is obvious by their points that to clearly did read the bill in question and once again you use your lack or morals as a shield to the obsurdity of this legislation.

Ah, yes. Someone who is ignoring the reality of NS.

NS has more species and more varieties of lifespans than Earth does. Sentience creatures in NS have lifespans ranging from less than a decade to hundreds of years and, in the case of vampires and artificial lifeforms, multiple cases of as close to immortality as you can get.

Defining a range of ages makes some people mature when, for their species, they are still children and others mature long after they have passed the mark of maturity or even the mark of death.

I would like to see you try to set age limits with that kind of variety.

Then the bill in question should have addressed the fact that sovereign nation should have the right to decide who is "mature" enough not the individual. If we were to use your argument of varying ages than how was the U.N. able to define "children" in previous bills that past?

Rewording beyond this only makes it exclude nations in the UN.

See my point above.

Morality is a poor arguement not deserving of respect and used as a crutch by those who cannot use logic, safety has already been covered by the resolution, and the writer of this had to deal with the age issue in a way that actually includes all species in the UN. You have no arguement.

Morality is not a poor argument for those who actually have it. I'm sure any nation that has the respect of an individual who has no moral character is one who should not be making decisions for the majority of the members of the U.N. Safety was not definitively addressed it was merely recommended. Their argument is just as valid as your's as they are also a member of this quorum.

Enotive, moral arguement with no logic or evidence to back. Arguement invalid.

Once again many of the decisions made here on based on emotions and you also fail to provide any counter logic or evidence to discredit him.

In conclusion, do not think yourself above others because of your thoroughly undeserved pride. You have done nothing to earn the "honor" of discrediting these individuals only because you do not agree with them. If in the future you actually provide evidence and true logic instead of spouting out the words with no actual foundation for them then perhaps you will have some credit for yourself. Have a nice day.

This is a terrible idea! If prostitution is legalised then the world will turn into a cesspit of indecent sex and corruption. The children growing up in the nations will think that paying for sex is a normal thing no matter how much the education system says otherwise. If we allow legalised prostitution then the modern, decent world will be cast back to the middle ages. I am fully against this idea.

This is a terrible idea! If prostitution is legalised then the world will turn into a cesspit of indecent sex and corruption. The children growing up in the nations will think that paying for sex is a normal thing no matter how much the education system says otherwise. If we allow legalised prostitution then the modern, decent world will be cast back to the middle ages. I am fully against this idea.
I agree with you.

1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,
How do you propose to know if said person is mature, and capable of making their own decisions? A legal age would not be enough as there are plenty of people over 18 and 21 who cannot make their own decisions (and many who are corrupt enough to make bad ones, if there weren't those people there would be no such thing as domestic abuse, etc., to begin with).

This resolution definitely gets an "Aye!" from this small nation. The region of my fellow nation states will also be voting, for, this act.

Now, if we could only pass a resolution to properly define a ketch versus a yawl....

Only once you stop shoving your immorality down other's throats.



Any responsible parent would be willing to tell their child their place of employment unless it puts their child in jeopardy. I would also like to see your evidence of your claim about the children of porn stars. Aren't Hugh Heffner's children also involved in the porn industry?

are you asking us a question or telling us your argument? if you don't know what heffners kids are doing then you can't base an argument on it. don't think the opposition is going to prove your facts for you.




Judging by the fact that over 70% of the population of the world believes in some form of religion that involves morality I once again fail to see how the argument of morality is irrelevant.

its irrelevant because the religions of the world are all DIFFERENT! you cannot enforce morality because it is a highly subjective thing. the christian moralty might differ from the muslim morality. if you write a law based on one morality, you have at the same time alienated all other religious morality.


(1)Actually it truly is nothing but window dressing as you put it. No definitive action is required in the regards of education and health. The only definitive action is the legalization of prostitution.

this is because the resolution in question leaves these types of actions to be enacted into law by the nations. it allows each nation to choose how they would like to implement it.



Once again your arrogance and lack of moral scruples show your true lack of character. All nations are allowed to be members of the U.N. Furthermore, you have no right to make it a place of immorality simply because you believe your lack of faith puts you on a pedestal above all others who don't share your lack of beliefs.

again, lack of which faith exactly? people do all sorts of egregious things in the name of thier god. they do good things too, but you can't put one gods will over another. have you ever heard the word 'jihad'? this is why church and state are supposed to be separate.


Then the bill in question should have addressed the fact that sovereign nation should have the right to decide who is "mature" enough not the individual. If we were to use your argument of varying ages than how was the U.N. able to define "children" in previous bills that past?

the bill in question does, thats why it doesn't state it directly in writing. are you arguing that nations should decide the details on thier own as above, or camplaining that the bill doesn't work this all out for you (see quote marked(1))? because you can't have it both ways.


Morality is not a poor argument for those who actually have it. I'm sure any nation that has the respect of an individual who has no moral character is one who should not be making decisions for the majority of the members of the U.N. Safety was not definitively addressed it was merely recommended. Their argument is just as valid as your's as they are also a member of this quorum.

yes it is a poor argument. see my points above.

Ah, yes. The illogical morallity arguement.

Not everyone shares your morals. Stop trying to shove them down the throats of others. Oh, and provide evidence for that claim or admit it's false.
The moral arguement is a two-way street, he can argue against yours and you can argue against his. I wouldn't even mention it if I was either of you.



How is that any different from mommy having sex with Joe Blow up the street because she likes him and is dating him? She doesn't have to tell her child what she does at work, and responsible parents will have a babysitter for that anyway.
Well you named two, for one thing she likes him more as a person then as someone who can pay her to have intercourse with him, they also have a relationship; Prostitutes do not. And I do not see what is so relavent about your last two sentences.

I also fail to see how she is being a bad role model. She is practicing her sexual freedom and is making money from it. Most children of porn stars in the real world don't grow up to work in porn.
Because instead of making the world a better place in anyway, instead of promoting family unity, instead of promoting a healthy lifestyle; she is just being a whore.

And while what you say at the end of your statement is true, it doesn't detere them either.


No different from if the mother is a single mother and works a job to support herself and the child. Illogical arguement.

What you and Noct both say on this point is true, I would disregard it if I was either of you.

Once again, useless moral arguement. Unless you have something that applies, don't bother arguing.

While this point has resemblence to Nocs first one, it is not entirely useless. It does indeed feed the desires of men or women to have sexual relations outside of marriage, it does not strengthen the idea of relationships and it does promote unhealthy conditions; But besides that it is a totally useless moral arguement that only affects people who have a religion.



Quite a few people, actually.

Also, do you have evidence for that statement about the little girl? As it stands, the statement is unsupported by evidence and illogical to assume.
While evidence would be nice it is not entirely illogical to assume that mommys little girl might take up her proffession.




We don't share your religion, and some religions do give green for it if it is the person's choice. Stop trying to shove your morality down the throats of others and try logic.
True again, however alot of people do share his/her religion, thats why people feel its ok to use it as a good argument, because people aggree with him. And could I get the name of religion that green lights it? I am curios.




Emotional arguement, no logic to support it, arguement invalid. Find some evidence and maybe I'll consider it as worthy of being read.
Absolutely agree.

Your morality, your problem.

Same as what was said above.


Wow. Someone who obviously didn't read the resolution and just looked at the title. All of that talk about health regulations in the resolution wasn't there as window dressing. Try actually reading the resolution before talking about it.

What is said on a peice of paper doesn't matter in reality, people still break laws and regulations and no amount of government interference has ever changed that. But otherwise I agree.


Blood screenings and medical exams before the customer is allowed to see a prostitute. It's not exactly difficult.
This assumes that they will go through the exams and that the prostitutes care about reglutions and disease outside of a trusty O'l condom. All a prostitute cares about is easy money, thats the way its always been.


Feel free to leave now. In fact, just go ahead and get out. Threats of leaving are not a good tactic and deserve the nation making them to be ridiculed and disrespected until they leave.


Here, let me guide you out. I'll take you to the express elevator. It'll get you to the exit faster than any other.[/quote]
The good old DLE drive by :mp5: :mp5: :)

Also, that morality thing is your problem, not ours.
As I have said a few times in this post, lets just stay away from morality outside our own regions.


Evidence for this? Or is it just another unsupported and desperate claim from someone who is using morality to oppose something they didn't even bother to read?
I can't argue with you on that one :)

Then actually rant. Don't claim you can do something. Either do it or don't waste the text talking about it.

Really want more posible morality posts? :shifty:


Ah, yes. Someone who is ignoring the reality of NS.

NS has more species and more varieties of lifespans than Earth does. Sentience creatures in NS have lifespans ranging from less than a decade to hundreds of years and, in the case of vampires and artificial lifeforms, multiple cases of as close to immortality as you can get.

Defining a range of ages makes some people mature when, for their species, they are still children and others mature long after they have passed the mark of maturity or even the mark of death.

I would like to see you try to set age limits with that kind of variety.
I think most people forget and ignore that fact.



Morality is a poor arguement not deserving of respect and used as a crutch by those who cannot use logic, safety has already been covered by the resolution, and the writer of this had to deal with the age issue in a way that actually includes all species in the UN. You have no arguement.
Not totally true, it depends ont he morals, a moral value I have is not to murder someone, using logic you can say that this is a moral with something to back it up. Every moral does, but most shown here as you have said have no backing.

I am done for now.

Screw prositutes.

Many of the laws past by this quorum are based on nothing but the emotion of "Feel Goodism" or pity. Much as the Tsunami Alert System past only because of the Tsunami that occured outside of the game. You once again seek to provide logic but you provide absolutely none in your defense of this bill.

Can you prove that?

Based on the fact that you aren't even refering to the resolution by it correct name, I'd suggest that perhaps you did not closely read it.

However, look at the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution. It passed with a 79% majority vote, and at its time represented the highest endorsement count for a UN proposal (it was surpassed by the Tsunami Warning System and the Equality and Fairness proposals).

In the real-world, the Earth has not been hit by a significant asteroid in recorded history. The most famous and most recent likely impact may be the Tungunska Event in Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

People did not support that resolution based out of a "feel good" reaction, but rather a devoted and well documented campaign effort.

Having participated in both resolutions, I know that the Tsunami Warning System resolution shared from the same abundance of research and documentation from which many UN members actually voted from an informed opinion.

While there may be feel good resolutions, I think it is wrong to assume that we know what really motivates nations without looking at the recorded debates. I've done that with respect to this subject (prostitution) and many other subjects. Have you?

I voted for it.

And it's a strong vote. I completely agree.

Only once you stop shoving your immorality down other's throats.
Using moral or immoral as a standard of governing may be useful to you individually - but it has no place in a question that reflects more on individual freedoms and health issues. Many people feel homosexuality is immoral. So? They are still people, entitled to the same rights as anyone else. Trying to limit someone's access to full individual rights based on the concept of "we don't like what you are doing" is exactly *why* there is a UN.
Women do not typically get pregnant in other industries. However when performing sexual acts for payment there is, oddly enough, an increased chance of becoming pregnant.
Oddly enough this issue was not being discussed and was randomly thrown into the argument as though it was pertinent. It is even odder that there is a plethora of birth control devices that would assist with this issue.
Judging by the fact that over 70% of the population of the world believes in some form of religion that involves morality I once again fail to see how the argument of morality is irrelevant.
Because the argument of morality is *always* used to remove a person's access to basic civil and human rights because others don't like what they are doing or how they are living. How is it moral to decline rights to a citizen simply because they disagree with you? Once again, pretty much the reason for the UN to begin with.
See my statement on Hugh Heffner.
I believe the extent of the Heffner children's involvement in pornography is as publishers - not prostitutes. I would assume that if prostitution garnered the level of income Hugh Heffner received, everyone would want to be one.
Once again, you do not have the voice of every member of the U.N. Many nations in fact do share their religious beliefs. Stop trying to discredit the morality of others when you fail to provide any "logic" for your rebuttals.
Morals have no place when discussing the rights of citizens to basic rights, to be free to make judgments regarding their physical body and their employment. Morals are a great thing - however, the majority of "moral" folk are really "religious" folk - not moral. They also tend to be quite willing to become completely immoral when a person is doing something they say some person up in the sky told some other guy thousands of years ago they don't like.
Many of the laws past by this quorum are based on nothing but the emotion of "Feel Goodism" or pity. Much as the Tsunami Alert System past only because of the Tsunami that occured outside of the game. You once again seek to provide logic but you provide absolutely none in your defense of this bill.
While the Tsunami Alert System may have been prompted by a RL event, being an island nation, the RL event created concern regarding Tsunamis and other natural, geological events which could impact my country. If you don't have a coastline where this could be an issue, I can see where you might feel it is "Feel Goodism" - obviously this line of thinking extends from one in which the only useful proposal the UN might have is one that applies directly to you.

As far as logic is concerned, let's try this. When HIV/AIDS was first identified, the good, "moral" folks didn't want to do anything. After all, they brought it on themselves, didn't they? F*** 'em, let em die; we don't want 'em anyway. <snort> Yeah - REAL moral folks.
Actually it truly is nothing but window dressing as you put it. No definitive action is required in the regards of education and health. The only definitive action is the legalization of prostitution.
Correct - which now places the onus of regulating it so that it can *catch* disease as opposed to spreading it directly in the hands of the individual nations. Don't like it? Regulate the shit out of it and no one will find it attractive enough monetarily to want to participate.
Why should the government have to pay for such things? Shouldn't the "consumer" have to pay for them out of his or her own pocket?
That could very well be one of the ways in which your nation regulates it.
Once again your arrogance and lack of moral scruples show your true lack of character. All nations are allowed to be members of the U.N. Furthermore, you have no right to make it a place of immorality simply because you believe your lack of faith puts you on a pedestal above all others who don't share your lack of beliefs.
It is my belief that all persons are entitled to the same rights and standing in society as anyone else. They should also receive whatever protection from disease that my government can afford. I also believe it is supremely arrogant of people to demand that others base their life on what some guy up in the middle of the "heavens" may or may not have said to some other guy thousands of years ago. I firmly believe it is the job of the government to work with and protect ALL of its citizens, not just the ones I happen to agree with. No lack of beliefs as you can see. Just different ones.
You have no evidence to disprove their claim. It is obvious by their points that to clearly did read the bill in question and once again you use your lack or morals as a shield to the obsurdity of this legislation.
Actually it is obvious they DID NOT read the proposal as there is quite a bit about disease and its prevention. The post specifically ranted about prostitution spreading disease all over the place. Exactly the reason for regulating it. Ummm..... duh?
Then the bill in question should have addressed the fact that sovereign nation should have the right to decide who is "mature" enough not the individual. If we were to use your argument of varying ages than how was the U.N. able to define "children" in previous bills that past?
It is obvious that you don't understand how this works. The reason you leave it rather ambiguous is so that the sovereign nation CAN stipulate what the age of majority or reason or whatever actually is in that specific nation.
Morality is not a poor argument for those who actually have it. I'm sure any nation that has the respect of an individual who has no moral character is one who should not be making decisions for the majority of the members of the U.N. Safety was not definitively addressed it was merely recommended. Their argument is just as valid as your's as they are also a member of this quorum.
What is unfortunate is that those of a religious nature firmly believe that anyone who is not religious is not moral. We are quite moral, thank you, and do not need some threat of eternal damnation to be so. Too bad that you do.
In conclusion, do not think yourself above others because of your thoroughly undeserved pride. You have done nothing to earn the "honor" of discrediting these individuals only because you do not agree with them. If in the future you actually provide evidence and true logic instead of spouting out the words with no actual foundation for them then perhaps you will have some credit for yourself. Have a nice day.
This was actually amusing. In reading your position I see no evidence or true logic and yet you demand someone else use it. Morality is too subjective to be used as a sound basis for any logical argument, that being the point of the post. You say DLE "hasn't earned the "honor" of discrediting" people. I wasn't aware honor was required to discredit someone. And then go on to say he is "spouting out words with no actual foundation" and yet you do the same. "Morality" has no actual foundation either, so how do you propose that your position is any better?

I believe that if we are to argue the merits of this proposal intelligently we need to first remove the emotional/Moral implications. In effect we ar4e discussing the free trade of a product. If the issue was concerning cigarettes, which people such as myself find the wholsale marketing of just as morally reprehensable as the trading of sexual services are for others. yet I would wager to say that very few arguments would arrise against a propsal that guaranteed the fair and free trade of tobacco products across the globe.

The Sex trade is little different.

Also, history has shown us that prohibition of products and services is a miserable failure. Alcahol prohibition in the US simply allowed for the rise of influential crime organizations. Prohibition of Marijuana, Cocaine and other drugs as likewise only sent vast amounts of money into the hands of drug cartels. Frankly if a market exists, products and services will be traded.

Meanwhile, if we do legalize these vices, we allow the governments the oppotunity to regulate and tax this trade.

The question before the UN really, is whether or not we should endorse the Free Trade of these services. Woudl you oppose an agreement to engage in free trade of Whiskey? or Cigars? If not then you should support the Free Trade of Sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larencia
Before we get into a debate on the merits of legal prostitution, I believe we must first ask yourself, does this issue fall under the province of the United Nations? A violation of a nation's sovereignty is commendable, or even imperative in some situations, such as genocide, it is clearly not necessary in this issue. It is my position that a nation’s sovereignty, while not inviolable, should only be broken the strictest of circumstances. Any potential benefit by this resolution is dwarfed by the harm in allowing the international community to write domestic laws.




[QUOTE=DemonLordEnigma]Then you have no place in the UN and no business being here. Most of the resolutions passed are domestic issues the UN decided to tackle.



I could not disagree more with this statement. There are many, MANY issues that a nation interested in protecting thier own soveriengty would find it necessary to engage in the UN for. Your argument is simply a very weak, "My way or the Highway" type statement that serves only to weaken the UN, rather then strengthen it. People like you would endorse a Tyranny of the Majority, tell all who disagree with you to just get out. For the UN to truely thrive, it must strive to include ALL nations, and respect the necessity of Nationnal Soveriegnity. The UN should strive to establish Trade amoung its member nations, promote peace and provide a venue for nations to discuss thier grievances. Those issues that transcend the borders of nations, such as Global Warning, World economic conditions and the spread of disease should be discussed here and resolutions adopted. Resolution that merely try to foist one nations beliefs onto another shouldbe soundly defeated, and those that already exist should be repealed.

whoever came up with this act is retarded...their is a reason its illegal in most countries

whoever came up with this act is retarded...their is a reason its illegal in most countries

And what is that reason? Prostitution, like any criminal activity, is dangerous, Pimps often control their employees by suppling them with addictive drugs, such as Heroin; by doing this the prostitutes are forced to rely on them for these drugs, giving the often violent, abusive pimps control over women who have no other options. Being a prostitute is rarely somthing to be proud of, and having to be part of the brutal criminal society does not help. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY!

De-criminalising prostitution, and giving prostitutes right as workers takes most of the risk away from what is inevitably going to happen- even in George Orwell's 1984 prostitution took place. In other words, we can't provent it, so the best we can do is to protect those involved, for isn't that what the UN is supposed to do?

I could not disagree more with this statement. There are many, MANY issues that a nation interested in protecting thier own soveriengty would find it necessary to engage in the UN for. Your argument is simply a very weak, "My way or the Highway" type statement that serves only to weaken the UN, rather then strengthen it. People like you would endorse a Tyranny of the Majority, tell all who disagree with you to just get out. For the UN to truely thrive, it must strive to include ALL nations, and respect the necessity of Nationnal Soveriegnity. The UN should strive to establish Trade amoung its member nations, promote peace and provide a venue for nations to discuss thier grievances. Those issues that transcend the borders of nations, such as Global Warning, World economic conditions and the spread of disease should be discussed here and resolutions adopted. Resolution that merely try to foist one nations beliefs onto another shouldbe soundly defeated, and those that already exist should be repealed.
I don't like the idea of "don't like it, resign from the UN" conversations because the issue of national sovereignty comes up quite often. I've brought it up myself when I've felt the issue does not have enough of an international impact that the UN should be involved. I would think that worldwide health issues such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases impact the world strongly enough that "moral" issues should be set aside and practical ones adopted. However. When a nation uses the idea of sovereignty as an argument against anything they don't agree with, it becomes rather banal and weak itself. If that argument is used too often, the natural response is "then leave" as the whole purpose of the UN is to violate your sovereignty where the issue is weighty enough to affect people beyond an individual nation's borders.

Sporkite is all for this legistation. You have our support.

Our country believes in personal freedom, and the right to choose what will be done with our own bodies. It is not the government's role to determine whether or not a person can allow another access to their body regardless of whether there is an accompanying financial transaction. We support the current UN resolution and do so as the sole UN member from The Confederacy of Denning.

I don't like the idea of "don't like it, resign from the UN" conversations because the issue of national sovereignty comes up quite often. I've brought it up myself when I've felt the issue does not have enough of an international impact that the UN should be involved. I would think that worldwide health issues such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases impact the world strongly enough that "moral" issues should be set aside and practical ones adopted. However. When a nation uses the idea of sovereignty as an argument against anything they don't agree with, it becomes rather banal and weak itself. If that argument is used too often, the natural response is "then leave" as the whole purpose of the UN is to violate your sovereignty where the issue is weighty enough to affect people beyond an individual nation's borders.


I believe we are in agreement here. The UN must maintain a delicate balance of what is important for the world at large v. the importance of repsecting the soveriegnty of nations. As we have both provided examples of issues where a nation would find it necessary to surrender its own csoveriegnity to sme extent in order to protect itself from the predations of other nations it cannot otherwise control. Such issues as Global pollution, disease, etc. However, the UN should not be used as a mechanism to foist what really should be local decisions onto unwilling nations. Issues such as what is the definition of marriage, the status of labor unions within the borders of a nation, what should be the level of spending on education. These are all areas where UN involvment should not be tolerated. These are issues that should be dealt with by the nations themselves. Otherwise the UN simply becomes a Global tyrant.

I believe we are in agreement here. The UN must maintain a delicate balance of what is important for the world at large v. the importance of repsecting the soveriegnty of nations. As we have both provided examples of issues where a nation would find it necessary to surrender its own csoveriegnity to sme extent in order to protect itself from the predations of other nations it cannot otherwise control. Such issues as Global pollution, disease, etc. However, the UN should not be used as a mechanism to foist what really should be local decisions onto unwilling nations. Issues such as what is the definition of marriage, the status of labor unions within the borders of a nation, what should be the level of spending on education. These are all areas where UN involvment should not be tolerated. These are issues that should be dealt with by the nations themselves. Otherwise the UN simply becomes a Global tyrant.
I'm not a long time member here but it seems that those resolutions which are not in the interest of the global community generally don't pass. With the possible exception of one or two resolutions anyway :) I was merely trying to explain why you will see "don't like it, leave" posts rather often. Not because the UN members are trying to be global tyrants, but rather that it is their experience that the braying of the sovereign crowd is heard often enough that it has ceased to have any real meaning. Which is unfortunate, as occasionally this argument is quite on point.

Only once you stop shoving your immorality down other's throats.

So because I do not share your morals, I am immoral? No evidence to back your claim.

Any responsible parent would be willing to tell their child their place of employment unless it puts their child in jeopardy. I would also like to see your evidence of your claim about the children of porn stars. Aren't Hugh Heffner's children also involved in the porn industry?

Hugh Hefner's children are not porn stars. His eldest daughter currently works as one of the CEOs of Playboy. However, his other two children are too young to work in the porn industry, as they were born in the 90s.

However, the son of Bob Guccione (founder of Penhouse) deals with a music magazine and Larry Flynt's (founder of Hustler) eldest daughter leads an antiporn crusade.

Guess it would help if you did your research.

Women do not typically get pregnant in other industries. However when performing sexual acts for payment there is, oddly enough, an increased chance of becoming pregnant.

When typing on a computer there is, oddly enough, an increased chance of carpel-tunnel syndrome and, if you listen to certain crackpots, cancer, heart attack, obesity, etc.

Each profession has its own medical risks.

Judging by the fact that over 70% of the population of the world believes in some form of religion that involves morality I once again fail to see how the argument of morality is irrelevant.

This is NS, not reality, that this affects. What you typed is true of reality, but not necessarily true of NS. And even those on here that believe in religions and are regulars know enough to use logic instead.

See my statement on Hugh Heffner.

Hugh Hefner isn't a porn star.

Once again, you do not have the voice of every member of the U.N. Many nations in fact do share their religious beliefs. Stop trying to discredit the morality of others when you fail to provide any "logic" for your rebuttals.

Since this is NS, my claim of certain religions celebrating prostitution is easily backed up by one of over a hundred examples I can pull up. But let me choose a real-life example.

Perhaps the interesting thing is to look at the Roman religion. It had nothing against prostitution (prostitutes were quite common) and yet lasted for thousands of years before being finally destroyed, though it has begun to make a comeback in recent years.

Many of the laws past by this quorum are based on nothing but the emotion of "Feel Goodism" or pity. Much as the Tsunami Alert System past only because of the Tsunami that occured outside of the game. You once again seek to provide logic but you provide absolutely none in your defense of this bill.

Actually, all I'm doing is pointing out the invalid arguements, which have been considered invalid snce before I started my run on here as DLE. It's a forum standard of the users, not something of an individual.

Your immorality, our problem.

Once again, you make the assumption that just because I don't share your morals that I am immoral. Which is illogical.

Actually it truly is nothing but window dressing as you put it. No definitive action is required in the regards of education and health. The only definitive action is the legalization of prostitution.

You're putting words in my mouth that I did not type. Where did I say it was required by the resolution?

Why should the government have to pay for such things? Shouldn't the "consumer" have to pay for them out of his or her own pocket?

Did I say the government had to pay for them? Common sense dictates that I didn't.

Once again your arrogance and lack of moral scruples show your true lack of character. All nations are allowed to be members of the U.N. Furthermore, you have no right to make it a place of immorality simply because you believe your lack of faith puts you on a pedestal above all others who don't share your lack of beliefs.

Arrogance I am admittedly guilty of. But I have the experience to back it.

You want to know what that was? My standard response to those who use threats of leaving as though they are important enough that we must have their membership. Guess what? They're not important enough that we require their membership. None of us are. They are just a poster easily replaced that has followed the long line of many before of threatening to leave in some vain hope it will magically convince the entirety of the Un to agree with them. If they have to use that cheap tactic, then good riddance.

And, once again, you assume I lack morals just because I don't match the flawed morality I see overriding logic in your arguements. You are relying heavily on morals to attack me, when I have already stated I don't hold morality in high esteem as something to base on arguement on. If you are going to argue morality, have the logic and facts to back it.

You have no evidence to disprove their claim. It is obvious by their points that to clearly did read the bill in question and once again you use your lack or morals as a shield to the obsurdity of this legislation.

Okay, now you're just being a troll with the morality crap. One more post accusing me of having no morals without proof to back it and I will turn you in.

Oh, and their entire arguement about health and safety shows they did not read the resolution, which does include sections dealing with safety and health. It makes such optional, but it does deal with it in a way that allows the individual nations to customize the profession to their needs.

Finally, your asking for evidence from me to back my asking for evidence without providing evidence is a cheap tactic that deserves no respect and is often used by those who cannot support their side. Provide evidence of a claim before you ask me for evidence to back my arguement against that claim that includes an asking for evidence.

Then the bill in question should have addressed the fact that sovereign nation should have the right to decide who is "mature" enough not the individual. If we were to use your argument of varying ages than how was the U.N. able to define "children" in previous bills that past?

In times past, the UN didn't have the variety of species it now does. Besides, if you look under the Child Protection Act it specifies humans. The Outlaw Pedophilia resolution doesn't define what a minor is. The others are a problem, but we are working on them.

See my point above.

We had to fight to get where we are.

Morality is not a poor argument for those who actually have it.

Morality is a poor arguement because morality is subjective. It changes from person to person, even among people of the same religious beliefs. Logic and evidence are not as subjective, and thus have some actual reliability.

I'm sure any nation that has the respect of an individual who has no moral character is one who should not be making decisions for the majority of the members of the U.N. Safety was not definitively addressed it was merely recommended. Their argument is just as valid as your's as they are also a member of this quorum.

So recommendations are not addressing an issue? Illogical, as it addresses the issue by making a recommendation but still leaving you the choice of what to do.

And their arguement is invalid because they are using something entirely subjective, while yours is invalid because of a combination of a subjective issue and ad hominim.

Once again many of the decisions made here on based on emotions and you also fail to provide any counter logic or evidence to discredit him.

See above about asking for evidence. Your arguement is automatically disproven because of that.

In conclusion, do not think yourself above others because of your thoroughly undeserved pride. You have done nothing to earn the "honor" of discrediting these individuals only because you do not agree with them. If in the future you actually provide evidence and true logic instead of spouting out the words with no actual foundation for them then perhaps you will have some credit for yourself. Have a nice day.

Ad hominim attacks, trolling, and a case of asking for evidence in response to my asking for evidence. None of those is deserving of respect in this case.

I consider your arguement disproven because of the above. Keep it up. I'll enjoy watching your arguements destroy themselves, as I love the irony of you using a subjective arguement and providing no evidence while asking me for evidence in response to my asking for evidence. Might as well campaign for the resolution.

The moral arguement is a two-way street, he can argue against yours and you can argue against his. I wouldn't even mention it if I was either of you.

I haven't been arguing morality. If I was arguing my real-life morality, I'd be opposed to this resolution. But my real-life morality doesn't have any logic to back it. Also, I'm partly IC, and ICly my nation has a morallity that allows for prostitution because it can be argued for logically.

Well you named two, for one thing she likes him more as a person then as someone who can pay her to have intercourse with him, they also have a relationship; Prostitutes do not. And I do not see what is so relavent about your last two sentences.

The prostitute likes him enough to sleep with him, only in this case because of the money. And in this case, they have a business relationship.

Because instead of making the world a better place in anyway, instead of promoting family unity, instead of promoting a healthy lifestyle; she is just being a whore.

And while what you say at the end of your statement is true, it doesn't detere them either.

You do realize that being a whore as a bad thing is a moral judgement, not a logical one, right? We do not know enough about what she does at home to make the judgement in this case. Also, that last sentence can be changed to a number of things and apply to women in many professions.

And I agree it doesn't deter them from being it, but if I don't hold the profession as a bad one I wouldn't see a reason to deter them from it.

What you and Noct both say on this point is true, I would disregard it if I was either of you.

In this case, it's a valid portion of the arguement. This is about the jobs people have, and all of the arguements about prostitution taking away from family life are applicable to hundreds of other jobs as well.

While this point has resemblence to Nocs first one, it is not entirely useless. It does indeed feed the desires of men or women to have sexual relations outside of marriage, it does not strengthen the idea of relationships and it does promote unhealthy conditions; But besides that it is a totally useless moral arguement that only affects people who have a religion.

Those desires are fed often by just looking around. If they are having those desires, they have greater problems than being rid of prostitution will solve.

While evidence would be nice it is not entirely illogical to assume that mommys little girl might take up her proffession.

Nor would I dare say that all girls would turn against the profession when they grow older. It's a case of how things are.

True again, however alot of people do share his/her religion, thats why people feel its ok to use it as a good argument, because people aggree with him. And could I get the name of religion that green lights it? I am curios.

The Roman and Greek religions, if I remember correctly, had nothing against it. Same with the Egyptians. And a lot of the modern religions that advise personal choice as highest regard would as well.

What is said on a peice of paper doesn't matter in reality, people still break laws and regulations and no amount of government interference has ever changed that. But otherwise I agree.

Which is why prostitution is such of an issue in the first place.

This assumes that they will go through the exams and that the prostitutes care about reglutions and disease outside of a trusty O'l condom. All a prostitute cares about is easy money, thats the way its always been.

Personally, I solve this with my quarantine and licensing laws. You must have a health exam once a week to maintain your license for prostitution. You fail, you get quarantined. You break quarantine, you get executed. Simple, effective, gets the job done. And not for everybody.

The good old DLE drive by

Remember: DLE is a nation of nonhumans that evolved from humans. It's not different to use than it is to humans killing gorillas for souveniers and meat.

As I have said a few times in this post, lets just stay away from morality outside our own regions.

If we did, this whole arguement wouldn't be happening.

Really want more posible morality posts? :shifty:

At least it's a change of pace from the norm. It's fun to see people argue something they think is right, only to be shot down because it isn't applicable.

Not totally true, it depends ont he morals, a moral value I have is not to murder someone, using logic you can say that this is a moral with something to back it up. Every moral does, but most shown here as you have said have no backing.

I am done for now.

I view certain things as nonissues of morality. Murder, for example, is a nonissue. It has too many logical items behind why it is bad to even need the morality. As you have said.

I could not disagree more with this statement. There are many, MANY issues that a nation interested in protecting thier own soveriengty would find it necessary to engage in the UN for. Your argument is simply a very weak, "My way or the Highway" type statement that serves only to weaken the UN, rather then strengthen it. People like you would endorse a Tyranny of the Majority, tell all who disagree with you to just get out. For the UN to truely thrive, it must strive to include ALL nations, and respect the necessity of Nationnal Soveriegnity. The UN should strive to establish Trade amoung its member nations, promote peace and provide a venue for nations to discuss thier grievances. Those issues that transcend the borders of nations, such as Global Warning, World economic conditions and the spread of disease should be discussed here and resolutions adopted. Resolution that merely try to foist one nations beliefs onto another shouldbe soundly defeated, and those that already exist should be repealed.

I don't like it how it is either, but the joy of arguing outwieghs my dislike of the politics. But, sadly, the UN pretty much is a "my way or the highway" group. You either agree with the majority, or you leave in disgust or get kicked for rules violations. That's simply how it is.

This is a terrible idea! If prostitution is legalised then the world will turn into a cesspit of indecent sex and corruption. The children growing up in the nations will think that paying for sex is a normal thing no matter how much the education system says otherwise. If we allow legalised prostitution then the modern, decent world will be cast back to the middle ages. I am fully against this idea.

Actually, in the Middle Ages the attitude that sex in general is bad was the dominant feeling.

Also, you do have the option of educating people on the subject and are in control of when they are considered mature enough to be prostitutes. Set it at something like 204 years of age for humans and you won't have that problem.

Personally, I set it at 16, the age of maturity for all people in DLE. But my laws typically discourage it due to the regulations and license requirements.

Oh, moral arguement blah blah blah no evidence to support it blah blah blah invalid.

whoever came up with this act is retarded...their is a reason its illegal in most countries

Actually, it's been legal in many countries in NS for quite a long time and in some nations it will continue to be legal for the forseeable future.

Oh, direct flaming. Bad idea.

And what is that reason? Prostitution, like any criminal activity, is dangerous, Pimps often control their employees by suppling them with addictive drugs, such as Heroin; by doing this the prostitutes are forced to rely on them for these drugs, giving the often violent, abusive pimps control over women who have no other options. Being a prostitute is rarely somthing to be proud of, and having to be part of the brutal criminal society does not help. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY!

De-criminalising prostitution, and giving prostitutes right as workers takes most of the risk away from what is inevitably going to happen- even in George Orwell's 1984 prostitution took place. In other words, we can't provent it, so the best we can do is to protect those involved, for isn't that what the UN is supposed to do?

Wow. I was about to argue with your first paragraph until I read the second (good thing I read these before replying). I didn't think of that book.

ok, not sure if this has already been stated......but a real question lies within the realm of social welfare by legalizing prostitution....although i voted in the affirmative, think about this (i think something like this is going on in Germany currently) if you have social welfare programs like un-employment compensation, could healthy people collect unemployment, rather than get a job as a prostitute? technically, they might not be able too.....

I think my last post killed it...

ok, not sure if this has already been stated......but a real question lies within the realm of social welfare by legalizing prostitution....although i voted in the affirmative, think about this (i think something like this is going on in Germany currently) if you have social welfare programs like un-employment compensation, could healthy people collect unemployment, rather than get a job as a prostitute? technically, they might not be able too.....
Wow. An actually interesting question.

Assuming this proposal passes, a government would be free to regulate all aspects of prostitution, and this would be one of those areas which would need to be spelled out. In Zamundaland, one is not required to apply for a job in which a medical risk has been identified unless said applicant specifically chooses to. As prostitution has been identified as having a significant medical risk, it is exempt from the job pool down at the local unemployment office.

Wow. I was about to argue with your first paragraph until I read the second (good thing I read these before replying). I didn't think of that book.
LOL - I almost did the same thing.

This isnt something that should be legislated in the UN this is something for each counties citizens/dictators/etc to decide for themselves.....

though i am voting for it...... :p

Look, can someone clear this up for me.
Is prostitution already legal and is this resolution just going to improve conditions? Or is it making it legal? Thankyou.

(I totally agree with the above post)

Ah, yes. The illogical morallity arguement.

Not everyone shares your morals. Stop trying to shove them down the throats of others.

Looks like somebody didn't read the FAQ. I'll add you to my list.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

Actually, the whole purpose of the UN is to shove your morality, opinions, ideas, and arguments down the throats of others. The FAQ encourages you to attempt to mold the UN to your vision. His particular vision is that prostitution is immoral, and should be criminalized. Your suggestion that he should drop the morality bit goes against everything the FAQ stands for. I'm sorry, but I've declared your argument illogical. Goodbye.

Look, can someone clear this up for me.
Is prostitution already legal and is this resolution just going to improve conditions? Or is it making it legal? Thankyou.

(I totally agree with the above post)


Don't let the title fool you. A resolution that legalized prostitution was just recently repealed. They're trying to legalize prostitution in all UN member states once more, this time under a misleading name.

I agree with florida oranges!!!

And too all you supporting this infringement of the rights of nationstates players:

:upyours:

you have no right to force us into prostitution!!!

This isnt something that should be legislated in the UN this is something for each counties citizens/dictators/etc to decide for themselves.....

So are the majority of UN resolutions.

Look, can someone clear this up for me.
Is prostitution already legal and is this resolution just going to improve conditions? Or is it making it legal? Thankyou

Making it legal.

Looks like somebody didn't read the FAQ. I'll add you to my list.

Actually, the whole purpose of the UN is to shove your morality, opinions, ideas, and arguments down the throats of others. The FAQ encourages you to attempt to mold the UN to your vision. His particular vision is that prostitution is immoral, and should be criminalized. Your suggestion that he should drop the morality bit goes against everything the FAQ stands for. I'm sorry, but I've declared your argument illogical. Goodbye.

Looks like somebody didn't bother to read the very item he posted.

:Adds Florida's name to the list he just added mine to:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

It specifically states a method by which you can force your views on the UN. Nowhere does it state that arguements on the forum about someone else's attempt qualify as such.

And his vision would be valid to be protected by the FAQ if he had bothered to propose prostitution be banned. And your comment of it violating what the FAQ stands for is disproven by the very same portion of the FAQ you posted, which I was kind enough to highlight the portion that speaks as to the FAQ-approved method of such.

Declare all you want, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

I agree with florida oranges!!!

And too all you supporting this infringement of the rights of nationstates players:

:upyours:

you have no right to force us into prostitution!!!

We have the right to force all members into allowing prostitution if the majority of the UN agrees with us. The UN has what rights it chooses that the mods and admins will allow.

Sigh... another old topic rehashed and given a more PC title...

Is this really the best we can do? Force the UN nations to accept something they may or may not want? Okay, so the majority may want it but does this benefit anyone? If you want it for your country, then allow it for your country. Why make it a UN resolution?

This is my whole problem with this this UN. We innact resolutions any country can do by themselves instead of working together to do some really creative things. Instead, we come up with the same old dry, done to death stuff. Is it productive to pass a resolution, repeal it, and pass it again?

You want this to pass? Fine. Let it pass. Let's just let this thing go and move on to something more interesting. There is more to life than hemp and prostitution.

This isnt something that should be legislated in the UN this is something for each counties citizens/dictators/etc to decide for themselves.....

though i am voting for it...... :p

Well... that makes sense. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The problem with doing new and interesting things is the "been there, done that" of many nations. You want to map space? I or one of a hundred others can sell you star maps of more portions of the galaxy than Earth telescopes can map. You wish to cure AIDS? Some nations have. You wish to invent time travel? That's already been done to death. You wish to build a Dyson's Sphere? At least a dozen nations can give you the plans to it and a list of technical difficulties you must overcome. Wish to land on Mars? Contact the Martian government and see if they'll clear a landing zone for you.

The problem we are facing is a lot of the interesting items have already been done to death by individual nations. So, instead we are looking for areas every nation can be included in and come up with these items.

Our country believes in personal freedom, and the right to choose what will be done with our own bodies. It is not the government's role to determine whether or not a person can allow another access to their body regardless of whether there is an accompanying financial transaction. We support the current UN resolution and do so as the sole UN member from The Confederacy of Denning.

Okay, fine. But is it the role of the UN to force nations, who do not want this resolution, to accept prostitution? If your nation wants it, then great, just don't make the rest of do something we don't want.

Again, my point is why are we passing resolutions that any country could do on their own. I know it's part of the game play and that we have been doing this for years, but is there a rule that says we have to continue this way? Can't we use this anyway we want? Can't we work together to pass some meaningful resolutions instead of the same old crap we just repealed? Am I the only one here that thinks we are going in circles?

Looks like somebody didn't bother to read the very item he posted.

:Adds Florida's name to the list he just added mine to:

You sure you looking at my post?

It specifically states a method by which you can force your views on the UN. Nowhere does it state that arguements on the forum about someone else's attempt qualify as such. And his vision would be valid to be protected by the FAQ if he had bothered to propose prostitution be banned. And your comment of it violating what the FAQ stands for is disproven by the very same portion of the FAQ you posted, which I was kind enough to highlight the portion that speaks as to the FAQ-approved method of such.

Scuttle:

Nautical.
To cut or open a hole or holes in (a ship's hull).
To sink (a ship) by this means.

Informal. To scrap; discard: “a program [the] President... sought to scuttle” (Christian Science Monitor).

According to this definition (which is provided courtesy of dictionary.com), the word scuttle means to discard or to scrap. Now, if you review the portion of the FAQ I posted carefully (which I'm sure you've done many times), you'll notice the clip I posted said: "mold the UN to your vision by voting for the resolutions you like and scuttling the rest".

It didn't say "by voting or not voting". It specifically said scuttling. How do you destroy or discard a resolution? I'm sure not voting for it could be one way. However, another way would be to convince others not to vote for it. This is what the original poster was doing. He was trying to convince others not to vote for this proposal using his morality. Obviously his tactic was working, because people were openly agreeing with him. Thus, he was scuttling the proposal.

A minor technicality you've chosen to overlook. If you're going to reference the FAQ when you see something you disapprove of (which is practically ever five minutes), you should know it through and through.

Declare all you want, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

Or so you believe.

Sigh... another old topic rehashed and given a more PC title...
Is this really the best we can do? Force the UN nations to accept something they may or may not want? Okay, so the majority may want it but does this benefit anyone? If you want it for your country, then allow it for your country. Why make it a UN resolution?
Another baseless argument rephrased to sound... not even new. Any UN resolution that passes that I voted against is forcing my nation to accept something I may or may not want. Your point?
This is my whole problem with this this UN. We innact resolutions any country can do by themselves instead of working together to do some really creative things. Instead, we come up with the same old dry, done to death stuff. Is it productive to pass a resolution, repeal it, and pass it again?
(a) Any resolution that is passed is something an individual nation can do on its own.
(b) Try posting a creative resolution. I'd love to read it.
(c) It is productive if enough people feel that it is.
There is more to life than hemp and prostitution.
Is there something more important than guaranteed personal and civil rights unencumbered by religious fanaticism? What might that be?

I was gonna say something, but DemonLord kinda covered it all... eh, here's my take on it anyway.

Everyone that says this is a national sovereignity issue: the purpose is that NSUN is a global sovereign.

Everyone that says its a bad idea: Prostitution has been carried on for countless years. Society as a whole will phase harmful elements (this is a proven sociological effect... look it up, I'm far too lazy to go get a link right now), and seeing as it hasn't, there must be something going on that makes it not harmful.

If prostitution is illegal, it will happen regardless of that fact. But, your country monitors every citizen 24hrs a day, you say? It will occur, because your citizens will believe they have found a way to do it outside your monitoring (regardless of if they actually are or not).

Also, if its illegal, this means the government isn't monitoring it other that the fact that it occurs or doesn't. Thus, we run into the idea, and problem, of pimps. And thats just a bad idea on too many levels to list.

Foglorn is supporting this movement, incase that wasn't overtly clear already.

I am in support of this proposal, but I do wish it allowed nations to make the choice for themselves regarding whether or not to legalize prostitution. If it gets passed, however, I'm not going to complain, and in fact, I plan on writing up a proposal on the specific health requirements for this industry when I get the time.

Didn't we just repeal an act making prostitution legal everywhere? Prostitution is a matter of morality, and should be left up to individual nations like it is now. I have no problem passing an act for prostitution reform where it already exists.

However, I don't want it legalized in my country, and I could have sworn we repealed the last law because of that! DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS. However, if it is resubmitted without the "UN legalization" claus, I would be happy to vote for it.

You sure you looking at my post?

Yes. You enjoy the openings I left? Always beware of the trap.

Scuttle:

Nautical.
To cut or open a hole or holes in (a ship's hull).
To sink (a ship) by this means.

Informal. To scrap; discard: “a program [the] President... sought to scuttle” (Christian Science Monitor).

I prefer the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Their definition:

Main Entry: 3scuttle
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): scut·tled; scut·tling /'sk&t-li[ng], 'sk&-t&l-i[ng]/
1 : to cut a hole through the bottom, deck, or side of (a ship); specifically : to sink or attempt to sink by making holes through the bottom
2 : DESTROY, WRECK; also : SCRAP 2

According to this definition (which is provided courtesy of dictionary.com), the word scuttle means to discard or to scrap. Now, if you review the portion of the FAQ I posted carefully (which I'm sure you've done many times), you'll notice the clip I posted said: "mold the UN to your vision by voting for the resolutions you like and scuttling the rest".

You found the hole. And didn't see the trap.

It didn't say "by voting or not voting". It specifically said scuttling. How do you destroy or discard a resolution? I'm sure not voting for it could be one way. However, another way would be to convince others not to vote for it. This is what the original poster was doing. He was trying to convince others not to vote for this proposal using his morality. Obviously his tactic was working, because people were openly agreeing with him. Thus, he was scuttling the proposal.

There are always going to be people on either side. Just because you have people agreeing with you doesn't mean you've scuttled it. You've scuttled it when the votes turn against it, and at this moment the number of people who support the resolution is nearly double those who oppose it.

You don't scuttle a resolution on the forum. The majority of the voters are not here and don't even visit this forum. To scuttle it, you have to send out telegrams convincing them to vote against it. You have to hit enough delegates and UN members and convince them to post against it to sink the resolution. Otherwise, you have failed to scuttle it.

Those of us arguing on the forum know this. It's been established in the past with multiple resolutions. He isn't scuttling it, but arguing against it on a forum that doesn't actually matter in the voting process and may only convince a handful of people either way.

Thus, the scuttling defense doesn't work.

A minor technicality you've chosen to overlook. If you're going to reference the FAQ when you see something you disapprove of (which is practically ever five minutes), you should know it through and through.

I know the FAQ. But I also know how things are with the UN. If you are going to use the FAQ, you must keep in mind the reality of the situation and know when certain portions apply and when they don't.

Or so you believe.

So I know, not believe.

My chief concern is addressed by Article 5 of the proposition.

While not unalterable opposed to the idea, I am concerned that it's possible we commit a greater human rights violation by forcing religiously conservative or otherwise religiously or morally opposed states (in their majorities) to adopt a practice that they find loathsome themselves.

There is also a further sovereignty issue in that the proposition appears to force member states to spend millions on the rennovation of prostitution "districts" in their homelands.

So...we're not unalterably opposed over here, but there are a couple of concerns that I wish we'd iron out before we try to force the world to legalise prostitution. It's going to be very hard to monitor such a convention for universal enforcement and universal, consistent, enthusiastic compliance.

If we know that something isn't going to be done correctly, it becomes perhaps wasted breath and a waste of influence attempting to get people to say yes to something that will turn into a definite no in their homelands.

Hello,

First of all, a big thanks to all the delegates who supported this resolution. I was pleasantly surprised by the positive feedback, despite the controversial nature of this resolution. Also, thanks to those defending the resolution on this forum during my absence. I'm fairly busy this week, so most of my reactions will be in the short E&A (Exclamation & Answer) form that I'm doing now, having read most of the discussion. Find Mikitivity's post for a links-summary of previous discussions, as a lot has already been said.

Okay, the E&A:
E: "It's moral decency!"
A: No, as moral decency *restricts*.

E: "It isn't Free Trade!"
A: Because the actions (the numbered clauses) mainly deal with economic items. Some are more social welfare-related, some human rights, but the bulk is economy. It's reducing a barrier, making it Free Trade. Discussion about this has happened; see Mikitivity's post for links.

E: "Prostitution is *wrong*!"
A: So you may think, and vote against this resolution if it makes you feel better. But prostitution will still exist in your nation, whether you like it or not. My argument is that legal prostitution is much easier to control as a government. Profit from that. Also, if prostitution is so wrong, then why do you fear your people will be corrupted by it? Surely they are all very moral beings with a leader like you?

E: "Prostitution is filthy!"
A: This resolution cleans it up.

E: "The UN shouldn't deal with domestic issues! This is national sovereignity!"
A: Well, it is as long as you keep your illegally obtained STD's within your borders. But they don't, so it's also an international issue. But on national sovereignity. This resolution takes a bit of power from your government, but it isn't placed with the UN, but with *your* citizens. Also, it places some responsibility at your nation, allowing you to regulate prostitution. So there you have your national sovereignity. And remember: the UN deals with everything. You may say what you want the UN to do, but in this reality, it does everything people vote FOR in majority. If you don't agree, you can either change it by submitting your own resolutions, or quit. Your decision. I decided, after the repeal of Legalize Prostitution, to change it. What are you going to do to improve the world?

E: "Why come up with this *again*?!"
A: Because the original Legalize Prostitution wasn't good, which is why is was repealed. This resolution is better, more flexible, and has more respect for national sovereignity.

E: "This isn't creative, why bother with this when we need to save the world?!"
A: Go on then. Write the resolution. I could do it, so it can't be that difficult. Just don't complain about the level of resolutions when you aren't even trying. But it's not easy. I had a lot of help, we made this, improved this, and interested other nations. Apparently, people *do* care.

E: "I'm still against!"
A: That's okay. But remember: this resolution doesn't *create* prostitution. It's already there. It will always be there. Many people derive pleasure from it, earn a living with it, without harming another human being. Why should that be illegal? Nobody is forced to visit a prostitute.

VOTE AGAINST! We dont need sex and porn to carry on our lives! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :fluffle: Mmm me and vicky :P :rolleyes:

Absolutely NO! :headbang: No way is legalizing prostitution a forward thinking idea. In Obstinasia, prostitues are sentanced to 10 years jail on forst offense and death upon a second.

Another baseless argument rephrased to sound... not even new. Any UN resolution that passes that I voted against is forcing my nation to accept something I may or may not want. Your point?

My point? Why waste our time...


(a) Any resolution that is passed is something an individual nation can do on its own.
(b) Try posting a creative resolution. I'd love to read it.
(c) It is productive if enough people feel that it is.

a) That's my point. Although the The Tsunami, AIDS, Keep the world disease free, IRCO, No Embargos on Medicine, and Increased Access to Medicines (to name a few) are good examples of resolutions with world wide benefits when all the nations work together to work on the same resolution.
b) There are several creative resolutions that have already been passed, but in the two or three months I have been playing here, I have not seen any. Examples, however, would be a clean water/sewage act to provide all nations access to clean water and sanitary environments, global food plans to make sure less fortunate countries can feed their people, create a committee to monitor and maintain the health of the planets oceans, rivers and other bodies of water, organize scientists from all nations to work on cost effective food substitutes, ... shall I continue?
c) I'll give you that one.

Is there something more important than guaranteed personal and civil rights unencumbered by religious fanaticism? What might that be?[/QUOTE]

Where the h4ll did I mention anything about religion? Please! I actually support legalized prostitution, but I do not believe this should be part of the UN. This is under the heading of "Free Trade" which, according the information in these forums, is going to cost my country money and impact my economy, as the resolution header indicates, significantly.

Don't let the title fool you. A resolution that legalized prostitution was just recently repealed. They're trying to legalize prostitution in all UN member states once more, this time under a misleading name.

First, what makes a prostitution, i.e. a person who gets paid for sex, any different than a porn star, i.e. a person who gets paid to be filmed while having sex?

Second, this resolution is in fact an attempt to legalize prostitution. That is very true. The title is not designed to be misleading, but rather to extend what is a very narrow debate to the real issue ...

Namely, do people have a civil right (in NationStates simulated as an economic freedom) to be able to exchange money for services rendering including sexual relations?

Third, I posted some links that I think everybody interested pro / con in this issue should read. I know you participated in the debate on the repeal, so I honestly am not about to insult you by directing you solely to the "Repeal 'Legalize Prostitution'" debates, but point out that I've included links to several recent surveys and also the debates related to the original resolution from Feb. 2004.

In all of the debates, one of the common themes was the discussion not per say related to the legality of prostitution, but rather the public health impacts. While some governments take a great interest in legislating morality, many others restrict or enhance civil freedoms via trade-offs to public health and safety.

In particular, my nation voted in favour of Kepone's original resolution in 2004. I'd have to check my government's records for its vote on North Koster's Ban Trafficking of Persons (the other legalize prostitution resolution which passed and is often overlooked) resolution. But my nation found that Kepone's original document was poorly written and did not really address to my government's opinion public health concerns.

We've supported this resolution because we feel that governments have a responsibility to the people, a social contract if you will. We believe that by criminalizing something, that we alienate the population ... making it harder to care for them. This was our position with the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution, and applies here as well.

We do not feel that this resolution is completely deregulating prostitution, but saying that governments need to find a middle ground.

However, let's look at what would happen if this resolution does not pass:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #68
Ban Trafficking in Persons
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: North Koster

Description:
It is becoming increasingly common that women are sold as sex slaves on the black market. Often the women, who come from less fortunate countries, are lured to more developed countries by people who promise them a better life there. Instead, upon the women's arrival to their new countries, these people deprive the them of their freedom and sell them as sex slaves. This is known as trafficking. 'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. I hereby urge the UN to take action. Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers.

Votes For: 12,501
Votes Against: 2,785
Implemented: Sun Aug 1 2004

UN Floor Debate:
North Koster’s Ban Trafficking in Persons only 2 approvals away! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343522)


I've highlighted the last sentence in blue. This says that women can prostitute themselves, but men (not women) can not engage in this activity. Though there is some wiggle room, as the clause is really concerned about trafficking and exploitation, the statement is still sexist. The loop hole is that women buying the company of women is still unregulated. But men can't enjoy this same thing.

If we could have permitted amendments, I would have recommended that North Koster's resolution, which is a good idea, be changed very slightly.

In any event, there is some degree of UN mandated decriminalization already present.

VOTE AGAINST! We dont need sex and porn to carry on our lives! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :fluffle: Mmm me and vicky :P :rolleyes:
Maybe you don't... but unless you have perfected reproduction in test tubes or some other format, as well as found a way to damper the inherent sexual urge existent in most species - be they human or otherwise - I'm thinking you might.

The problem with doing new and interesting things is the "been there, done that" of many nations. You want to map space? I or one of a hundred others can sell you star maps of more portions of the galaxy than Earth telescopes can map. You wish to cure AIDS? Some nations have. You wish to invent time travel? That's already been done to death. You wish to build a Dyson's Sphere? At least a dozen nations can give you the plans to it and a list of technical difficulties you must overcome. Wish to land on Mars? Contact the Martian government and see if they'll clear a landing zone for you.

The problem we are facing is a lot of the interesting items have already been done to death by individual nations. So, instead we are looking for areas every nation can be included in and come up with these items.

Well said and I understand what you are saying but see my reply to Zamunland. I think there are plenty of good, global initiatives still out there we can work on that would be a benefit to everyone.

Yes. You enjoy the openings I left? Always beware of the trap.

Yes, you're an internet mastermind. A regular keyboard king. Lord of the living room, I fear your power.

I prefer the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Their definition:

Snip. The same definition I posted.

You found the hole. And didn't see the trap.

You lift that corny line off of a Batman movie?

There are always going to be people on either side. Just because you have people agreeing with you doesn't mean you've scuttled it. You've scuttled it when the votes turn against it, and at this moment the number of people who support the resolution is nearly double those who oppose it.

Ah, but it hasn't been scuttled. I never made accusations that it was. Read on for enlightenment.

You don't scuttle a resolution on the forum.

A common misconception. I'll excuse your lack of understanding once more.

The majority of the voters are not here and don't even visit this forum.

Thanks for the links and statistics proving this. Oh wait; there weren't any. How do you know the majority of the delegates don't at least VISIT the forums? You don't. It's easy to state things. It's harder to prove them true.

To scuttle it, you have to send out telegrams convincing them to vote against it. You have to hit enough delegates and UN members and convince them to post against it to sink the resolution. Otherwise, you have failed to scuttle it. Those of us arguing on the forum know this. It's been established in the past with multiple resolutions. He isn't scuttling it, but arguing against it on a forum that doesn't actually matter in the voting process and may only convince a handful of people either way.

Scuttle=destroy
Scuttling=Destroying

The FAQ clearly states you "mold the UN to your vision by voting for the resolutions you like and scuttling the rest". Scuttling is scrapping. Destroying. Scuttling does not mean destroyed. It means in the PROCESS of destroying. In other words, by arguing against this proposal and convincing others not to vote for it, he is in the PROCESS of destroying it. You could argue that telegramming people is a method of scuttling a proposal. You could easily argue that voting against a proposal is also scuttling it. Scuttling a resolution is clearly an art with many methods.

Thus, the scuttling defense doesn't work.

Bested again. Tsk, tsk. You're getting sloppy.

I know the FAQ. But I also know how things are with the UN. If you are going to use the FAQ, you must keep in mind the reality of the situation and know when certain portions apply and when they don't.

I'm only going by what the FAQ tells me. Sorry.

So I know, not believe.

Still in the red zone. Grab the shovel; time to make another attempt at digging yourself out of this one.

This is under the heading of "Free Trade" which, according the information in these forums, is going to cost my country money and impact my economy, as the resolution header indicates, significantly.

I'm not responding to your other arguments, though I'm not disputing them either.

However, "Free Trade" resolutions only enhance economic freedoms. You are thinking of "Social Justice" resolutions which decrease economic freedoms, but increase spending on government sponsored welfare programs.

The crude way I think about Social Justice vs. Free Trade :: Socialism vs. Capitalism. That is a very crude way to think about it.

In any event, there is some degree of UN mandated decriminalization already present.

It was urged, not demanded.

It was urged, not demanded.

:)

You are correct. It was urged, but then again, aren't all UN resolutions just fancy words making strong recommendations.

I think your point is still valid, that it was only "urged", whereas we are talking in this case about something that is an even stronger recommendation.



OOC: This is not addressed at any single individual, but rather a few players:

On another note, I'd hate to see the moderators get involved. I would like it if everybody could agree that the UN FAQ on the main states page is extremely vague and subject to several different interpetations. I certainly do not consider it a mandate for action or inaction, and I've seen the game moderators echo this opinion multiple times. Let's please stick to the issue at hand: determining the responsible level of international / domestic regulation of the sex industry.

:)

You are correct. It was urged, but then again, aren't all UN resolutions just fancy words making strong recommendations.

I think your point is still valid, that it was only "urged", whereas we are talking in this case about something that is an even stronger recommendation.

I'm glad you see things this way. One thing I've always enjoyed about your posts are that they're competent and level-headed. You don't see things in black and white (like I do).

OOC: This is not addressed at any single individual, but rather a few players:

On another note, I'd hate to see the moderators get involved. I would like it if everybody could agree that the UN FAQ on the main states page is extremely vague and subject to several different interpetations. I certainly do not consider it a mandate for action or inaction, and I've seen the game moderators echo this opinion multiple times. Let's please stick to the issue at hand: determining the responsible level of international / domestic regulation of the sex industry.

Sounds good to me. I'll tone it down, and any future posts I make will be directed to this topic rather than the FAQ. I really got out of focus there.

My main concern with prostitution is the crime rate and the health risks. This resolution does not address the rise in crime that is bred by areas containing prostitution, yet it attempts to mention the health risks.

My thoughts on the legal regulation of prostitution are less than optimistic. Most prostitutes are forced into it; they aren't first class escorts with the time, sophistication, and interest in becomming a legitimate operator. Realistically, most prostitutes will continue doing things their way. The tax revenue of this industry will be dwarfed by the resources it would take to effectively bring everyone under the same practices. Crack whores aren't going to have the money to obtain an up-to-code place of business and become licensed, healthy prostitutes. You may have small networks of street-walkers organizing into a semi-clean 'Flea Market' type of rental building, but the vast majority will see no reason to reform their practice. As your average desperate addict should realize: why quit doing things the easy, inexpensive way? Law enforcement's tax dollars are tied up trying to baby-sit a fledgling campus of bordellos!" I predict that if this resolution passes, it will be easier for illegal prostitution to go on than ever.

Yes, you're an internet mastermind. A regular keyboard king. Lord of the living room, I fear your power.

Sarcasm doesn't befit your arguement.

Snip. The same definition I posted.

It looks nicer.

You lift that corny line off of a Batman movie?

Never watched Batman.

Ah, but it hasn't been scuttled. I never made accusations that it was. Read on for enlightenment.

You are asking someone to read for enlightenment, but missing the obvious.

A common misconception. I'll excuse your lack of understanding once more.

Actually, it's a common misconception that you can scuttle a resolution on the forums. Mainly because of the number that have passed in spite of scuttle attempts. But I'll save that for the next post.

Thanks for the links and statistics proving this. Oh wait; there weren't any. How do you know the majority of the delegates don't at least VISIT the forums? You don't. It's easy to state things. It's harder to prove them true.

Actually, I've been doing a private poll of UN members to find out why the UN forum is so unpopular for posting items on. So far, the majority of those I have asked (89% of 1000 members that bothered to reply, names kept quiet to prevent others from flaming them) don't visit the forum at all because of our hostility or something like that. Also, the major delegates sometimes use voting systems to determine where their votes go, meaning one has to convince the smaller nations in thier regions to vote in favor or against the resolution. The one for the East Pacific is here: http://invisionfree.com/forums/The_East_Pacific/index.php?showforum=21

So far, the evidence points to UN members not bothering to visit the forum.

Scuttle=destroy
Scuttling=Destroying

The FAQ clearly states you "mold the UN to your vision by voting for the resolutions you like and scuttling the rest". Scuttling is scrapping. Destroying. Scuttling does not mean destroyed. It means in the PROCESS of destroying. In other words, by arguing against this proposal and convincing others not to vote for it, he is in the PROCESS of destroying it. You could argue that telegramming people is a method of scuttling a proposal. You could easily argue that voting against a proposal is also scuttling it. Scuttling a resolution is clearly an art with many methods.

Logical fallacy. You are right in the methods of it, but wrong in your usage.

The verb "scuttle," like many English verbs, is a case of you're either doing it, attempting to do it, or not doing it. Three options, all of them related to evidence easily obtained. In this case, to be scuttling the resolution he has to be destroying it, but to be destroyed the resolution has to lose. If it is being scuttled right now, it is losing. Let's check the voting results.

Votes For: 2,881

Votes Against: 1,558

The resolution is winning. Therefore, he is not destroying it, meaning he is not scuttling it. He is attempting to scuttle it, but not actually scuttling it.

But, let's check another piece of your logic. You are using this defense to defend against his posts on the board as though they actually matter in the vote for or against it. Well, let's take a look at other UN resolutions that were hated on the forum but passed anyway.

First, the Global Library. It passed 10,398 to 8,691. Yet, in this topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=384848), the resolution was so hated that eventually the author of it turned against it.

Then there's the Rights of Minorities and Women, which passed 12,055 to 6,998. However, in this topic (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373945) it was pretty much agreed the resolution was worthless and not deserving of being passed.

So, tell me: If arguing on the forums can help scuttle a resolution, then why did those two pass?

Bested again. Tsk, tsk. You're getting sloppy.

The only besting in this case is someone not paying attention to UN history. And it ain't me.

I'm only going by what the FAQ tells me. Sorry.

The FAQ doesn't set any guidelines on how to scuttle. UN history does. So while you are going by the FAQ, you're not using it correctly.

Still in the red zone. Grab the shovel; time to make another attempt at digging yourself out of this one.

I'm not the one who needs digging. When you have read the above and considered the facts of the case, come back. Then, maybe, when you see the light you'll realize why I'm enjoying laughing at you.

I've been lighthanded with you so far, but I can get heavy-handed if you require it.

My main concern with prostitution is the crime rate and the health risks. This resolution does not address the rise in crime that is bred by areas containing prostitution, yet it attempts to mention the health risks.

My thoughts on the legal regulation of prostitution are less than optimistic. Most prostitutes are forced into it; they aren't first class escorts with the time, sophistication, and interest in becomming a legitimate operator. Realistically, most prostitutes will continue doing things their way. The tax revenue of this industry will be dwarfed by the resources it would take to effectively bring everyone under the same practices. Crack whores aren't going to have the money to obtain an up-to-code place of business and become licensed, healthy prostitutes. You may have small networks of street-walkers organizing into a semi-clean 'Flea Market' type of rental building, but the vast majority will see no reason to reform their practice. As your average desperate addict should realize: why quit doing things the easy, inexpensive way? Law enforcement's tax dollars are tied up trying to baby-sit a fledgling campus of bordellos!" I predict that if this resolution passes, it will be easier for illegal prostitution to go on than ever.


Prostitutes will be encouraged to clean-up becasue the marketplace will encourage it. Customers, unfettered with the stigma of committing a crime, will be more likely to patronize a clean place of buisness, with lean employees, then some dirty non-licensed provider.

For a real world example please see the red light district in Amsterdam.

My point? Why waste our time...
Some would say playing this game at all is a waste of time... it all depends on your point of view.

a) That's my point. Although the The Tsunami, AIDS, Keep the world disease free, IRCO, No Embargos on Medicine, and Increased Access to Medicines (to name a few) are good examples of resolutions with world wide benefits when all the nations work together to work on the same resolution.
OK..

b) There are several creative resolutions that have already been passed, but in the two or three months I have been playing here, I have not seen any. Examples, however, would be a clean water/sewage act to provide all nations access to clean water and sanitary environments, global food plans to make sure less fortunate countries can feed their people, create a committee to monitor and maintain the health of the planets oceans, rivers and other bodies of water, organize scientists from all nations to work on cost effective food substitutes, ... shall I continue?
Clean water and food plans are great ideas. I have noted, however, that any proposal that organizes a committee or international group is not terribly popular. Has much to do with the nature of the game I would imagine.

c) I'll give you that one.
Cool! :)

Where the h4ll did I mention anything about religion? Please! I actually support legalized prostitution, but I do not believe this should be part of the UN. This is under the heading of "Free Trade" which, according the information in these forums, is going to cost my country money and impact my economy, as the resolution header indicates, significantly.
Sorry - should have been more clear. You did not mention religion, no. But those using "moral" arguments as the basis for their national sovereignty issues are. The issue of legalized prostitution isn't about prostitution, per se. It's about the inherent right of a person to support themselves in any manner they see fit which does not violate the rights of another person, humanoid or whatever. It is about the responsibility of the government to effectively contain or monitor those activities that result in the risk of spreading fatal and potentially epidemic diseases far beyond said country's borders (let's not take the route of if it is illegal it is containing - as clearly prohibition does not contain anything - rather, evidence shows it effectively spreads whatever it was meant to contain). And I wouldn't assume that just because a proposal will affect your economy that it will automatically be affected negatively. New tax base, tourism income, etc. Could be just the economic package your country needed :p

Well said and I understand what you are saying but see my reply to Zamunland. I think there are plenty of good, global initiatives still out there we can work on that would be a benefit to everyone.

And that's the problem: They're only global issues. The UN is an intergalactic group. It includes nations such as my own that are thousands of lightyears away from Earth and nations that can use magic, travel through time, etc.

In order to make them work, you have to word it so that they only affect Earth. Otherwise, they tend to be argued against because they affect someone in a damaging way.

OOC: This is not addressed at any single individual, but rather a few players:

On another note, I'd hate to see the moderators get involved. I would like it if everybody could agree that the UN FAQ on the main states page is extremely vague and subject to several different interpetations. I certainly do not consider it a mandate for action or inaction, and I've seen the game moderators echo this opinion multiple times. Let's please stick to the issue at hand: determining the responsible level of international / domestic regulation of the sex industry.

I didn't see your post before I posted mine. That's how long ago I started it (some of the links were hard to track down due a NS error in the search function and my internet connection hating NSWiki). But, I must agree with you on this.

Sounds good to me. I'll tone it down, and any future posts I make will be directed to this topic rather than the FAQ. I really got out of focus there.

We both did. So far certain posts that needed addressed were missed by both of us. Just ignore my previous post.

My main concern with prostitution is the crime rate and the health risks. This resolution does not address the rise in crime that is bred by areas containing prostitution, yet it attempts to mention the health risks.

My thoughts on the legal regulation of prostitution are less than optimistic. Most prostitutes are forced into it; they aren't first class escorts with the time, sophistication, and interest in becomming a legitimate operator. Realistically, most prostitutes will continue doing things their way. The tax revenue of this industry will be dwarfed by the resources it would take to effectively bring everyone under the same practices. Crack whores aren't going to have the money to obtain an up-to-code place of business and become licensed, healthy prostitutes. You may have small networks of street-walkers organizing into a semi-clean 'Flea Market' type of rental building, but the vast majority will see no reason to reform their practice. As your average desperate addict should realize: why quit doing things the easy, inexpensive way? Law enforcement's tax dollars are tied up trying to baby-sit a fledgling campus of bordellos!" I predict that if this resolution passes, it will be easier for illegal prostitution to go on than ever.

Then up your police funding, give them better training and equipment, and let them loose to patrol the streets. You'd be surprised what a few computers, some cameras, and an alteration to IDs to include electromagnetic strips can do to stop crime.

i think this matter if passed will kill many people with many diseases i mean if u want yr people to die!!! thats your opinion but thats not what for my nation so i am against it and thats my opinion.



thanks,

gen.jack scarlington

I suppose I'm too late to warn everyone about Oranges's and DLE's bickering.

Can you guys try not to kill each other too bad?

Don't tear down the opponent when you can talk about the resolution.

Kicking each other around isn't excatly going to make a point for either of you.

I'm FOR by the way.

Hmm...it seems Oranges has been the bigger man and ended it.

This means DLE is going to have to say something to save his reputation.

I feel like a sportscaster.

My main concern with prostitution is the crime rate and the health risks. This resolution does not address the rise in crime that is bred by areas containing prostitution, yet it attempts to mention the health risks.
Crime rates in areas that have prostitution are not a result of the prostitution, but more easily linked to the prohibition on prostitution.

My thoughts on the legal regulation of prostitution are less than optimistic. Most prostitutes are forced into it;
Where are you getting this information? Not true.

they aren't first class escorts with the time, sophistication, and interest in becomming a legitimate operator.
They could be. As to no interest in becoming legitimate, again I have to ask where you are getting your information?

Realistically, most prostitutes will continue doing things their way. The tax revenue of this industry will be dwarfed by the resources it would take to effectively bring everyone under the same practices.
Depends on how you do it. In Zamundaland a prostitute must be registered with a brothel and street-side selling is prohibited. We haven't found regulating it to be terribly onerous.
Crack whores aren't going to have the money to obtain an up-to-code place of business and become licensed, healthy prostitutes. You may have small networks of street-walkers organizing into a semi-clean 'Flea Market' type of rental building, but the vast majority will see no reason to reform their practice.
Implement severe penalties for not complying. Most "crack whores" don't do any significant time when arrested.

As your average desperate addict should realize: why quit doing things the easy, inexpensive way? Law enforcement's tax dollars are tied up trying to baby-sit a fledgling campus of bordellos!" I predict that if this resolution passes, it will be easier for illegal prostitution to go on than ever.
Your basic premise is flawed, making your argument flawed. Not all prostitutes are desperate drug addicts. In fact, a great many of them are not. As to illegal prostitution being easier than ever... check out RL Nevada.

I realize it is more politically correct to portray prostitutes as horribly abused drug addicts who were forced into "this way of life" but it is hardly accurate. This bias is a result of thinking that there is something wrong with sex and by extension, sex for money. Prostitution is actually defined as "sex in exchange for ANY consideration." Therefore, the wifey who wanted a mink coat and performed oral sex for her husband because she knew he would give her what she wanted is practicing prostitution. The act itself is nothing - it is the power we infuse it with that creates the problem.

:sees FO's last post, notes that DLE's player can't be the bigger man no matter how hard they tried due to nature, moves on ;) :

i think this matter if passed will kill many people with many diseases i mean if u want yr people to die!!! thats your opinion but thats not what for my nation so i am against it and thats mt opinion.

Did you happen to notice the multiple areas of the resolution talking about health and safety? Try using the recommendations, and if you wish more I can provide them.

Oh, there are ways to regulate this that result in effective illegality...

I suppose I'm too late to warn everyone about Oranges's and DLE's bickering.

Meh. It's nothing serious. Hell, you watch and next time we'll probably be on the same side.

Can you guys try not to kill each other too bad?

But... but... the pretty red water won't flow then...

Don't tear down the opponent when you can talk about the resolution.

What about tearing down your opponent and talking about the resolution? Wait, that's what started the last arguement...

Kicking each other around isn't excatly going to make a point for either of you.

No, but we make plenty of humanoid soccer goals that way.

I'm FOR by the way.

Yay! Now, back to the bashing of the resolution's enemies over the head with a large club while grunting derisively. Want to join in?

Hmm...it seems Oranges has been the bigger man and ended it.

This means DLE is going to have to say something to save his reputation.

Err, look at my previous two posts... And if I were to save my reputation, I'd say nothing. My reputation off of the forums is that I live up to the Demon Lord part of my name.

I feel like a sportscaster.

It's the bottom of the ninth and Mr. Ihateprostitution is at the bat. DLE is looking him over and recieves the signal from the ref. There's the windup, the pitch, and OH MY GOD! DLE struck the batter in the forehead with the ball! Mr. Ihateprostitution is going into convulsions on the ground! I repeat, DLE has knocked out Mr. Ihateprostitution and he's going into convulsions! This looks bad, folks.

Markinland has voted NO and encourages all members in its region to do likewise. Prostitution is immoral and it would be very dangerous to legalize it (e.g. spread of STDs).

Markinland has voted NO and encourages all members in its region to do likewise. Prostitution is immoral and it would be very dangerous to legalize it (e.g. spread of STDs).


*looks at Markinland having convulsions on the ground*

Well, looks like everything got wrapped up in the end, folks.

Markinland has voted NO and encourages all members in its region to do likewise. Prostitution is immoral and it would be very dangerous to legalize it (e.g. spread of STDs).

Morality is subjective. To you, it's immoral. To me, it's not. That's what makes morality be considered by certain members on here as invalid.

Also, the health issue is covered.

Well, if morality is subjective, then I suppose child abuse, slavery and other forms of oppression can be considered okay, right? After all, nothing can be seen as being immoral...

Well, if morality is subjective, then I suppose child abuse, slavery and other forms of oppression can be considered okay, right? After all, nothing can be seen as being immoral...

Well, I suppose they can, except we already have alot of resolutions against them.

What's wrong with using morality to make an argument then? The initial resolution legalizing prostitution was recently repealed so clearly many people here have a problem with prostitution on a moral level.

Well, if morality is subjective, then I suppose child abuse, slavery and other forms of oppression can be considered okay, right? After all, nothing can be seen as being immoral...

That's when you get into logic, which is what I prefer. Child abuse is bad due to the possibility of mental and physical problems resulting from it, meaning one less worker. Plus, DLE is a society that values guns and allows plenty of revenge, often with the abused child later murdering the abuser. It tends to cut down on the death rate if child abuse is illegal.

The slavery issue actually depends on the type of slavery. Certain kinds of slavery in reality were actually good to the slaves. However, all of those predate the fall of the Roman Empire. The ones afterwards were heinous. The reason I say that is the death and disease rate is too high for comfort.

When it comes to oppression, it does depend. DLE is a multination empire ruled over by a dictator. Humans inside the empire tend to suffer from prejudice due to their genetic inferiority and the fact the government can't be bothered to give a damn about them as long as more important issues are at hand.

What's wrong with using morality to make an argument then? The initial resolution legalizing prostitution was recently repealed so clearly many people here have a problem with prostitution on a moral level.

Did you actually read the repeal? The arguements against it were related to health, not to morals.

When it comes to morality, it's pretty much religion. If it can be backed up logically, you won't find much trouble using it if you post the logic.

I suppose I'm too late to warn everyone about Oranges's and DLE's bickering.

Can you guys try not to kill each other too bad?

Don't tear down the opponent when you can talk about the resolution.

Kicking each other around isn't excatly going to make a point for either of you.

I'm FOR by the way.

Hmm...it seems Oranges has been the bigger man and ended it.

This means DLE is going to have to say something to save his reputation.

I feel like a sportscaster.

Aw c'mon, it ain't that bad. DLE's like the big brother I never had. I fill his jock strap with itching powder and steal his clothes, and he gives me noogies and beats me up. It's all in brotherly love.

I do remember that some members did bring up their moral opposition to the initial resolution that legalized prostitution. That said, I do believe that health is a huge concern. The legalization of prostitution will likely lead to much higher numbers of prostitutes and therefore more dangerous (i.e. unprotected) sexual activity. It's all well and good to say that the governments should regulate prostitution, but like any industry the opportunity to flout these regulations clearly exists.

Aw c'mon, it ain't that bad. DLE's like the big brother I never had. I fill his jock strap with itching powder and steal his clothes, and he gives me noogies and beats me up. It's all in brotherly love.


I just wonder what DLE has to say about that hehe.

I do remember that some members did bring up their moral opposition to the initial resolution that legalized prostitution. That said, I do believe that health is a huge concern. The legalization of prostitution will likely lead to much higher numbers of prostitutes and therefore more dangerous (i.e. unprotected) sexual activity. It's all well and good to say that the governments should regulate prostitution, but like any industry the opportunity to flout these regulations clearly exists.

The health issues is why the options of healt regulations were put in. The reason why they are voluntary for the nation is because of the fact the health needs vary from nation to nation.

Yes, the opportunity to flout regulations exists. But if that were a reason not to have a profession that can spread disease, we would have anything related to medical care, food preparation, and water sanitation around.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this resolution. I would be surprised if it passes, but if it does, c'est la vie.

Let's be realistic here, people. It isn't fair to future generations if we legalize prostitution. Think of the little girl that's sitting at home, watching TV, while mommy goes out and haves sex with Joe Blow up the street. Not a good rolemodel for that little girl at all.

Or that baby that was born and nobody wants because the Mom is to busy.... making money, and the baby sits at home neglected and unloved.

This resolution is irrelavant and only feeds the evils of the world around us. Don't be one that voted for this to be passed.

Actually with this resolution mommy would work an 8 hour shift at a sex store and make MORE than wnough money to pay for day(night)care or a babysitter.

If so, you just regulate it in such a way it's effectively illegal.

If so, you just regulate it in such a way it's effectively illegal.

Doesn't that make this whole exercise kind of pointless, then? Wouldn't it be better for individual member states to decide on whether or not prostitution should be legal?

I have voted for this resolution.

I believe a well regulated open sex industry is a lot more beneficial for my nation than an unregulated hidden industry. I won't go waffling on about this, as most positive points have already been covered, and a lot better than I could ever say them.

OOC
One of the reasons I am so firmly for legal prostitution, is because I live in an Australian state that has it. This has had absolutly no impact on my life, or on the lives of anyone I know. My city has'nt degenerated through moral decay, we have'nt had an explosion of STDs, and no-one is forced to work in a brothel. On the contrary it has cleaned up a lot of the old red light area's and improved the working conditions for sex workers 100 fold. Street walkers still exist, are still illegal and are still arrested, but overall, the move to legality has been very positive.

Prostitution in Queensland (http://www.gnl.com.au/index.php?action=view&view=157)

Fellow delegates... I find it hilariously contradictory that member states would further individual choice by forcing legislation down the throats of us and our citizens.

Whose standards?
First of all, what does it mean to "legalize" prostitution? It would be undesirable (for most) to legalize prostitution in every case (i.e. forced prostitution), and the proposal talks about the ability of states to regulate the industry. But what if a state "legalizes" prostitution, but regulates it so heavily, that in practice its only *really* legal on February 29th between 3:47 and 3:52 am... and only in my bedroom. (It's good to be the king.) The proposal doesn't make any mention of minimum circumstances under which prostitution would be considered legal (by international standards) creates no entity for determining whether these standards have been met, and lays out no sanctions for those nations who are in violation.

Harms to political freedoms v. benefits to economic
Second, I applaud the authors for their recognition that this has much more about a person's ability with a person’s right to enter in a particular professional endeavor than any sort of sexual freedom (which is covered under other resolutions). That said, I don't believe that protecting a particular profession is sufficient enough cause for the UN to be preempting national laws. The UN *should* be in the business of protecting basic human rights. This will occasionally conflict with the sovereignty of member nations in some instances. But the UN must weigh its decisions against the harm done by removing political options from states and citizens... I like lawn darts. I think that people are pansies of they outlaw lawn darts, because a bunch of idiot kids poked their eyes out. But I'm not about to ask the UN to adopt a resolution that would legalize lawn darts in all member countries so that we can protect the rights and livelihoods of lawn dart manufacturers. That would make me even worse than the tiddly-winks-totalers. If the authors of this prop want to address facets of the sex industry that don't impugn on national sovereignty (international trafficking of sex workers or resolving disputes on extradition of sex offenders), I think that would be admirable.

Argument of the Lazy
Third, I think it is a silly argument to say that "prostitution is going to happen anyway, so you might as well legalize it." Terrorism is also going to happen anyway, and somehow I don't think that legalizing it is going to allow you to control the problems associated with it.

In closing, I say celebrate our diversity. Let nations decide for themselves if/how they will regulate the sex industry.

The right honorable delegate of the Republic of Lordosis

Well, saying that you're right doesn't make a good persuasive document.

It just makes you look like a loon, despite evidence that you'vre given.

I've voted against myself, this seems an issue that would be better suited to be handled by individual nations rather than forcing them to either have or not have such a controversial "industry".

I've voted against myself, this seems an issue that would be better suited to be handled by individual nations rather than forcing them to either have or not have such a controversial "industry".

I think you could have worded that so it doesn't seem like you're 'voting against yourself'.

Chairman Vladmir has named this resolution the "Pervert Amendment". He is even more strongly against it than previous leader ex-Grand Archduke Kirby. All relations with nations voting for this resolution will be terminated.

Chairman Vladmir:
"The People's Republic of Sel Appa will strongly oppose this resolution if passed. If passed, Sel Appa will not recognize it as a true resolution."

A poll taken from 1000 random people throughout PRSA:
89%-Against
5%-For
6%-I like pie!

Reject the Resolution and if we consider religion. No religion gives green for it.

We must of course consider religion so can anyone define and sensibly explain any religion's objection to this resolution?

A person in a relationship who choses to visit a sex worker would seem to me unworthy of being inside that relationship, far better they are given the freedom by society to admit their choice,then be able freely to be screened for SDTs. Without internal guilt, rather than lurk in a shadowy world of explotation by criminals.

Should not a resolution like this, which puts so much rhetorical weight on individuals' responsibility and entitlement to make these decisions for themselves, be rightly left to the discretion of the individual member states to implement or not depending on the nature of their own societies? Under its federal structure, the Federation of Viliet's central government is forbidden to impose such a law on its own republics. Consequently, Viliet rises in opposition to this ill-conceived resolution.

Is it possible--or prudent--to legislate on such an issue with such a broad brush?

Respectfully stated,

The Foreign Ministry of the Federation of Viliet

Should not a resolution like this, which puts so much rhetorical weight on individuals' responsibility and entitlement to make these decisions for themselves, be rightly left to the discretion of the individual member states to implement or not depending on the nature of their own societies? Under its federal structure, the Federation of Viliet's central government is forbidden to impose such a law on its own republics. Consequently, Viliet rises in opposition to this ill-conceived resolution.

Is it possible--or prudent--to legislate on such an issue with such a broad brush?

Respectfully stated,

The Foreign Ministry of the Federation of Viliet


Except in that ther eis the potential for Trade to occur between diferent nations, therefore it very well may become an issue of internatinal trade, hencforth within the pervue of the UN. Even I, a staunch National Soveriegnist can see that this issue is one of Free Trade.

If this prostitution bill passes, how can i leave the un and make hookers illegal?

[QUOTE=Groot Gouda]
That is done because not everything should be prescribed by the UN. Basically, the freedom to prostitute your body is being given where it belongs - to the individual. The rest serves as a guideline, but each nation might have its own peculiarities and might want to do things differently. That's up to them. National Sovereignity, but with an international UN framework.

I dont understand how safty isn't an international concern but the act of selling sex is. If you're going to infinge on the rights of personal governments by taking away their right to decide on their own the legallity of prositution, then why not take it the next step, at least then you would be protecting the people, not just inforcing your personal veiws on the legality of the issue. National Sovereignity...the health and safty of people is more of an international issue than whether protitution is legal. I am against this not because of moral principal but because there is no reason for the UN to make such a blatent resolution. It should be up to the government, and then health and safty should be inforced on those that choose to have it.

I think this resolution is just for whoremongers to live out fantasies and try to enforce their desires on the world.

Actually with this resolution mommy would work an 8 hour shift at a sex store and make MORE than wnough money to pay for day(night)care or a babysitter.



What a nice image. The mother works 40 hours a week servicing men. Why not make a resolution making Nations provide real jobs to every person, rather than legalize the immoral? Besides think about the children of the prostitutes. Would you like your mom to be a ho?

I think this resolution should have tried to make it so that the U.N. may not pass laws either legalizing or illegalizing prostitution. The decision should be left to the seperate nations or regions.
What it could have done is make standard regulations for the industry where legal, but not force it to be legal in all UN nations. I'm not going to argue that now, though.


What I will do is point out some flaws I noticed in the wording of the resolution.

"1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute, "
I believe the correct punctuation is: "DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN; any person who is mature and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,"

'... that will give more choice...' should probably be "choices" or be worded differently.

"renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas" should be worded more like "renovate (decrepit, run-down, etc.) areas which will be used by the industry" Otherwise, who defines "old"? A building could be relatively new, and still be falling apart.

'people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.'
First of all, it should be "involved in commiting". Otherwise, you are saying you should punish all of the people involved with these crimes, including the victims.
Actually, everything after the parenthesis in number 5 should be removed. It would not change the resolution at all except to make it more concise. This section also sounds like the author is condemning certain things in order to make it seem more palatable to those that would normally be against this resolution.


I just think that it needs to be reworded/fixed up/proofread before it is brought into law. That way there will be less need for resolutions modifying this resolution in the future. I think the people for the resolution would agree that getting right the first time would be a good idea.

I am voting against this measure due to its major flaws, and I recommend that others do the same.

I think this resolution should have tried to make it so that the U.N. may not pass laws either legalizing or illegalizing prostitution. The decision should be left to the seperate nations or regions.

We can't make a resolution that prohibits / restricts future "no-action". Or at least I don't think we can. My guess is that such a resolution would be shot down by the UN Secreteriat as violating "game mechanics", and the nation responsible for the resolution would be issued a UN warning. Three of these results in permanent ejection from the UN.

The question is, after looking at the old resolution, do you feel that this is an acceptable solution to a common problem? Ultimately my government feels that this is the real question.

The finer points of this resolution were debated in detail since mid-Jan. 2005, but have been aired out in previous debates, including the original debate for Kepone's resolution (which was repealed).

This is the sick kind of suff the UN is suppost to pretect us from. You can' t have whore walking about speading harmful even deadly std's. I don't care what you say you can't test ever consummer and condoms aren't prefect. Further more it immoral. Beside only losser whould want to pay for sex when they can build up there confendents or get rich. This act would do more harm than good. So i say don't make me more ashamed of being a UN member.

I may be stating the alreadysaid, since I don't have time to read all the posts on this; I'm just throwing my two cents at it.

It is poorly worded. I agree with the legalization and regulation of prostitution...it is after all the oldest profession on the planet...and if prostitutes were paying taxes on their, ahem, "incomes" in return for protection and health services, society would benifit. It would reduce rape and std's. Granted, I think an honest ACCURATE sex education should also go hand-in-hand with something like this. Sex is very much a part of life, wether you like it or not, and it WILL HAPPEN, again, wether you like it or not.

Also I think that there should be some kind of stipulation about getting out of the prostitution biz, if an individual is so inclined... something like severence pay or reduced tuition for education that would allow them to set up a new career.
Overall, I like the idea, and legalization should occur...however, this does not meet with my requirements and I will there for be voting against this. I would like to see a re-vamped version up for vote again soon!

Warning! Long post!

Doesn't that make this whole exercise kind of pointless, then? Wouldn't it be better for individual member states to decide on whether or not prostitution should be legal?

Maybe. Maybe not. But as this is an issue that neither side can agree to let be, I would prefer the side I am on to come out victorious than risk the other side banning it. Such is the nature of the game.

Fellow delegates... I find it hilariously contradictory that member states would further individual choice by forcing legislation down the throats of us and our citizens.

Then you must find a lot of the UN resolutions, such as the Universal Bill of Rights, Sexual Freedom, Gay Rights, and others hilariously contradictory.

Whose standards?

Yours. All the resolution does is have you make it legal. It then asks you to put regulations on prostitution, but doesn't require them. Basically, it makes it legal and then allows you to decide in what way.

First of all, what does it mean to "legalize" prostitution?

Simple: Your police stop arresting prostitutes. You get to choose which prostitutes they don't arrest.

It would be undesirable (for most) to legalize prostitution in every case (i.e. forced prostitution), and the proposal talks about the ability of states to regulate the industry. But what if a state "legalizes" prostitution, but regulates it so heavily, that in practice its only *really* legal on February 29th between 3:47 and 3:52 am... and only in my bedroom. (It's good to be the king.)

That is your option. The resolution was, from my reading of it, designed with that option in mind.

The proposal doesn't make any mention of minimum circumstances under which prostitution would be considered legal (by international standards) creates no entity for determining whether these standards have been met, and lays out no sanctions for those nations who are in violation.

The reason it doesn't is the wide variety of nations in the UN. Some, due to disease epidemics, require it to be regulated almost to being illegals. Others have no problem with it being totally uncontrolled. In fact, all this really does is address the issues brought up with the repeal by allowing something the previous didn't in the wording of the proposal. Pretty much, you're free to regulate it as you wish without outside interference. The only people who should be unhappy are those who want to ban it outright in the entire UN.

Harms to political freedoms v. benefits to economic
Second, I applaud the authors for their recognition that this has much more about a person's ability with a person’s right to enter in a particular professional endeavor than any sort of sexual freedom (which is covered under other resolutions). That said, I don't believe that protecting a particular profession is sufficient enough cause for the UN to be preempting national laws.

That arguement can be extended to sexuality, species, environmental regulations, etc.

Sufficient cause is that enough UN members believe it should be considered by the UN. That is all the UN needs to consider it because of how it is designed.

The UN *should* be in the business of protecting basic human rights.

Don't you mean "basic human privilages?" The only basic right you have is the right to die. The rest can be taken away from you with ease.

This will occasionally conflict with the sovereignty of member nations in some instances. But the UN must weigh its decisions against the harm done by removing political options from states and citizens...

All the UN must do is decide whether it wants something to be voted on, and then whether to pass it or not.

I like lawn darts. I think that people are pansies of they outlaw lawn darts, because a bunch of idiot kids poked their eyes out. But I'm not about to ask the UN to adopt a resolution that would legalize lawn darts in all member countries so that we can protect the rights and livelihoods of lawn dart manufacturers. That would make me even worse than the tiddly-winks-totalers. If the authors of this prop want to address facets of the sex industry that don't impugn on national sovereignty (international trafficking of sex workers or resolving disputes on extradition of sex offenders), I think that would be admirable.

Already done on that last part. Read the passed resolutions.

Argument of the Lazy
Third, I think it is a silly argument to say that "prostitution is going to happen anyway, so you might as well legalize it." Terrorism is also going to happen anyway, and somehow I don't think that legalizing it is going to allow you to control the problems associated with it.

Wanna bet? Terrorist actions against other nations are, by DLE law, perfectly legal. One of my citizens is legally allowed to take a nuclear device, go into one of your cities, and detonate it. Now, how do I control the terrorists who would do this? My border guards are loyal military, and each one is probably more heavily armed than your entire military. They decide who comes in and who leaves, and they're very efficient at their job.

As for internal problems: Those are also controlled, by a combination of military, police, and public cameras armed with special equipment. You don't pass down one of my streets without my police forces knowing everything about you, down to your cellular structure and genetic coding.

In closing, I say celebrate our diversity. Let nations decide for themselves if/how they will regulate the sex industry.

That's what this does. It doesn't say you have to regulate it, only asks that you do.

Chairman Vladmir has named this resolution the "Pervert Amendment". He is even more strongly against it than previous leader ex-Grand Archduke Kirby. All relations with nations voting for this resolution will be terminated.

Chairman Vladmir:
"The People's Republic of Sel Appa will strongly oppose this resolution if passed. If passed, Sel Appa will not recognize it as a true resolution."

It will be sad to lose our connections over something as trivial as this, a resolution designed in such a way you can exploit it to be effectively rid of prostitution and yet still be complying by it. If you wish, I can give you enough exploits to be completely rid of it for your nation.

Also, I would like to remind Vladmir the UN Gnomes give Sel Appa no choice but to recognize this resolution as long as Sel Appa is a UN member.

If this prostitution bill passes, how can i leave the un and make hookers illegal?

Go to the UN page and look at the top. It has an option to resign from the UN. Click it, follow instructions.

I think this resolution is just for whoremongers to live out fantasies and try to enforce their desires on the world.

If I were living out my fantasies through the UN, prostitution wouldn't be the arguement of the day. The arguement would be over how to deal with a nation that does things so horrible that the mods will have probably come down on me multiple times. I have a dark fantasy life.

What a nice image. The mother works 40 hours a week servicing men. Why not make a resolution making Nations provide real jobs to every person, rather than legalize the immoral? Besides think about the children of the prostitutes. Would you like your mom to be a ho?

We've had the morality discussion. It's pretty much not accepted without facts to back it.

As for real jobs: Too many nations in the UN lack economies to support such. We tried the idea back in the past and determined it would cause more harm than good.

Oh, and if being a prostitute is a legal job and she enjoyed it, I'd leave it up to her. I left my homeland in reality because I got tired of being judged by what my family had done.

I think this resolution should have tried to make it so that the U.N. may not pass laws either legalizing or illegalizing prostitution. The decision should be left to the seperate nations or regions.

Illegal. Game mechanics.

What it could have done is make standard regulations for the industry where legal, but not force it to be legal in all UN nations. I'm not going to argue that now, though.

How do you standardize something when the UN isn't even made up of the same species or even all on the same planet? That's been a constant problem with standardization attempts.

What I will do is point out some flaws I noticed in the wording of the resolution.

Let's see if you have a good eye.

"1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute, "
I believe the correct punctuation is: "DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN; any person who is mature and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,"

Still better than the original prostitution resolution. I'd rather have this one over that one. But, in this case the punctuation is not off, just weird. As used, the punctuation works and still gets the meaning across.

'... that will give more choice...' should probably be "choices" or be worded differently.

"Choice" is used correctly in that case.

"renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas" should be worded more like "renovate (decrepit, run-down, etc.) areas which will be used by the industry" Otherwise, who defines "old"? A building could be relatively new, and still be falling apart.

Interpretation problem. By "old," the wording suggests the areas that are currently dominated by illegal prostitution.

'people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.'
First of all, it should be "involved in commiting". Otherwise, you are saying you should punish all of the people involved with these crimes, including the victims.

It could go either way on this one. Certain interpretations of "involved" assume they are not the victim.

Actually, everything after the parenthesis in number 5 should be removed. It would not change the resolution at all except to make it more concise. This section also sounds like the author is condemning certain things in order to make it seem more palatable to those that would normally be against this resolution.

That was thrown in for a reason, and I know it because I was involved in the arguement against the repeal of the previous prostitution resolution. One of the primary arguements against the previous prostitution resolution was that is said nothing allowing for punishment of people commiting crimes against prostitutes or actually regulating the industry in any way. By throwing that last part in, the author is effectively countering that arguement before it can be used again.

Yes, it's ridiculous it has to be included, but it comes from experience in dealing with this issue that states it must.

I just think that it needs to be reworded/fixed up/proofread before it is brought into law. That way there will be less need for resolutions modifying this resolution in the future. I think the people for the resolution would agree that getting right the first time would be a good idea.

This is actually the second time for this issue. In any case, what wording errors are in do not affect it enough to make it worthless. It covers all of the points of the previous arguements.

I am voting against this measure due to its major flaws, and I recommend that others do the same.

Its major flaws are caused either by proper use of words, a strange use of punctuation, arguements for the repeal of the previous prostitution resolution, and interpretation. Nothing invalid for English.

This is the sick kind of suff the UN is suppost to pretect us from.

You have proof the UN has that duty? The UN has the duty of dealing how it likes with what issues it likes, as long as the mods don't disagree. This is an issue that was legal before.

You can' t have whore walking about speading harmful even deadly std's. I don't care what you say you can't test ever consummer and condoms aren't prefect.

Wanna bet? Require a person to get a card that says they are disease free before being allowed to go to a prostitute. Use an electromagnetic strip with a unique magnetic field that changes per card and scanners that look for it and log the magnetic fields. If they attempt to see a prostitute without a card or with a fake card, arrest and quarantine them. They break quarantine, you execute.

Then, require the same thing of prostitutes, only make weekly health checkups and logs of all customers a requirement for a license. Proper use of police-controlled security cameras can help with this.

Further more it immoral.

You can keep beating the horse, but it still won't have a heartbeat.

We've dealt with the morality arguement. It's unacceptable.

Beside only losser whould want to pay for sex when they can build up there confendents or get rich.

Being rich doesn't guarantee lovers. Also, very few people can ever get rich, and that excludes pretty much everyone here.

As for building confidants, I'd like to see you try it sometime. And proof that only a "looser" would go to a prostitute.

This act would do more harm than good.

No proof of that.

So i say don't make me more ashamed of being a UN member.

If you had read the passed resolutions, you would realize the UN passed this once before and it took a health arguement to be rid of it.

It is poorly worded.

Evidence? The previous claim of this has been dealt with.

I agree with the legalization and regulation of prostitution...it is after all the oldest profession on the planet...and if prostitutes were paying taxes on their, ahem, "incomes" in return for protection and health services, society would benifit. It would reduce rape and std's. Granted, I think an honest ACCURATE sex education should also go hand-in-hand with something like this. Sex is very much a part of life, wether you like it or not, and it WILL HAPPEN, again, wether you like it or not.

Clause 3 recommends education.

Also I think that there should be some kind of stipulation about getting out of the prostitution biz, if an individual is so inclined... something like severence pay or reduced tuition for education that would allow them to set up a new career.

Why? All this does is put an additional economic burden on businesses and would add in special treatment for prostitutes that many nations, including my own, don't have for regular workers.

Overall, I like the idea, and legalization should occur...however, this does not meet with my requirements and I will there for be voting against this. I would like to see a re-vamped version up for vote again soon!

This version is as good as it gets without it stepping on toes and excluding nations that support prostitution. Considering the fact you are free to regulate it in your own nation, go ahead and do so.

If so, you just regulate it in such a way it's effectively illegal.

However, this resolution gives UN endorsement to the idea that economically coercing poor people into selling their bodies for cash is a basic human right--which will put wind in the sails of pressure groups wishing for de facto legal prostitution--not to mention surrogate motherhood.

However, this resolution gives UN endorsement to the idea that economically coercing poor people into selling their bodies for cash is a basic human right--which will put wind in the sails of pressure groups wishing for de facto legal prostitution--not to mention surrogate motherhood.
I'd love to see your reasoning for this.

The only problem I can see with this resolution is where it says "any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,"...well who's going to decide who's mature enough to make the decision to become a prostitute? If those are the only guidlines then there will be a lot of people moving to places where the age is lowered. And assessing each case individually would just be rediculous

[QUOTE]

I dont understand how safty isn't an international concern but the act of selling sex is. If you're going to infinge on the rights of personal governments by taking away their right to decide on their own the legallity of prositution, then why not take it the next step, at least then you would be protecting the people, not just inforcing your personal veiws on the legality of the issue. National Sovereignity...the health and safty of people is more of an international issue than whether protitution is legal. I am against this not because of moral principal but because there is no reason for the UN to make such a blatent resolution. It should be up to the government, and then health and safty should be inforced on those that choose to have it.
A most excellent point, and one that I am curious to see the author of the resolution address; why require legalization but not the regulation needed to make it safe?

However, this resolution gives UN endorsement to the idea that economically coercing poor people into selling their bodies for cash is a basic human right--which will put wind in the sails of pressure groups wishing for de facto legal prostitution--not to mention surrogate motherhood.

In the real life US, a large group has been lobbying for marijuana to be legallized for decades. A large enough group that some nations would have given in and legalized it. The US hasn't. My point: Tell them to sit down and shut up if they complain.

Nowhere does it say selling your body is a right. It just says it's a legal profession.

Also, what's wrong with surrogate motherhood? My nation uses it.

I dont understand how safty isn't an international concern but the act of selling sex is. If you're going to infinge on the rights of personal governments by taking away their right to decide on their own the legallity of prositution, then why not take it the next step, at least then you would be protecting the people, not just inforcing your personal veiws on the legality of the issue.

Because of the amount of variety in the UN. You can't take the next step without having to work for a week to cover the multitudes of species and lifespans in the UN, as well as the millions of varieties of health and economic statuses of nations. It's a piece of legislative nightmare to attempt.

National Sovereignity...the health and safty of people is more of an international issue than whether protitution is legal. I am against this not because of moral principal but because there is no reason for the UN to make such a blatent resolution. It should be up to the government, and then health and safty should be inforced on those that choose to have it.

The health and safety issues are allowed to be varied because nations not only have various statuses of health for their populous, but also because nations have various methods of reproduction. I'd like to see you cover those.

The only problem I can see with this resolution is where it says "any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,"...well who's going to decide who's mature enough to make the decision to become a prostitute? If those are the only guidlines then there will be a lot of people moving to places where the age is lowered. And assessing each case individually would just be rediculous

Okay, fine then. If you dislike it so badly, then you come up with a piece of legislation that deals with when people are mature. Keep in mind we have species in the UN that live their entire lives in less than a decade and others where people don't even reach sexual maturity until after a century or, in some cases, a few centuries. And then there are those that mature fast but live long lives anyway.

The guidelines are yours to decide because of the nightmare of trying to do that.

A most excellent point, and one that I am curious to see the author of the resolution address; why require legalization but not the regulation needed to make it safe?

Actually, a bad point that's already been addressed in posts previous to his. The reason is simple: Methods of reproduction, levels of public health, and current disease status make it impossible.

The only new thing I have brought up is reproduction methods. I only brought it up because the arguement keeps being brought up.

However, this resolution gives UN endorsement to the idea that economically coercing poor people into selling their bodies for cash is a basic human right--which will put wind in the sails of pressure groups wishing for de facto legal prostitution--not to mention surrogate motherhood.

How is that different than a man or woman posing nude for a magazine?

They are exploiting their bodies. In fact, how is that fundamentally different than somebody being a model?

I think the answer is, being a fashion model means you are less like to be physically abused and less likely to be exposed to a diease. The question then really is something that I have an opinion on, but I can not really point to anything other than the NationStates surveys I've conducted, and that is that some government regulation, but not total regulation might help to encourage prostitutes to take advantage of health care services.

A most excellent point, and one that I am curious to see the author of the resolution address; why require legalization but not the regulation needed to make it safe?

National sovereignity. I didn't want to force *everything* through nation's throats. It is strongly adviseable to use the other points though.

The only problem I can see with this resolution is where it says "any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,"...well who's going to decide who's mature enough to make the decision to become a prostitute? If those are the only guidlines then there will be a lot of people moving to places where the age is lowered. And assessing each case individually would just be rediculous

It is the decision of the individual nation state normally it would be the age of consent in that nation. Some more conservative nations may like to make it age of consent plus x years, that is their choice. The good point about this resolution is that it allows freedom for religiously fundamentally governed states to apply national laws which will restrict prostitution to their applied morals.

As for people moving to the places where the age is lowered, are you refering to the sex workers or the clients?

If your citizens have the choice to leave and decide to do so, then the question arises why is the state making them unhappy?

My advice for potential economic migrants is to thoroughly research the selected nation before considering a move. Aliens may not welcome as sex workers and/or the original nation may block any attempted return.

I realize this is a "real world" example, but I believe it adequately illustrates what can happen should this be passed.

[HR]

January 30, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


A provision in the German welfare system is forcing out-of-work women to chose between taking jobs in the sex industry or losing their unemployment benefits.

Once one of the most generous systems in Europe, Germany's unemployment program has been reformed to require those out of work to take jobs for which they are qualified, or lose benefits. In the case of women, females below the age of 55 who have been out of work for a year or more must take any available job offered.

The full legalization of prostitution two years ago – with brothel owners now paying taxes and employee health insurance – has created an awkward situation at German job centers where employers can access the official government database of those seeking work, reports the London Telegraph.

One 25-year-old waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had indicated a willingness to work in a bar at night and had past experience working in a cafe. A potential employer, finding her profile promising, contacted the job center about hiring her. Only after the young woman called to inquire about the job did she learn the employer was a brothel. When she refused the position, she was threatened with cuts to her unemployment benefits.

Centers that do not penalize job seekers who refuse offered positions are subject to lawsuits by the employers.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," says Merchthild Garweg, a Hamburg lawyer. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Garweg notes that women who have past experience as telemarketers or call service workers have been offered positions with telephone-sex services. New laws permit sex-oriented employers to advertise in the job centers and provide for the suing of job centers that refuse to accept their ads.

When the German government crafted the recent welfare reforms, brothels were initially considered for exclusion, but they were believed too difficult to distinguish from bars. Their inquiries for potential workers are treated no differently than those from grocery stores or schools.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job center when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" asked one central Berlin brothel owner who has been using the local database to find prospective workers.

The German experience closely follows that of the Netherlands, according to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Following the 2000 legalization of prostitution by the Dutch and the registration of prostitutes, brothels began using official job centers to find new employees.

Garwig believes pressure on job centers to meet employment targets is only going to make the current situation worse.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution," she says.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centers to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

Last year, the German federal government announced that it would be fining employers that failed to hire trainees – a measure to be applied to brothels as well as other employers. Brothels failing to hire one apprentice for every 15 employees will be fined for failing to promote the sex industry.

Germany legalized prostitution in 2002 in the belief it would slow down the trafficking in women and reduce the role of organized crime in the profession. Instead, government is expanding the sex industry by guaranteeing a steady stream of new recruits, some willing and some not.

I realize this is a "real world" example, but I believe it adequately illustrates what can happen should this be passed.

[HR]

January 30, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


A provision in the German welfare system is forcing out-of-work women to chose between taking jobs in the sex industry or losing their unemployment benefits.

Once one of the most generous systems in Europe, Germany's unemployment program has been reformed to require those out of work to take jobs for which they are qualified, or lose benefits. In the case of women, females below the age of 55 who have been out of work for a year or more must take any available job offered.

The full legalization of prostitution two years ago – with brothel owners now paying taxes and employee health insurance – has created an awkward situation at German job centers where employers can access the official government database of those seeking work, reports the London Telegraph.

One 25-year-old waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had indicated a willingness to work in a bar at night and had past experience working in a cafe. A potential employer, finding her profile promising, contacted the job center about hiring her. Only after the young woman called to inquire about the job did she learn the employer was a brothel. When she refused the position, she was threatened with cuts to her unemployment benefits.

Centers that do not penalize job seekers who refuse offered positions are subject to lawsuits by the employers.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," says Merchthild Garweg, a Hamburg lawyer. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Garweg notes that women who have past experience as telemarketers or call service workers have been offered positions with telephone-sex services. New laws permit sex-oriented employers to advertise in the job centers and provide for the suing of job centers that refuse to accept their ads.

When the German government crafted the recent welfare reforms, brothels were initially considered for exclusion, but they were believed too difficult to distinguish from bars. Their inquiries for potential workers are treated no differently than those from grocery stores or schools.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job center when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" asked one central Berlin brothel owner who has been using the local database to find prospective workers.

The German experience closely follows that of the Netherlands, according to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Following the 2000 legalization of prostitution by the Dutch and the registration of prostitutes, brothels began using official job centers to find new employees.

Garwig believes pressure on job centers to meet employment targets is only going to make the current situation worse.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution," she says.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centers to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

Last year, the German federal government announced that it would be fining employers that failed to hire trainees – a measure to be applied to brothels as well as other employers. Brothels failing to hire one apprentice for every 15 employees will be fined for failing to promote the sex industry.

Germany legalized prostitution in 2002 in the belief it would slow down the trafficking in women and reduce the role of organized crime in the profession. Instead, government is expanding the sex industry by guaranteeing a steady stream of new recruits, some willing and some not.

Dude, check your sources next time, the place I read that from was EXTREMELY biased and its information should not be taken at face value.

WHY is this even a proposal? The UN is supposed to be a governing body for nations, not for the actual people in the nations. Ideally, the UN passes resolutions that would be beneficial to the world as a whole, something the world can all agree is good for everyone. Now... put a highly controversial issue like this in, you're JUST TRYING TO SHOVE YOUR OPINION DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S THROATS. That's just as bad as the "illogical morality argument." Yes, we are not ~required~ to do anything, but the UN would be regulating us and making sure we don't try to circumvent the resolution.

OOC: Don't even entertain the notion that we really don't have to pass any laws; it DOES affect our nation so, game mechanics-wise, we're basically forced to adopt it in our nation.

And what is this nonsense about trying to ignore all religious arguments because of it not being "logical." My nation supports the freedom of religion; whether you believe in one or not is up to you, or if you do believe in one, it does matter which religion you believe in. What gives you the right to say that your "logic" trumps any religious arguments? Is religion that unimportant in the world? If you said yes to that, then you are quite a naive leader. Not only is this your PERSONAL OPINION that religion is unimportant, but it's wildly inaccurate, as well. There are many nations formed with a religious pretext or a religious foundation, and many more have it as an integral part of their society. Whose to say your society is better than theirs? Only your own sad little opinion. A major force in the world cannot just be lodged out by someone's half-baked idea of what logic is. I suggest never dismissing such religious arguments as inconsequential.

With that, Everlight feels strongly that it is incredibly foolish for the UN to basically antagonize the vast majority of all religions in the World, whether they are a member nation or not. I would like to take the altruistic route and not want the UN to be seen a obsessive compulsive control freak of a governing body that people would laugh at. The mere fact that this resolution has once been passed and once repealed should give and indication that it is not suitable for the UN to preside over.

Perhaps this is the case of one member state temporarily acting immature because on of their resolution got repealed by a bunch of very angry people? Mere speculation, of course. ¬_¬

Head Councilmember (acting) Tyris Basrath

I realize this is a "real world" example, but I believe it adequately illustrates what can happen should this be passed.

January 30, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A provision in the German welfare system is forcing out-of-work women to chose between taking jobs in the sex industry or losing their unemployment benefits.
[...]


Origins: A news story about a 25-year-old German woman who faced cuts to her unemployment benefits for turning down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel was carried by a variety of English-language news sources in January 2005. It has struck a chord in many readers as an example of liberal morality and bureaucracy run amok: if prostitution is legalized (as it was in Germany back in 2002), this story suggests, then society has conferred its approval upon that trade, and prostitution can therefore be proffered to (and even foisted upon) women as a valid choice of employment.

We remain skeptical about the literal truth of the version reported in the English press, however, because the issue seems to have received scant attention in the German press (at least that we can find). Most German-language sources on this topic point to an 18 December 2004 article from the Berlin newspaper Tageszeitung, which (as far as our rusty command of German allows us to discern) does not report that women in Germany must accept employment in brothels or face cuts in their unemployment benefits. The article merely presents that concept as a technical possibility under current law — it does not cite any actual cases of women losing their benefits over this issue, and it quotes representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be legally permissible to reduce unemployment benefits to women who have declined to accept employment as prostitutes, they (the agencies) would not actually do that. The thrust of the article seems to be that there is a loophole in the law which has not yet exploited and should be closed.

We suspect this is another case where, like a game of "telephone," a story has been garbled as it has passed from one news source to the next, and somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as a factual occurrence.

Last updated: 31 January 2005
see http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

From derstandard.at (translated from German): "Even if the army of the unemployed should grow even larger, the work agencies see no reason to panic. Ulrich Waschki from the Nürnberger Center told the Standard "Nobody will be forced to offer sexual services if they don't want to" ...
"Olaf Möller from Berliner Agentur explains: "If someone rejects a job in the red light district they don't have to worry about a cut in unemployment pay."

see http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1937702

Dude, check your sources next time, the place I read that from was EXTREMELY biased and its information should not be taken at face value.
Not only that but this issue has already been raised and covered. Read the debate.

Um, sorry. I can't figure out what this does....what does it do? In normal terms please. I don't want to vote for something that has no point really.

I have to give marks to certain members for their apparent endless patience to post the arguments for this proposal over and over and over... and over. All of the issues that are being raised against this proposal have been covered extensively.

I think the bottom line is this: Those that are of a religious (religious equaling moral apparently, an oxymoron but that's not the point...) bent will not like this proposal and vote against it. Knock yourselves out.

For the sovereign right crowd - yes it violates national sovereignty. Show me a UN resolution that doesn't. Enough people feel this doesn't significantly impede any individual nation's ability to effectively govern itself. Deal with it.

For those that can see past the morality smokescreen and grasp the implications of disease prevention/control and the issue of the right to earn a living in any way that doesn't violate someone else's rights (why do people keep going on about terrorists and what not... do you REALLY not see the difference or do you think sensationalism will make your point where logic doesn't). They will also recognize the potential income from taxes (hey debt heavy nations: many of these people make decent livings you know), as well as benefits to trade and tourism.

Yes, there are vagueries in the language. As has been pointed out several times, this is necessary to accommodate different species and planets and all that. The point is regulation. If you regulate it, YOU decide what the age of consent is (duh), YOU decide what the medical regulations regarding sex workers will be, etc.

Now... does anyone have an argument against this proposal that hasn't already been covered 37 million times?

Should individual countries not be able to control what goes on within their own borders? If yall want prostitution in your country, please feel free to line your streets with your hookers. As for the others in the UN, dont try to force something upon them that the countries really have a strong opposition to. No offence to the autor, but if not legal sex for money, then i think alot more people would be pro this idea. The areas of slavery and child labor laws i support completely http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Thumbs up but the legal prostitution goes too far. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif
Thumbs down

We are all adults. :fluffle:
If you want to spend your money on shoes, purses and lipstick the government encourages you by working with credit card companies to encourage the spending.
Reason why it isn't legalized is because the gov't can't get any money from it. Same as drug money...well then, we do have large pharma. companies in Bush's back pocket.....
I say, why are we still talking about this when there are more important issues in this world!!!
Come to Maria world..we say if you make it, you can do what you want with it...

My advice for potential economic migrants is to thoroughly research the selected nation before considering a move. Aliens may not welcome as sex workers and/or the original nation may block any attempted return.

I think this is a noteworthy discussion point, in that my government regulates legal prostitution, by limiting it to only chartered "brothels" more commonly known as "houses of ill repute". In order for an establishment to be legal it must only employ citizens or immigrants with work visas ... just like any other job.

The last thing my government wants to do is to send a message that might promote something that it feels has certain health risks.

We believe the above resolution will not change our policy and thus support it.

WHY is this even a proposal?

It's not. It's a resolution. The moment a proposal makes it to vote, it becomes a resolution. The vote determined whether it is a passed resolution or a failed resolution.

Repeals are the exception to that. They do not change category, but remain as just a repeal. A few people mistakenly reclassify them as proposals and resolutions, but proposals and resolutions are to make laws while repeals are to remove them.

At least, that's the common usage.

The UN is supposed to be a governing body for nations, not for the actual people in the nations.

The UN doesn't agree. It has been governing the people as well for years now. Take a look at the number of resolutions that directly affect the people.

Ideally, the UN passes resolutions that would be beneficial to the world as a whole, something the world can all agree is good for everyone.

Realistically, it can't. The entire membership of the UN has never agreed on anything.

Now... put a highly controversial issue like this in, you're JUST TRYING TO SHOVE YOUR OPINION DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S THROATS.

Read the FAQ arguement Florida Oranges and I had a few pages back to see why this is right, and yet still supported by the UN.

That's just as bad as the "illogical morality argument." Yes, we are not ~required~ to do anything, but the UN would be regulating us and making sure we don't try to circumvent the resolution.

The UN wants you to comply with the resolution, but compliance doesn't exclude circumvention. There's nothing to prevent you from circumventing the resolution actually in that or any other resolution.

OOC: Don't even entertain the notion that we really don't have to pass any laws; it DOES affect our nation so, game mechanics-wise, we're basically forced to adopt it in our nation.

Game-mechanics wise, the only thing that changes is your stats. The rest of it is roleplay.

And what is this nonsense about trying to ignore all religious arguments because of it not being "logical."

Forum standard. It was in place before I was here. Not supported by the mods, but by the posters.

My nation supports the freedom of religion; whether you believe in one or not is up to you, or if you do believe in one, it does matter which religion you believe in. What gives you the right to say that your "logic" trumps any religious arguments?

Forum standards for arguements. Do a search on here and you'll find we've disrespected morality without logic to back it since before DLE was registered.

Rant all you like, but you're just one unimportant member and forum standards won't change for you.

Is religion that unimportant in the world? If you said yes to that, then you are quite a naive leader. Not only is this your PERSONAL OPINION that religion is unimportant, but it's wildly inaccurate, as well. There are many nations formed with a religious pretext or a religious foundation, and many more have it as an integral part of their society. Whose to say your society is better than theirs? Only your own sad little opinion.

A "sad little opinion" backed by a very large military force and a couple of alliances that agree I can continue to have that opinion.

While many nations rely on religion for their founding and society, that still doesn't make it accepted. My nation has a people that are evolutionary superior to humans, but that doesn't mean I should have the right to disrespect your nation and insult your intelligence just because its people are inferior.

A major force in the world cannot just be lodged out by someone's half-baked idea of what logic is. I suggest never dismissing such religious arguments as inconsequential.

You think I set the standards? That's just the cry of the inexperienced, of those who have no clue as to the past of the forum. Do a search for the Definition of Marriage topic on here. You'll find the same disrespect of religion then as you do now.

With that, Everlight feels strongly that it is incredibly foolish for the UN to basically antagonize the vast majority of all religions in the World, whether they are a member nation or not.

Oh? And what are the vast majority of all religions in NS? Do you have numbers to back it up that they are the vast majority?

The UN has been "atagonizing" certain people since it passed the Scientific Freedom resolution back in December of 2002. I doubt that will change now.

I would like to take the altruistic route and not want the UN to be seen a obsessive compulsive control freak of a governing body that people would laugh at.

Yet another person who hasn't read the passed resolutions. The UN has been overriding national laws for years now. The 6th resolution (End Slavery) basically stomped all over the rights of nations, as did the following one that protects sexual freedoms and the one after that which requires citizens to be allowed some voice in how their nation is ran. All of those passed in the first half of 2003.

The mere fact that this resolution has once been passed and once repealed should give and indication that it is not suitable for the UN to preside over.

Have you even read the repeal or the one repealed? Obviously not.

The repeal was successful because of health concerns. This one answers those concerns.

Perhaps this is the case of one member state temporarily acting immature because on of their resolution got repealed by a bunch of very angry people? Mere speculation, of course. ¬_¬

Attempted ad hominim attack, which is an offense that has gotten people banned from NS before.

Actually, the resolution I lobbied for was the one about banning bioweapons. The prostitution one is simply a case of watching the UN and realizing no middle ground will be accepted by either side. I just prefer to have the side I agree with win.

Um, sorry. I can't figure out what this does....what does it do? In normal terms please. I don't want to vote for something that has no point really.

It makes prostitution legal and asks you to regulate it.

Should individual countries not be able to control what goes on within their own borders? If yall want prostitution in your country, please feel free to line your streets with your hookers. As for the others in the UN, dont try to force something upon them that the countries really have a strong opposition to. No offence to the autor, but if not legal sex for money, then i think alot more people would be pro this idea. The areas of slavery and child labor laws i support completely http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Thumbs up but the legal prostitution goes too far. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif
Thumbs down

This arguement has been covered and dismissed five times. Read the rest of my post to find out a reason as to why we're regulating it.

If you want to spend your money on shoes, purses and lipstick the government encourages you by working with credit card companies to encourage the spending.
Reason why it isn't legalized is because the gov't can't get any money from it. Same as drug money...well then, we do have large pharma. companies in Bush's back pocket.....
I say, why are we still talking about this when there are more important issues in this world!!!
Come to Maria world..we say if you make it, you can do what you want with it...

This is NS, not reality. Bush doesn't exist in NS. You want to argue about him, either mark it as a reality example (as I do) or go to the General forum.

Oh, and I would like evidence that the companies are in Bush's back pocket. I don't like him either, but I have good reason to suspect that statement comes without evidence to back it.

We are all adults. :fluffle:
If you want to spend your money on shoes, purses and lipstick the government encourages you by working with credit card companies to encourage the spending.
Ummm... yes... but what has this to do with anything?

Reason why it isn't legalized is because the gov't can't get any money from it. Same as drug money...well then, we do have large pharma. companies in Bush's back pocket.....
No, this isn't the reason it isn't legalized. It isn't legalized because it was repealed in order to add language regarding health issues. And if your nation has legalized drug use, you'd know that it is most effectively taxed.

I say, why are we still talking about this when there are more important issues in this world!!!
Because some people feel this *is* important. If you have a more important proposal, put it up for comment.

Come to Maria world..we say if you make it, you can do what you want with it...
Aren't there better places to advertise your region?

From what I understand, this proposal has made quoram and is now in the voting stages. I have to say that, should it be passed, then it would probably have the greatest impact on nations' civil right's stats. Obviously, re-legalising prosititution (why isn't this resolution not just another repeal?) would improve the civil rights of all citizens within UN memberstates. Not just that, it could also improve economic stats as well, because essentially, it is legalising an industry.

This is a liberal idea, and gets my vote.

The reason i am not for this this resolution is because that it is not the UN's perogative to decide this matter. It is not a crime against humanity therefore the UN has no right to get involved. Also, condoning this crime is not a good policy, because prostitution gets involved with so many other ring oriented crimes. Gambling, drugs, mobs, and so forth. Legalizing one in the entire world makes it easier to legalize others, and to allowthem more free rein.

Second, not all nations are alike. Some are very liberal and have no problem legalizing prostituion. Thats fine. Others who are members are very conservative and do have big problems with this. I do not think the UN should be even discussing this issue but since it is i am asaying why i am against it. This is a nation specific issue, not a UN issue. Leave it to induvidual nations and the people of those nations to decide if prostitution is leagal and what protections those people get, not the UN.

So, you saying it doesn't merit UN consideration. Perhaps you are right, but do you think I care?

I see no good reason to vote against the resolution, now that it has got UN delegate approval. Surely, it is up to them to decide whether it is worthy of the UN's consideration or not. They obviously felt so.

Resolution also gives a good deal of flexibility. It doesn't enforce that much, it just states that prostitution be recognised as legal.

My main concern with prostitution is the crime rate and the health risks.

Those are the results of illegal prostitution, not legalized and regulated prostitution.

Why aren't you concerned with the crime rate and health risks of, say, the food industry? Or electronics? Or banking? Or whether those working areas are morally correct?

i think this matter if passed will kill many people with many diseases i mean if u want yr people to die!!!

plz w8 b4 v0ting against. yr people wont die if u read the resolution.

Sent on behalf of the text message office of Groot Gouda.

What's wrong with using morality to make an argument then? The initial resolution legalizing prostitution was recently repealed so clearly many people here have a problem with prostitution on a moral level.

That was a different resolution, and it was repealed in part for reasons that in this resolution have been tackled and improved. The previous resolution was poorly written and had no regulatory clauses.

(this was answered in my previous E&A as this is a FEP, a Frequently Exclaimed Point).

I dont understand how safty isn't an international concern but the act of selling sex is.

Safety *is* an international concern. That was one of the reasons to create this resolution. For the safety of the people. Only by making prostitution legal we can regulate it and take it away from crime and disease.

Nations voting against that are, in my unhumble opinion, endangering their citizens lives. But you could have guessed that, because otherwise I wouldn't have written this resolution.

What irritates (perhaps a bit of a harsh word, but anyway) me it that nations who are against this are often reasoning from a point of view that pretends that the problems that they think this resolution will cause won't exist when they forbid prostitution. The truth couldn't be more different - prostitution exists, and is causing these problems because it's illegal. The problems that contra-voters mention here are already there, in their nation. With this resolution, you can actually *do* something, instead of occasionally arresting a symptom. Really, those who are against prostitution should be the biggest supporters of this. Because it will enable you to go down to the roots of the problem. Worried about people working against their will as a prostitute? How did they get there? Too little education? No social welfare that catches these people before they fall into the gutter? Now you can help these people, and they can accept your help, because they don't need to be afraid of being arrested.

Don't like prostitution? Vote FOR!

What is interesting is you who are in favor of the resolution think that the problems will go away if we legalize it. They wont. Promoting sexual promiscuity on any level will not be a hamper to STD's. Also, crime will not stop because we make prostitution legal.

Another thing is that prostitution in at least some respects is a moral issue. Many religions, and people ingeneral find it abhorrant. Government Acceptance of a practice that the people of a nation dont beleive is right is not fair to those people either.

Also, prostitution is different than other industries like banking because it is dealing with sex. We tell children to practice safe sex if you HAVE to have it but abstinece is the best course. BUt then we are going to say prostitution is a good career option to them? THats a confusing signal.

If you are really concerned about the welfare of the prostitutes then passa resolution that gives health care to all who need it regardless off how they got the affliction.

Alright- I'm confused.

Why is the UN telling me what type of jobs I have to allow? What if my countrymen don't want prostitution in their country?(frankly, it doesn't bother me in rl, unfortunate people need love too- if they can't it for free, buying it works)

I think the UN is over-stepping it's bounds. It should not be the place of the UN to tell me what jobs I'm allowed to have and not have. If it were possible and the people of my little country could vote- I think it would be more acceptable to leave the deciding up to them and the people in THEIR country instead of outsiders telling me what I have to allow.

Why should I want 'The Sex Industry Worker Act' to go to quorum and why shouldn't I want to see it burn here and now? Why are YOU telling ME what I have to accept? Shouldn't it be up to ME and my folks?

Some feel that points 4 & 5 will reduce crime associated with prostitution. :eek: WRONG!!! The illegal black market will under cut and compete aggresively with legalized establishments. Both on price and child/animal sex for sale offerings as well. Mob style warefare is highly likely to secure the profitable levels the illegal black market enjoys today from this industry. Attacking prostitution aggressively is the answer to reduceing its related crime and taking on the illegal black market on another front. Obstinasia's 'NO' vote will stand and we urge all of Asia to reconsider their votes carefully and join us in defeating this time bomb resolution. :gundge:

Alright- I'm confused.
Why is the UN telling me what type of jobs I have to allow? What if my countrymen don't want prostitution in their country?(frankly, it doesn't bother me in rl, unfortunate people need love too- if they can't it for free, buying it works)

I'm certain that actually reading the previous 12 pages of comments (even 2 or 3 pages ought to clue you in) would enlighten you as to why this issue is being voted on.

Some feel that points 4 & 5 will reduce crime associated with prostitution. :eek: WRONG!!! The illegal black market will under cut and compete aggresively with legalized establishments. Both on price and child/animal sex for sale offerings as well. Mob style warefare is highly likely to secure the profitable levels the illegal black market enjoys today from this industry. Attacking prostitution aggressively is the answer to reduceing its related crime and taking on the illegal black market on another front. Obstinasia's 'NO' vote will stand and we urge all of Asia to reconsider their votes carefully and join us in defeating this time bomb resolution. :gundge:


History does not bear out with your predictions. I am afraid you are making assumptions not based in fact. However, we CAN look to history to show what happens when we end prohibition on what was formally a black market product. When The United States ended to prohibitoin of alcahol in the 1930s, many of the same predictons you make where made. However none of them came to pass. An industry that was formally controlled by organized crime and the black market, was legitimized. People prefered the safty of purchasing legal spirits as opposed to moon-shine, becasue they knew it was saffe. Did it bring an absolute end to all illegal distillery. Of course not. But it did pave the way for reduced crime and increased pubic safty ( as more poeple where purchasing safer product ).

It is much more likely for us to see a similiar scenaro play out with this resolution then the doomsday predictions you have forcast. Black Market providers will not be able to offer the same quality product for cheaper prices, as they do not have the resources available to them that legitimate enterprose can bring to bear. There is a reason that all the Casinos in Vegas went from being mob owned to being run by large multi-national corporations. The Mob could not compete.

I'm certain that actually reading the previous 12 pages of comments (even 2 or 3 pages ought to clue you in) would enlighten you as to why this issue is being voted on.

I did read it, but I still didn't understand the justification as to why the world needs to dictate what jobs should be allowed and which ones shouldn't.

Can someone delete this for me?

Every time I try, it says invalid thread, contact the webmaster.

Hmm I thought the only reason we repealed the last one was because it directly violated the Sovrinety of UN members governments :confused: However I do much prefere the wording to this one.

Voted against it though on the grounds that it hasn't changed in principle from the resolution that we repealed not so long ago.

The question is not whether they where tackled by the UN, but Should they have been. That is a matter open to debate.
Well I guess this is the basis of our problem. Whether the UN should be deciding moral issues is not really the question. I mean, I suppose if you *want* to make it the question, you can - but it's a moot point. The UN *does* decide these things.

I'd have to disagree. How is it that the UN can know better then local governments what is best for the people living there? You assume some measure of omniscience in that even though you do not live in a place, you claim to know what is best for the people living thier. That is quite an arrogant position to adopt.
I've been accused of arrogance before; doesn't bother me.

A local government can decide that slavery is moral because their religious book says so. Does this make it so? Of course not. Most civil rights legislation is implemented because local governments can't see past the whole "but it's our right to govern how we want" regardless of whether it is truly right. Freedoms and rights are a de facto venue of the UN. Whether local governments like it or not.

Take for instance the idea of forcing Democracy into an area where people have no desire for it. Without the support of the local populace demoracy will fail. Yet you would claim to know what is best for these people, and perhaps force them into democracy at the point of a gun. But now your democracy has really become nothing more then despotism, in that you will force the locals to your will, reardless of thier desires. This is the major fallacy of your position. There is no way for such a large body, so far removed from the local happenings, to know whats best for the people of that region.
Since I, or any other UN member, cannot dictate what form of government your nation operates under, I fail to see how this illustrates your point.

You are operating under a logical fallacy, because in order to force certain nations to adopt YOUR concepts of personal freedoms, you are yourself violating the rights and freedoms of these nations to self governance. So you are now violating your own stated purpose of guaranteeing the rights of ALL people. By forcing your own views of local governance onto these nations, you are destroying the cultures that make these countries unique and vibrant. Is culturcide really part of the UN mandate?
Any governing body which makes it decisions based on a popular vote is going to find people who feel they are being disenfranchised by the system. That is the nature of a democratic-style government. There are going to be issues you agree with, some you don't, and some you feel shouldn't be decided for you. Kinda like RL.

What you are making here is an argument for allowing the local regions to make this decsion. Otherwise on side or the other is now force feeding thier own sence of morality upon the other. While you like strike down other peoples posts as being insignificant becasue they are making a moral argument, I would put forward that you aree doing the same thing, its just your 'morals' are originating from the other side of the aisle.
First: Moral arguments are usually based on religion. Religion has no place in legislation. If you feel it should then you may wish to rethink your UN membership. And before you get stupid, no, I am not saying if you don't like it, leave. What I *am* saying is that in this game, whether you, I or anyone else likes it, the point of the UN is to shape the world as you see fit. Period. In my particular vision, religious "moral" issues are set aside for realistic thinking. If other people were evolved enough to not allow religious issues to cloud their thinking, most of the proposals made here would be redundant and unnecessary.

When it comes to governance, be it world or national, you can not avoid it becoming a matter of morals. The question is, whether it is truely right for one side to dominate the other. If you are going to endorse the UN abusing its power in the game in order to force your own set of morals onto all member states, then you are already violating your own stated precedent of wishing to ensure the protection of all personal freedoms.
You're incorrect. Morals is almost always a code word for religious. So long as an action does not violate someone else's rights, it in my view should be a guaranteed freedom. Don't like what is going on at the brothel? Then don't go there. A freedom to have a religiously inclined nation is yours, of course. But if a religion effectively cuts off someone's rights and freedoms it is no longer moral. Probably why the morality argument gets short shrift around here.

If a people wish to live by a set of ultra conservativ e religious dogma, and still participate in the UN so they can act to protect themselves from the scurge of Global Warming, they should have every right to do so. They should not have a liberal social agenda forced upon them in order to protect themsleves form climatic disaster.
I guess if they want to tackle a 21st century problem, they should update their thinking to the same time frame.

This is the argument of the Local Soveriegnity folks, and I have yet to see an intelligent argument as to why it should not be this way.
I guess I just don't understand how you can agree to live under the resolutions of a higher power and then complain when that higher power exercises its power. ????

BTW, i voted for the current proposal for sexual industry workers. For me it is a matter of international trade. The sex industry is just that, and industry. ANd Sex workers will likly be operating across international borders. Therefore it now becomes part of the pervue of the UN.
Glad to hear it. :)

I did read it, but I still didn't understand the justification as to why the world needs to dictate what jobs should be allowed and which ones shouldn't.
Let's see: Personal freedom for those who choose to work in the sex industry. Opening up a trade market. Regulating a practice at risk for the spread of infectious diseases to hopefully stop the spread of said diseases. Does that help?

What is interesting is you who are in favor of the resolution think that the problems will go away if we legalize it. They wont. Promoting sexual promiscuity on any level will not be a hamper to STD's. Also, crime will not stop because we make prostitution legal.

Clever rethorics but no points, I'm afraid. No, crime won't stop. It will reduce, if only for the simple fact that prostitutes are no longer criminals. But it also takes prostitution out of criminal hands, giving them one way less to make money or launder it. It can be monitored better by police and welfare workers. You can force health regulations. This will mean that STDs will be reduced. There is no way you can achieve that when prostitution is illegal. You can lock them up, sure, but does that stop the problem?

Another thing is that prostitution in at least some respects is a moral issue. Many religions, and people ingeneral find it abhorrant. Government Acceptance of a practice that the people of a nation dont beleive is right is not fair to those people either.

It's not acceptance, it's legalization. That doesn't mean accepting it. There's probably a lot more that the government doesn't accept, but still happens without it being illegal.

Also, prostitution is different than other industries like banking because it is dealing with sex. We tell children to practice safe sex if you HAVE to have it but abstinece is the best course. BUt then we are going to say prostitution is a good career option to them? THats a confusing signal.

Please point out in the resolution where it says that you have to tell people prostitution is a good career option.

And what's the whole issue with sex? It is the fundament of all our societies. No sex, no people. Sex is a very normal thing, so should be treated like other normal things, like banking, farming, electronics. We allow paid food, so why not paid sex?

If you are really concerned about the welfare of the prostitutes then passa resolution that gives health care to all who need it regardless off how they got the affliction.

Oh, and a nation where a prostitute is a criminal will like a resolution that allows health care for prostitutes? I don't believe that.

My nation and entire region is profoundly against this resolution. The only thing this resolution does is mandatorily legalize prostitution. The claim that it is for "health reasons" are absurd. There are no mandates ensuring the safety of either the sex worker or client. There are reccommendations, true, but if the purpose of the resolution is to reccomend safety regulations for prostitution, then why declare prostitution legal? To me, this resolution seems like a slick attempt to legislate prostitution to those that currently ban it, but to try and conceal this under the veil of "public health".

As for the argument that prohibition does not work, I must politely disagree with this point. For everything that is illegal there will always be those unfortunate people that wish to break the law. However, legalizing the act only encourages more people to engage in it. For example, in the history of alcohol prohibition, during the prohibition one of the problems was drinking and driving. Once the prohibition was lifted the problem became WORSE and the numbers increased. The same phenomenom occured with alcohol poisioning due to overindulgence. The only problems to decrease were arrests for alcohol possession and poisioning not related to overindulgence. While allieviating these problems were nice, they do not outweigh the continuing problems of drinking & driving and overindulgence.

Finally, I would like to state that my nation, as well as other nations, oppose prostitution on a moral ground. And while historically those with moral oppositions have been degenerated and dismissed, that does that make these moral obligations less stringent. Would people force a vegan to eat meat? No, but the same people see no problems in forcing a religious nation into accepting something they find morally appalling. This is a much more serious problem that I hope one day we will finally overcome.

With Best Regards,
King Shawn of the Holy Empire of Religious People

The reason i am not for this this resolution is because that it is not the UN's perogative to decide this matter. It is not a crime against humanity therefore the UN has no right to get involved.

Wrong. The UN's perogative and right are what the UN and mods decide, not you. That's why membership is optional.

Also, condoning this crime is not a good policy, because prostitution gets involved with so many other ring oriented crimes. Gambling, drugs, mobs, and so forth. Legalizing one in the entire world makes it easier to legalize others, and to allowthem more free rein.

You do realize that once legalized it's no longer a crime, right? Oh, and many nations (including my own) allow gambling.

If you wish to be rid of the crime aspect, have your police forces do their jobs. This gives you the power to regulate, so use it.

Second, not all nations are alike. Some are very liberal and have no problem legalizing prostituion. Thats fine. Others who are members are very conservative and do have big problems with this. I do not think the UN should be even discussing this issue but since it is i am asaying why i am against it.

It would be nice if both sides could agree to it. But the "liberal" side won't let the idea of making it legal die and the "conservative" side won't let the idea of illegalizing it die. You have no idea how many proposals to make it legal or illegal have failed to reach quorum since the last repeal was passed.

This is a nation specific issue, not a UN issue. Leave it to induvidual nations and the people of those nations to decide if prostitution is leagal and what protections those people get, not the UN.

If we don't make it legal, someone may be successful in making it illegal. Those are the sides you must choose from, as neither side is willing to give up until they win.

What is interesting is you who are in favor of the resolution think that the problems will go away if we legalize it. They wont. Promoting sexual promiscuity on any level will not be a hamper to STD's. Also, crime will not stop because we make prostitution legal.

Admittedly crime won't stop. But it will diminish. And as for the STDs: With regulations, you can limit their spread. Just ask Taiwan.

If you wish to hamper sexual promiscuity, you have a lot of resolutions to repeal.

Another thing is that prostitution in at least some respects is a moral issue. Many religions, and people ingeneral find it abhorrant. Government Acceptance of a practice that the people of a nation dont beleive is right is not fair to those people either.

Many religions and people find the teaching of evolution to be abhorrent. As well as allowing euthanasia and abortions. The UN has already stated it doesn't care.

Also, prostitution is different than other industries like banking because it is dealing with sex. We tell children to practice safe sex if you HAVE to have it but abstinece is the best course. BUt then we are going to say prostitution is a good career option to them? THats a confusing signal.

You made a simple mistake: You assume all nations teach abstinance. Mine doesn't, just for people to be safe in what they do and think carefully about doing it. It's only a confusing signal if you teach abstinance.

If you are really concerned about the welfare of the prostitutes then passa resolution that gives health care to all who need it regardless off how they got the affliction.

Obviously haven't bothered to read the passed resolutions. If you did, you would realize that's been taken care of.

Alright- I'm confused.

Why is the UN telling me what type of jobs I have to allow? What if my countrymen don't want prostitution in their country?(frankly, it doesn't bother me in rl, unfortunate people need love too- if they can't it for free, buying it works)

Then you can withdraw from the Un or exploit a loophole to make it effectively illegal. Also, we're regulating it because the idea of regulating it hasn't been allowed to die. If we don't legalize it, someone may get lucky and push through a resolution making it illegal.

I think the UN is over-stepping it's bounds. It should not be the place of the UN to tell me what jobs I'm allowed to have and not have. If it were possible and the people of my little country could vote- I think it would be more acceptable to leave the deciding up to them and the people in THEIR country instead of outsiders telling me what I have to allow.

The UN tells you what sexualities you have to allow and even has rules in place about marriage practices. Why should jobs be outside those bounds?

Why should I want 'The Sex Industry Worker Act' to go to quorum and why shouldn't I want to see it burn here and now? Why are YOU telling ME what I have to accept? Shouldn't it be up to ME and my folks?

It should be up to you, but keep in mind we're not the only side. There are those who want to ban it outright. At least this resolution allows you the option of regulating it to de facto illegality if you choose.

I did read it, but I still didn't understand the justification as to why the world needs to dictate what jobs should be allowed and which ones shouldn't.

See above.

Hmm I thought the only reason we repealed the last one was because it directly violated the Sovrinety of UN members governments :confused: However I do much prefere the wording to this one.

What, you mean this portion of the repeal?

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

Nope. Because of health issues, which this draft covers.

Voted against it though on the grounds that it hasn't changed in principle from the resolution that we repealed not so long ago.

Actually, it has. It changed from a vague two-liner to a resolution that allows regulation and advises you to try to help out the prostitutes. In fact, it basically allows you to be able to discourage it through regulations if you wish.

People let sex control them and run their lives! One man, one woman, two people but one being, yes I'm talking about sex only within marrage. Quite frankly prostitution is a blight upon our lives. I will not accept a resolution that tolerates prostitution. One that recognises it as a problem and seeks to solve the problem...yes.

What are you getting at DLE?

Hmm I thought the only reason we repealed the last one was because it directly violated the Sovrinety of UN members governments :confused:

For some, maybe. For others, the wording of the original resolution. For some, the gaps the original resolution had like no regulation.

However I do much prefere the wording to this one.

On behalf of all who helped, thanks.

Voted against it though on the grounds that it hasn't changed in principle from the resolution that we repealed not so long ago.

Please explain. The *only* similarity is that both resolutions legalize prostitution. This one, however, is a vast improvement in terms of regulation and national sovereignity compared to the original resolution. So different, in fact, that it currently stands a good chance of passing. So for a lot of people, *something* has changed. I'd like to know why you think it's the same, with actual cites from both resolutions please.

I do not like this. What is with the UN and prostitution?
The only thing on this resolution I agree with is number 5. "CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions (End slavery, Child Labor, Outlaw Pedophilia, The Child Protection Act, Ban Trafficking in Persons, etc) and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution."
It seems to me that it was put in the resolution to make people vote for it.
I do not think prostitution is a UN matter, it is a national matter.
I will not vote for this resolution.

My nation and entire region is profoundly against this resolution. The only thing this resolution does is mandatorily legalize prostitution. The claim that it is for "health reasons" are absurd. There are no mandates ensuring the safety of either the sex worker or client. There are reccommendations, true, but if the purpose of the resolution is to reccomend safety regulations for prostitution, then why declare prostitution legal? To me, this resolution seems like a slick attempt to legislate prostitution to those that currently ban it, but to try and conceal this under the veil of "public health".

Actually, it's an attempt to counter the repeal that brought up health reasons. All this is doing is taking the previous resolution on it, answering the challenges about health regulations, and resubmitting it.

And if you wish to complain at us, complain at the nations that have been trying to illegalize prostitution in the UN as well. If we don't legalize, then they illegalize. Those are your options.

As for the argument that prohibition does not work, I must politely disagree with this point. For everything that is illegal there will always be those unfortunate people that wish to break the law. However, legalizing the act only encourages more people to engage in it. For example, in the history of alcohol prohibition, during the prohibition one of the problems was drinking and driving. Once the prohibition was lifted the problem became WORSE and the numbers increased. The same phenomenom occured with alcohol poisioning due to overindulgence. The only problems to decrease were arrests for alcohol possession and poisioning not related to overindulgence. While allieviating these problems were nice, they do not outweigh the continuing problems of drinking & driving and overindulgence.

What you're describing is a social issue, not a drug issue. To solve the problems with alcohol, solve the social issue. Removing the drug only has them either buy it illegally or go to other drugs.

Finally, I would like to state that my nation, as well as other nations, oppose prostitution on a moral ground. And while historically those with moral oppositions have been degenerated and dismissed, that does that make these moral obligations less stringent. Would people force a vegan to eat meat? No, but the same people see no problems in forcing a religious nation into accepting something they find morally appalling. This is a much more serious problem that I hope one day we will finally overcome.

Actually, I would force a vegan to eat meat. They are potentially risking their health and damaging their bodies by possibly leaving out dietary requirements.

As for the morality: You have no case. The UN has never agreed with religions and your entire arguement is based on the idea the UN should start. Hell, the UN has stated it is against wars started for religious reasons, redefined marriage to even go across the species barrier, allowed abortion, allowed euthanasia, basically given scientists freedom, currently encourages stem cell research with stem cells harvested from embryos, given clones the same rights as naturals, and shoved freedom of religion down the throats of everyone. All of those have strong religious arguements against them, and none of them give a damn about religion.

The moral arguement also relies on a set of ideals that people don't share. Hell, morality is often varied among people of the same religious beliefs, let alone among people of differing religions.

People let sex control them and run their lives! One man, one woman, two people but one being, yes I'm talking about sex only within marrage. Quite frankly prostitution is a blight upon our lives. I will not accept a resolution that tolerates prostitution. One that recognises it as a problem and seeks to solve the problem...yes.

What are you getting at DLE?

You do realize that as long as you are a UN member you have to accept same-sex marriages as well, right? Oh, and unless you have medical reasons you cannot peak into people's bedrooms to see if they are having unmatrimonial fun in the bedroom.

Oh, and no evidence that it's actually a blight.

I'm getting at the fact the only problem the UN had with prostitution is a lack of dealing with the issue of health. This solves that issue. Before that, the UN didn't care and allowed it.

I do not like this. What is with the UN and prostitution?
The only thing on this resolution I agree with is number 5. "CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions (End slavery, Child Labor, Outlaw Pedophilia, The Child Protection Act, Ban Trafficking in Persons, etc) and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution."
It seems to me that it was put in the resolution to make people vote for it.
I do not think prostitution is a UN matter, it is a national matter.
I will not vote for this resolution.

Read the previous posts to see why we're voting on it.

I can't be bothered trawling through the 20+ pages of the repeal topic to bring all the issues covered to light tonight. I'll have a go over the weekend, but right now I really don't feel up to it.

On the point of it having support: yes it does, yes it will be passed, yes well done! :)

You do realize that as long as you are a UN member you have to accept same-sex marriages as well, right? Oh, and unless you have medical reasons you cannot peak into people's bedrooms to see if they are having unmatrimonial fun in the bedroom.

really? hmm am I ment to not press to options on the issues then that go against the UN's resolutions. I still seem able to

really? hmm am I ment to not press to options on the issues then that go against the UN's resolutions. I still seem able to

Oh, the daily issues? Vote as you wish on them. The UN Gnomes merely make it automatically legal again.

Well I guess this is the basis of our problem. Whether the UN should be deciding moral issues is not really the question. I mean, I suppose if you *want* to make it the question, you can - but it's a moot point. The UN *does* decide these things.

Once again I would argue that just because the UN CAN do something, does not mean it SHOULD. The UN COULD legalize mass murder, that does nto mean it should. The question remain, where should the UN draw the line on what it does. This is vitally important as the UN is a self regulating entity. Only the UN can decide how far it should go.


I've been accused of arrogance before; doesn't bother me.

A local government can decide that slavery is moral because their religious book says so. Does this make it so? Of course not. Most civil rights legislation is implemented because local governments can't see past the whole "but it's our right to govern how we want" regardless of whether it is truly right. Freedoms and rights are a de facto venue of the UN. Whether local governments like it or not.

I am reminded of an old saying, one's moreality is directly proportional to oned economic standing. Take an average person, they would never lie, steal or cheat. But now place that person in a situation where they have no income, no home, no food, and that person wil likely lie, steal and cheat in order to survive and provide for his family. What is funny, is for a person who claims to not use Morality arguments, that is all you are doing. In general do I think slavery is wrong. Sure. But is there a circumstance where the people involved may think otherwise. Sure. Is it right to think that just because I think it is wrong I should impose that belief of those that disagree with me? No. At that point I become the despot. I no longer show any respect for the rights of others, as I have now decided that I know better then they do, so thier beliefs do not matter. I find that postion to be immoral. With or Without the side-dish of Religion. A crusade is a Crusade whether you do it for Christ or to save the furry little seals from a clubbing. Most Crusades do not work, becasue you are trying to force a people into doing something they believe is wrong. The only way to accomodate change in these cases is to try and educate the populations, so that the old way of thinking is questioned by the younger generations of said populace.


Since I, or any other UN member, cannot dictate what form of government your nation operates under, I fail to see how this illustrates your point.

I was making a point and using the spread of democracy as an example. You can substitute anything else there that you like. You can mandate that everyne should respct the rights of homosexuals, but if a community is not ready to do that, it will fail. Hence the idealogy of forcing enlightenment onto the unenlighten masses always fails. Crusades do not work. Education does, forcing legislation rarely does.


Any governing body which makes it decisions based on a popular vote is going to find people who feel they are being disenfranchised by the system. That is the nature of a democratic-style government. There are going to be issues you agree with, some you don't, and some you feel shouldn't be decided for you. Kinda like RL.

And just as in RL, there is a constant struggle between the rights of the States and the rights of the federal Gov't ( at least here in the United States ) It has been a debate that goes back to the very formation of the US. The debate here is no different. The sign of a truely enlightened democracy is its abilty to form compromises between to 2 differing beliefs. You seem to only want to advocate the one side, which is refered to in social sciences as the Tyranny of the majority. Logic dictates that the majority MUST make concessions to the minority if it wishs to see its agendaspushed forward, becasue even a minority, if organized, can upset the plans of the majority, which by its very nature is more difficult to organize.


First: Moral arguments are usually based on religion.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Those that are religious devout may want you to believe that religeon equates to morality. But it does not. I am an athiest, yet I consider myself a Moral man. Arguments based on relion are just that, religious arguments. ANd any and all arguments have some level of merit as long as they do not contain fallacies. Your statement that moral arguments are religious in nature, and that religeon cannot by its nature be logical, is what is called a straw man fallacy. Rather then address the actual argument you attempt to skirt around it by calling attention to its religeous nature and dismiss it. BTW: The Catholic Church sponsors some of the most advanced astro physics studies in europe, which leads me to believe that religeon and logic are not necesarily mutualy exclusive. Not that they are going to convince me there is a God mind you....

Religion has no place in legislation. If you feel it should then you may wish to rethink your UN membership. And before you get stupid, no, I am not saying if you don't like it, leave. What I *am* saying is that in this game, whether you, I or anyone else likes it, the point of the UN is to shape the world as you see fit. Period. In my particular vision, religious "moral" issues are set aside for realistic thinking. If other people were evolved enough to not allow religious issues to cloud their thinking, most of the proposals made here would be redundant and unnecessary. [/qote]

If my nation is a religeous theocracy then religion should most assuredly be placed in any legistlation I author. Does that mean we should drive away any and all theocracies away from the UN table? That seems awfully elitist and self defeating. SHould we allow theocracies to set the agenda of the UN, no. But likewise we should not let liberal athiest based dogma to dominate either. The UN should be a place of compromise. Otherwise the UN will become a fairly impotent portion of NS as more and more nation feel left out.




[QUOTE=Zamundaland]You're incorrect. Morals is almost always a code word for religious. So long as an action does not violate someone else's rights, it in my view should be a guaranteed freedom. Don't like what is going on at the brothel? Then don't go there. A freedom to have a religiously inclined nation is yours, of course. But if a religion effectively cuts off someone's rights and freedoms it is no longer moral. Probably why the morality argument gets short shrift around here.

And yet you are OK in violating someones rights as long as you are forcing them to adopt YOUR morality. That is hypocritical. Once again, one does not need to be religious in order to put forward a motality argument, as I have stated, MOST of your own arguments can easily be described as morality arguments, yet they lack amy and all religious connotations.



I guess if they want to tackle a 21st century problem, they should update their thinking to the same time frame.

Albert Eistein has described as very religious, would you claim he was backward thinking? Ones religious beliefs does bot necessarily equate to thier ability to think and advance. ( Although it does seem that way sometimes )

I guess I just don't understand how you can agree to live under the resolutions of a higher power and then complain when that higher power exercises its power. ????

Take a look at the United States of america, where you have soveriegn states operating under a federal power. Take a look at the original US Constitution. Both the federal gov't and the States had clear cut areas where they operated. Thats why you have different kinds of smoking laws in different states. Now even in the RL US, the battle over States Soveriegnity and federal authority has raged for as long as the country has existed, so I doubt we will come to an ultimate resolution here ;) . However, the argument for Nations soveriengty should not just be dismissed out of hand, as I have seen here. It is a debate that SHOULD rage on.

The role I would like to see the UN move towards would be one that only deals with those issues that transcend national boundries. Slavery, on its own does not transcend national boundries. However if an international slave trade begins to flourish, now it becomes a matter for the UN. Issues that deal primarily with individual rights, as they rarely if ever affect anyone outside national borders, should not be pervue to the UN. ( I mean just because I have a utopian culture that accepts and embraces Gay marraige, does that REALLLY have any affect in your neo-conservative theocracy that hold Homosexuality to be a sin? Not really, except that I would assume most of your Homosexuals would be moving to my nation as fast as they could...)

What I see here is the majority here ( mostly liberals) doing the the minority conservatives just what the RL Conservatives are trying to do in the US. They want to pass a Constitional amendment banning gay marriage. It stinks in RL, and it stinks in the virtual world as well. I for one will continue to be a voice of dissent against those who would try and use the UN to foist thier version of morality onto any nation. I don't want the government in my bedroom, and I don't want the UN telling me what color pants I have to wear....

We're against this motion for the following reasons:

1. The lack of any defination of what constitutes "mature" or "capable of making their own decisions".

2. The fact that while the motion "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" this is only a long term solution. In the short term we believe that this motion will affect the most vunerable members of our society.

3. The lack of understanding of the issue of "consent" where it applies to prostitution. Specifically, this motion doesn't recognise the effects of a) poverty, b) drugs or c) the influence of pimps in somebody becoming a prostitute. In any of those situations we don't believe a true choice has been made.

4. The failure to address the situation of foreign prostitutes and clients. It has previously been argued that if a nation is suitably moral then it's inhabitants won't visit prostitutes. This legalises prostitution across the board, and therefore it could lead to a prostitution problem in nations where none has previously existed.

5. The calling for nations to practice "cooperation with the sex industry" with no defination of what is and isn't covered by that classification. We have no wish to co-operate with pimps.

6. We also think that the "ASSUMING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in a situation where prostitution is illegal" is an assumption to far. Legalised prostitution could lead to criminals going "legal" and having a perfect front for money laundering and other still illegal activity. This will increase pressure on the police by tying their hands. We also think that the idea that there is a direct link between the illegality of prostitution and STDs to be one not backed up by the evidence. Legalised prostitution is likely to lead to more prostitution taking place. This actually increase the likelyhood of STDs, particuarly those not stopped by condoms.

Wrong. The UN's perogative and right are what the UN and mods decide, not you. That's why membership is optional.I'm afraid I think the honourable delegate has misunderstood the point. The question isn't what is permissable to bring before the UN (and I agree that's essentially up to the UN and the mods). The question is one of what the UNs role should be, and that is a perfectly legitimate topic for debate.

should[/b] be, and that is a perfectly legitimate topic for debate.

Where have I seen that before......

Man, I have rarely found myself on the same side of the fence as the Holy Rollers.... :fluffle:

Eh, I think each Nation should have the right to choose whether they would wish to enact this Resolution inside their own country, not particularly the UN. I just decided on an issue of the same exact caliber, keep the issue... withdraw this Resolution.

Once again I would argue that just because the UN CAN do something, does not mean it SHOULD. The UN COULD legalize mass murder, that does nto mean it should. The question remain, where should the UN draw the line on what it does. This is vitally important as the UN is a self regulating entity. Only the UN can decide how far it should go.
I first have to apologize for this being in this thread instead of where it started. Server died, copied and pasted but into the wrong thread. <chagrin> Sorry.

Secondly, I just composed a rather lengthy response to this when the server died again and ate it. <sigh>

Let's see if I can recall the specific points: (1) The UN goes as far as the players decide it goes. (2) I never said a moral issue *has* to be a religious one; I stated they are *usually* one and the same. (3) I never stated a person who is religious is backward. I stated that using a "moral" argument to effectively cut off someone else's rights or access to something is wrong (and usually based on a religious theme. Note the use of the word "usually"). (4) Joining the UN means directly waiving sovereignty on issues taken up by the UN. I don't recall any statement on the UN page that says you will like what is debated or decided. Therefore using sovereignty as an argument doesn't really work. Usually. (there's that damn word again) (5) Your parenthetical statement regarding homosexuals flocking to a country which allows gay marriage effectively illustrates how an issue that seemingly has no international scope actually does. and (6) Since telling you what color pants you can wear would violate your rights, I don't think that'll be passing anytime soon.

No. This is why:



ALSO RECALLING Resolution #7 (Sexual Freedom), and Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), which make sex a private issue, instead of a government issue, and stating "a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society"

AFFIRMING in accordance with the above mentioned resolution 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,

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

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 in towns and cities,

If the purpose of this proposal is partly to acknowledge sex as a private issue and not governmental, then the government should not be required to create legislation for it and be "requested" to fund it. Additionally, by treating sexuality as a legitimate profession, it is being indirectly advocated as one by the government, and not being left as a private issue.

ASSUMING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in a situation where prostitution is illegal,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

The costs of police to stop illegal prostitution is far less than the costs of renovating and regulating legal prostitution, as well as paying additional medical expenses aside from insurance to prostitutes. Since the general public seems to condemn prostitution, it could also cause a lot of protests, which would put additional pressure on police forces anyway. Sexually transmitted diseases should be educated to the public regardless of the legality of prostitution, for the safety of people overall.

1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

This is far too vague. What "mature" and "capable of making own decisions" means could be constantly challenged and widely interpreted.

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,

More unnessisary(spelling) costs. Plus it's a paradox to be teaching prostitution is not a good profession to be in, and still funding and treating it as a good profession.


Bottom line, it's a bad idea. It costs too much and causes too much public concern. If some people think prostitution should be allowed, perhaps a don't-ask-don't-tell sort of policy should be adopted. This issue should not be decided in the U.N. at all.

Hmm I thought the only reason we repealed the last one was because it directly violated the Sovrinety of UN members governments :confused: However I do much prefere the wording to this one.

Voted against it though on the grounds that it hasn't changed in principle from the resolution that we repealed not so long ago.

Based on what I read in the original debate, both the sovereignty and text of the original resolution were grounds for nations voting in favour of the repeal.

I first have to apologize for this being in this thread instead of where it started. Server died, copied and pasted but into the wrong thread. <chagrin> Sorry.

Secondly, I just composed a rather lengthy response to this when the server died again and ate it. <sigh>

Let's see if I can recall the specific points: (1) The UN goes as far as the players decide it goes. (2) I never said a moral issue *has* to be a religious one; I stated they are *usually* one and the same. (3) I never stated a person who is religious is backward. I stated that using a "moral" argument to effectively cut off someone else's rights or access to something is wrong (and usually based on a religious theme. Note the use of the word "usually"). (4) Joining the UN means directly waiving sovereignty on issues taken up by the UN. I don't recall any statement on the UN page that says you will like what is debated or decided. Therefore using sovereignty as an argument doesn't really work. Usually. (there's that damn word again) (5) Your parenthetical statement regarding homosexuals flocking to a country which allows gay marriage effectively illustrates how an issue that seemingly has no international scope actually does. and (6) Since telling you what color pants you can wear would violate your rights, I don't think that'll be passing anytime soon.


Which brings us to the crux of the debate, (1) The UN goes as far as the players decide it goes.

I seem to see alot of justification of passing far reaching social propositions witht he comment, well we are doing it becasue we can do it. That is not a satisfactory argument for passing an issue. Nor is dismissing an issue with a wave of your hand ( not yours directly, you seem a fairly decent fellow...) by saying hey you sacrifices all soveriengty when you joined the UN. You are correct in that the UN as a body decides where it wil draw the line. And I would argue that as the makeup of this body changes every day, so to does that line. Therefore it is important that we continue to debate just where that line should be. Not based on the merits of game mechanics, but on here we as heads of state ( ok... people sitting in front of keyboards playing a game ) wish to take it. I would suggest that all arguments should be on the merit of the issue, not based on game mechanics. And national soveriegnty surely bears more merit in the spirit of this game then simply say, well thats the way it is. Because you yourself have pointed out that the UN itself sets those perameters. And the makeup of the UN is in constant flux.

Anyway, as much as I have thoughly enjoyed intellectually sparring with Zamundaland, our discussion has definately gone way beyond the topic being discussed here. If anyoen feels their time has been wasted reading our posts, I apologize, and will go back to the appropriate thread!

I do not like this. What is with the UN and prostitution?

UN members tend to be pro-freedom for people.

The only thing on this resolution I agree with is number 5. "CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions (End slavery, Child Labor, Outlaw Pedophilia, The Child Protection Act, Ban Trafficking in Persons, etc) and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution."
It seems to me that it was put in the resolution to make people vote for it.

That point was inserted to stop people claiming that this resolution will allow that kind of stuff. It couldn't, because of those UN resolutions, but it was put in to emphasize that. As long as there are UN members who think that a resolution allowing people to marry eachother also allows bestiality, it is necessary.

I do not think prostitution is a UN matter, it is a national matter.
I will not vote for this resolution.

It gets a bit tiring to repeat, but it is a UN matter. It is also an international matter, because STDs from illegal prostitutes travel the world, extending the health problems to other nations.

The costs of police to stop illegal prostitution is far less than the costs of renovating and regulating legal prostitution, as well as paying additional medical expenses aside from insurance to prostitutes.

I'd like to see some proof of this statement, because at this time it appears to be just conjecture. Perhaps you could do some research and provide us with some actual numbers...

Since the general public seems to condemn prostitution, it could also cause a lot of protests, which would put additional pressure on police forces anyway.

Speak for yourself. My general public will likely embrace prostitution.

Seriously tho. Those communities that do have issues with prostitution are likely the same ones tat have issues with strip clubs. Yet the clubs remain open and legal. Do we see them on every street corner? No. becasue every community has the right to regulate where these businesses operate. Hec, I know of several real life towns that simply bought out the local strip club because they no longer wanted them to operate in their town. This same kind of regulations can be used in those nations in order to prevent Brothels from taking up business.

Then there is also the forces of the marketplace to take into consideration. I doubt those nations whose populace finds Prostitution so objctionable will be able to provide enough business for these businesses to operate. Supply and demand. or are you saying that although your populace may rise in protest against these brothels, they will still frequent them when no one is looking?

It gets a bit tiring to repeat, but it is a UN matter. It is also an international matter, because STDs from illegal prostitutes travel the world, extending the health problems to other nations.

Then proposals dealing with STDs should be written, not ones for prostitution. Prostitution is a hot issue. Yet, I'm sure everyone would like to do something about stopping STDs from spreading. I'm sure there can be proposals that deal with the that issue without touching on other issues that are more controversial.

If the purpose of this proposal is partly to acknowledge sex as a private issue and not governmental, then the government should not be required to create legislation for it and be "requested" to fund it. Additionally, by treating sexuality as a legitimate profession, it is being indirectly advocated as one by the government, and not being left as a private issue.

It is legalized, that's all. The government doesn't interfere, so it remains a private issue. At no point funding is required - that's your national sovereignity.

The costs of police to stop illegal prostitution is far less than the costs of renovating and regulating legal prostitution, as well as paying additional medical expenses aside from insurance to prostitutes.

The costs of renovating are zero, unless your government runs everything. But the prostitution is profitable enough to pay for itself. As the regulation has a positive side-effect on health, your medical expenses won't increase.

Since the general public seems to condemn prostitution, it could also cause a lot of protests, which would put additional pressure on police forces anyway.

Define "the general public"

Sexually transmitted diseases should be educated to the public regardless of the legality of prostitution, for the safety of people overall.

I agree. But that's less likely to happen if a state oppresses people's sexual instincts.

This is far too vague. What "mature" and "capable of making own decisions" means could be constantly challenged and widely interpreted.

Sure. That's national sovereignity. People like that. A NSUN resolution should't prescribe everything. But maturity is already explained in the Child Protection Act:

ARTICLE 1

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.


More unnessisary(spelling) costs. Plus it's a paradox to be teaching prostitution is not a good profession to be in, and still funding and treating it as a good profession.

Don't spend the money then, if it's too expensive to your taste. There's no obligation except legalizing prostitution.

Bottom line, it's a bad idea. It costs too much and causes too much public concern. If some people think prostitution should be allowed, perhaps a don't-ask-don't-tell sort of policy should be adopted. This issue should not be decided in the U.N. at all.

What should be decided in the UN is decided by the UN, not you or any other person who thinks that something they disagree with shouldn't be a UN matter.

Bottom line, this is an excellent idea. Unless, of course, you're not caring for your citizens and don't want to spend money on their wellbeing. But that is your right as a sovereign nation.

Then proposals dealing with STDs should be written,

Go on then, do it.

Besides, illegal prostitution spreads STDs (but that's not the main issue here), so this resolution helps.

I assume that this means you'll vote for?

Speak for yourself. My general public will likely embrace prostitution.

I advise you to do the same, since we're not talking about YOUR public either. Some might, some might not. It shouldn't be decided the same for all because of this fact.

[quote=Groot Gouda]Seriously tho. Those communities that do have issues with prostitution are likely the same ones tat have issues with strip clubs. Yet the clubs remain open and legal. Do we see them on every street corner? No. becasue every community has the right to regulate where these businesses operate. Hec, I know of several real life towns that simply bought out the local strip club because they no longer wanted them to operate in their town. This same kind of regulations can be used in those nations in order to prevent Brothels from taking up business.

Where the businesses are doesn't matter, the proposal is still calling for the legalization of prostitution period, and that adds more concerns to nations that perviously didn't have to deal with those concerns.

Then there is also the forces of the marketplace to take into consideration. I doubt those nations whose populace finds Prostitution so objctionable will be able to provide enough business for these businesses to operate. Supply and demand. or are you saying that although your populace may rise in protest against these brothels, they will still frequent them when no one is looking?

That's the point. Why legalize and delve into a professional endevour when it won't do anything for your nation except allow a minority, who had no problem investing in illegal actions, to do their business legally? Some nations do not need this load, why does it have to be in the U.N.? STDs cannot be a sole drive for this reformation of the sex industry.

That's the point. Why legalize and delve into a professional endevour when it won't do anything for your nation except allow a minority, who had no problem investing in illegal actions, to do their business legally? Some nations do not need this load, why does it have to be in the U.N.? STDs cannot be a sole drive for this reformation of the sex industry.


For me it is a matter of internaional trade. I see Prostitutin as just another industry. And it is an industry that can do business across international borders. Therefore I am very interested in seeing international standards of business implemented. Of course before you can do that, you need to recognize it as a legitimate industry.

UN members tend to be pro-freedom for people..
What gives you the idea that i'm not pro-freedom for people?
I think resolutions like this one get to the UN is because many members are perverted and are abusing their positions.

That point was inserted to stop people claiming that this resolution will allow that kind of stuff. It couldn't, because of those UN resolutions, but it was put in to emphasize that. As long as there are UN members who think that a resolution allowing people to marry eachother also allows bestiality, it is necessary..
Say what you want.



It gets a bit tiring to repeat, but it is a UN matter. It is also an international matter, because STDs from illegal prostitutes travel the world, extending the health problems to other nations.

It is not a UN matter and it is not an international matter, it is a national matter. We should spend more money on immigration services, more officers, vice police force, stricter immigration laws and spend more on secureing the borders. If you do that and make prostitution illegal it will slow down the flow of illegals very much, eliminate it even after all what prostitute wants to make it harder to earn money, they will go to countrys that legalize prostitution. All win this way the people that want whores in their countrys will have them and those who do not will not have them.

It is legalized, that's all. The government doesn't interfere, so it remains a private issue. At no point funding is required - that's your national sovereignity.

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

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 in towns and cities,

This all costs money (providing health and safetly, stimulate a clean attractive enviornment, passing legislation, etc.). This is what I meant by funding. If you say that these things are optional, then a large point of the resolution would be invalid since you say it's partially to keep STDs under control.

The costs of renovating are zero, unless your government runs everything. But the prostitution is profitable enough to pay for itself. As the regulation has a positive side-effect on health, your medical expenses won't increase.

If a plan to renovate must be implimented, then the goverment must ensure that it does, regardless if it pays for itself. And it might not. The regulation having a positive-side effect on health requires additional medical coverage to make sure that all the prostitutes have what they need to ensure their safety and the safety of their customers. But not everyone will be prostitutes, and not everyone will go to prostitutes. So then how much of a difference between costs of paying medical for problems in illegal prostitution and costs to both prevent and treat problems dealing with legal prostitution should be determined before saying expenses won't increase. I'd still expect it would be more expensive, seeing as it would be paid for case by case with illegal, and paid for everyone if legal.



Define "the general public"

Excuse my loose wording. The majority of people in some nations. How's that?



I agree. But that's less likely to happen if a state oppresses people's sexual instincts.

I conjecture of yours I presume?


Sure. That's national sovereignity. People like that. A NSUN resolution should't prescribe everything. But maturity is already explained in the Child Protection Act:

ARTICLE 1

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.

That didn't define maturity that defined minor. True some people like that, but the courts don't.

What should be decided in the UN is decided by the UN, not you or any other person who thinks that something they disagree with shouldn't be a UN matter.

I'm trying to show my point of view, as a U.N. member, to other U.N. members. That's what we're all doing. Part of that is what should and shouldn't be a U.N. matter. Yes, I disagree with legalizing prostitution, and so I don't want this to force me to legalize it. Since I know many others feel the same, I don't think it should be a U.N. matter, especially when it can be decided easily within each nation itself. If your worried about STDs passing to other nations, do something about those STDs, not prostitution. It can be done in a better way.

For me it is a matter of internaional trade. I see Prostitutin as just another industry. And it is an industry that can do business across international borders. Therefore I am very interested in seeing international standards of business implemented. Of course before you can do that, you need to recognize it as a legitimate industry.

Well, that's your motivation then. Having sex as an industry is nothing of keeping it a private issue, which is what the proposal assumes.

Well, that's your motivation then. Having sex as an industry is nothing of keeping it a private issue, which is what the proposal assumes.


If it was all about privacy and rights to ones body, I would assume the proposal would be in the catagory of Social Rights. However, this porposal is in the catagory of Free Trade.

What ever the rhetoric we has seen, on its face this resolution is about establishing rules of international trade as it concerns the Sex Industry. At least that is how I see it.

Originally Posted by Groot Gouda
What should be decided in the UN is decided by the UN, not you or any other person who thinks that something they disagree with shouldn't be a UN matter.

Gouda,

Sounds like you trying to just quell debate here. All members of te UN have a right to discuss, debate and dissent. That is the core basis of a democratic body, wouldn't you agree? As you say, the UN decides its boundries, via debate and discussion. Sounds like your saying, "if you disagree with me, your being a self centered jerk." I find that unaccceptable. All voices have a right to be heard.

Seems that Demon enigma feels very passionate about making whoring legal. I didn't ask how to leave the UN, I asked how to leave the UN and throw out regulations like this whoring resolution. If this bill passes I see myself leaving the UN. The basic argument for legalization of whoring is "morals are bad, religion is wrong, whoring is healthy," and whatever else they can come up with. What's next up for the UN, mandatory legalization of abortion across the board, or maybe banning religion altogether?

If it was all about privacy and rights to ones body, I would assume the proposal would be in the catagory of Social Rights. However, this porposal is in the catagory of Free Trade.

What ever the rhetoric we has seen, on its face this resolution is about establishing rules of international trade as it concerns the Sex Industry. At least that is how I see it.

That's true, but nations should not be forced to facilitate an industry that promotes what they may have as illegal before this proposal.

First i would like to say that the UN has no right to intervene in this subject. Prostitution should be up to the nations disgression.
Second, Sex is a highly abused health risk, ignorance of religous teaching, and overall immoral and inconsiderate. UNLESS uses for the purpose of either reproducing OR bringing two MARRIED individuals closer together. Consenting of course. This that i have said, plainly supports my opinion above about the UN as not all of us want legal prositution in our nations.
Therfor, for the sake of those that do not give in to either perversion or Civil UN dominance, Please Vote AGAINST this resolution.
This will be all. I will not return for replys.

I don't care about the moral issue in this bill. My country is superb about civil liberties and political freedoms. Yet I vote against this bill. Why? Because it is a matter that should be decided in each nation. If someone wants prostitution in their country, they can allow it in their country. If someone doesn't want prostitution in their country, then they don't have to allow it. But criminalizing prostitution does not infringe on someone's basic human rights. Criminalizing prostitution does not mean that someone will have to give up an aspect of their life because they are a 'second class citizen.' If this bill was really about preventing STD's, then why didn't the bill simply do that? Why didn't it just concentrate on curing and eliminating STD's, in the way that smallpox was done in by WHO?

Also, if people cared so much worldwide about keeping prostitution legal, then why did a repeal of the old law pass? Why bring up the issue again? And so soon after the repeal passed, as well.

This a perverted industry. We need to ban prostitution. I ain't a bible thumper of republican but sex is dangerous and it can't be let run ramped.

We need to try to make all STD's cureable in it's early stages, but that dosen't mean we should have prostitution.

Is everyone here mad!?

Legal prostitution!?

"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 in towns and cities."

Think of the money that could be used for education and the arts. Why waste money on sex when we could be spending it for the better of society?

Also people, think. Before you press that VOTE FOR button, take a look at all UN nations. This will affect all UN nations, not just yourself. You people are not thinking for the good of everyone, but only for yourselves.

I speak for my region when I say that prostition and the legalization thereof, is immoral and wrong.

From a religious standpoint it's wrong.

From a moral standpoint it's wrong.

Even from a public health standpoint it's wrong and dangerous.

People have a right to privacy and a right to control their bodies, but legalizing prostitution is a danger to society and breeds no other benefit than sexual gratitfication.

:gundge: This resolution is not an issue the UN should be concerned about, many of these resolutions are utter bullshit. Legalizing prostitution was not a right that the UN had and it deserved being repealed. Paying taxes to the UN is also bullshit for the past few resolutions (AND IT HURT MY ECONOMY BAD). THE UN HAS NO RIGHT TO DECIDE THIS KIND OF ISSUE, AIUR HAS BEEN CONSIDERING A WITHDRAWEL FROM THE UN DUE TO THE STUPIDITY AND THE TYRANY OF THE UN. ALL NATIONS VOTE NO AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION. :gundge:

We need to do good for poor nations instead of worry about prostitues.

I'm with Lorbenia all the way on this one.

Money spent on prostitution could be spent on anything else! Anything but sex. Stop thinking with your hormones and start using your brains.

poor nations like me need money and we need national help! Prostitioution is going to kill poor nations even more.

poor nations like me need money and we need national help! Prostitioution is going to kill poor nations even more.

:rolleyes:

Let's see... Vastiva had 40,000 licensed prostitutes in our nation. From them, we gained $3 billion in income tax alone.

How is this going to "kill you", unless you're silly enough not to tax, regulate, license, and profit from?

Some feel that points 4 & 5 will reduce crime associated with prostitution. :eek: WRONG!!! The illegal black market will under cut and compete aggresively with legalized establishments. Both on price and child/animal sex for sale offerings as well. Mob style warefare is highly likely to secure the profitable levels the illegal black market enjoys today from this industry. Attacking prostitution aggressively is the answer to reduceing its related crime and taking on the illegal black market on another front. Obstinasia's 'NO' vote will stand and we urge all of Asia to reconsider their votes carefully and join us in defeating this time bomb resolution. :gundge:

Attacking prostitution agressively has never worked.

We regulate ours, and agressively attack those who try to practice without licenses, and those who try and profit from such illegal activity. As it is a manditory death sentence, most don't try. There are a few. Very few, and fewer every day as the prostitutes themselves turn in those who work unlicensed.

As to your "mob" - kill them. No pansy games, just kill them off. Worked for us.

I'm with Lorbenia all the way on this one.

Money spent on prostitution could be spent on anything else! Anything but sex. Stop thinking with your hormones and start using your brains.

Cute. However, we like the ROI of legal, regulated prostitution.

That means "Return On Investment".

After slogging through 14 pages of posts I can honestly say the only conclusion I have reached is that we have elevated a somewhat simple sex act to a world wide problem. While I have my own opinions on this issue they are not that significant.

A number of people have asked why is this a U.N. issue and others have responded with civil rights, economic rights, etc as why it is. Someone earlier suggested what could be more important. Here is a partial list:
-reducing war, violence, conflict
-eliminating poverty
-fighting global pollution
-improving education
-civil rights issues like voting, etc. sex trade does not come to most peoples minds when you mention civil rights.

The list can go on and on. Even Demon Lord's entertaining posts no longer are interesting on this issue and that is saying a lot because even when I disagree with him I usually enjoy reading them. MOVe on to something more interesting, more significant, (economic and civil rights lol) and more entertaining. Yes I did read the text of the resolution and 14 pages of mostly repetitive arguements.

Samsonish

Lets alolcate funds for poor nations. we need your help.


whats up samonish?

We're against this motion for the following reasons:

1. The lack of any defination of what constitutes "mature" or "capable of making their own decisions".

Already dealt with, try reading the first ten pages of the arguement instead of posting the same bull we've already been over.

I'd like to see you manage to define maturity for a group that includes species with varying rates of maturation.

2. The fact that while the motion "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" this is only a long term solution. In the short term we believe that this motion will affect the most vunerable members of our society.

In the short term just about every solution to anything to will cause damage to someone. The long term is what is important.

3. The lack of understanding of the issue of "consent" where it applies to prostitution. Specifically, this motion doesn't recognise the effects of a) poverty, b) drugs or c) the influence of pimps in somebody becoming a prostitute. In any of those situations we don't believe a true choice has been made.

a. I fail to see a problem. Poverty is either caused by a bad society that needs to fix itself or lazy people. Either way, this issue won't solve it or even really affect it.

b. Still illegal if you wish it to be. Use health regulations and have your police do the jobs you pay them for.

c. Sounds like slavery to me. Crack down on the pimps.

4. The failure to address the situation of foreign prostitutes and clients. It has previously been argued that if a nation is suitably moral then it's inhabitants won't visit prostitutes. This legalises prostitution across the board, and therefore it could lead to a prostitution problem in nations where none has previously existed.

And this is our problem how?

If you don't want it, regulate it into becomming effectively illegal.

5. The calling for nations to practice "cooperation with the sex industry" with no defination of what is and isn't covered by that classification. We have no wish to co-operate with pimps.

You decide who, in addition to prostitutes, it covers. That varies depending on the nation. Oh, see above about the pimps.

6. We also think that the "ASSUMING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in a situation where prostitution is illegal" is an assumption to far. Legalised prostitution could lead to criminals going "legal" and having a perfect front for money laundering and other still illegal activity. This will increase pressure on the police by tying their hands. We also think that the idea that there is a direct link between the illegality of prostitution and STDs to be one not backed up by the evidence. Legalised prostitution is likely to lead to more prostitution taking place. This actually increase the likelyhood of STDs, particuarly those not stopped by condoms.

1. Common sense says to use health regulations to cover it and that they are not just limited to requiring condoms.

2. How is laundering money different just because it is through prostitution? Treat prostitution like any other legal occupation being used for laundering money. If your police can do nothing because it is legal, than your government must be run by crime families.

I'm afraid I think the honourable delegate has misunderstood the point. The question isn't what is permissable to bring before the UN (and I agree that's essentially up to the UN and the mods). The question is one of what the UNs role should be, and that is a perfectly legitimate topic for debate.

You also misunderstood what I said. The job of the UN is to decide what role, beyond that described in the FAQ, should be. That is decided by the entire membership, not just you.

Eh, I think each Nation should have the right to choose whether they would wish to enact this Resolution inside their own country, not particularly the UN. I just decided on an issue of the same exact caliber, keep the issue... withdraw this Resolution.

Already dealt with. Read my previous posts.

This all costs money (providing health and safetly, stimulate a clean attractive enviornment, passing legislation, etc.). This is what I meant by funding. If you say that these things are optional, then a large point of the resolution would be invalid since you say it's partially to keep STDs under control.

Here's a bit of logic: Why don't you try taxing the prostitutes and using the tax money to pay for those programs? If you can't be bothered to put the burden where needed, don't come crying to us about your failing.

That's true, but nations should not be forced to facilitate an industry that promotes what they may have as illegal before this proposal.

How is that any different from being forced to redefine marriage in a way that was illegal before in your nation?

Seems that Demon enigma feels very passionate about making whoring legal. I didn't ask how to leave the UN, I asked how to leave the UN and throw out regulations like this whoring resolution. If this bill passes I see myself leaving the UN. The basic argument for legalization of whoring is "morals are bad, religion is wrong, whoring is healthy," and whatever else they can come up with. What's next up for the UN, mandatory legalization of abortion across the board, or maybe banning religion altogether?

1. I was giving you directions on how to resign if you chose to. Common sense dictates how you would be rid of the resolution's effects.

2. Now, I'm advising you to leave. I'll help you into the express elevator.

3. Abortion was already made a mandatory legal option across the board. Try reading passed resolutions.

First i would like to say that the UN has no right to intervene in this subject. Prostitution should be up to the nations disgression.
Second, Sex is a highly abused health risk, ignorance of religous teaching, and overall immoral and inconsiderate. UNLESS uses for the purpose of either reproducing OR bringing two MARRIED individuals closer together. Consenting of course. This that i have said, plainly supports my opinion above about the UN as not all of us want legal prositution in our nations.
Therfor, for the sake of those that do not give in to either perversion or Civil UN dominance, Please Vote AGAINST this resolution.
This will be all. I will not return for replys.

First, the UN has every right to intervene because it decided it does. Part of its power.

Second, not everyone shares your religion or morality. And if you don't want prostitution legal, there are ways around the resolution.

Third, the UN has the right to override the laws of members and by joining it you already gave into its dominance.

Why? Because it is a matter that should be decided in each nation. If someone wants prostitution in their country, they can allow it in their country. If someone doesn't want prostitution in their country, then they don't have to allow it. But criminalizing prostitution does not infringe on someone's basic human rights. Criminalizing prostitution does not mean that someone will have to give up an aspect of their life because they are a 'second class citizen.' If this bill was really about preventing STD's, then why didn't the bill simply do that? Why didn't it just concentrate on curing and eliminating STD's, in the way that smallpox was done in by WHO?

This bill is mainly to answer the challenges of the repeal and to prevent people from banning prostitution outright in the UN. You choose which side you think should win.

Also, if people cared so much worldwide about keeping prostitution legal, then why did a repeal of the old law pass? Why bring up the issue again? And so soon after the repeal passed, as well.

The repeal passed because of health issues this one addresses. Also, people have been attempting to either reinstate or outright ban prostitution since it was repealed. This is just the one that got to the forefront of the battle.

This a perverted industry. We need to ban prostitution. I ain't a bible thumper of republican but sex is dangerous and it can't be let run ramped.

Any evidence sex is dangerous? Beyond the diseases, I mean.

We need to try to make all STD's cureable in it's early stages, but that dosen't mean we should have prostitution.

This merely allows some of us to help control the spread of STDs by controlling one area they spread in.

We need to do good for poor nations instead of worry about prostitues.

The poor nations got where they are because of their choice. They don't deserve our help. They want to solve their problems, they will.

I speak for my region when I say that prostition and the legalization thereof, is immoral and wrong.

I question the wisdom of saying such. It does not reflect well on the region when the arguements speaking for it are not taking into consideration basic facts of life.

No evidence it is wrong and the immorality of it depends on your moral values, thus making the statement blatantly false because some people have moral systems that don't view prostitution badly.

From a religious standpoint it's wrong.

Not everyone shares your religion. Not all religions view it as wrong.

From a moral standpoint it's wrong.

See my statement about morality above.

Even from a public health standpoint it's wrong and dangerous.

Gee, one would think that all of the advice about health regulations might be a big clue that it can be made relatively safe...

People have a right to privacy and a right to control their bodies, but legalizing prostitution is a danger to society and breeds no other benefit than sexual gratitfication.

Illogical. For one thing, no evidence it is a danger to society, as my society benefits from it. Also, it generates massive tax revenues that go to help the citizens of my nation.

Money spent on prostitution could be spent on anything else! Anything but sex. Stop thinking with your hormones and start using your brains.

Flamebait, potential trolling.

See what I said about taxing prostitution above.

This resolution is not an issue the UN should be concerned about, many of these resolutions are utter bullshit. Legalizing prostitution was not a right that the UN had and it deserved being repealed. Paying taxes to the UN is also bullshit for the past few resolutions (AND IT HURT MY ECONOMY BAD). THE UN HAS NO RIGHT TO DECIDE THIS KIND OF ISSUE, AIUR HAS BEEN CONSIDERING A WITHDRAWEL FROM THE UN DUE TO THE STUPIDITY AND THE TYRANY OF THE UN.

Please, leave. The door is right behind you. Use the express elevator and don't worry. We'll mail you anything of importance from your office.

For one thing, you don't pay taxes to the UN. The last few resolutions don't require payment. For another, the UN has the right to decide this because it decided to decide this issue. Finally, which resolutions do you consider to be "bullshit?"

Oh, smilies don't help your case.

Here is a partial list:
-reducing war, violence, conflict
-eliminating poverty
-fighting global pollution
-improving education
-civil rights issues like voting, etc. sex trade does not come to most peoples minds when you mention civil rights.

1. War, violence, and conflict cannot be reduced without affecting nonmember nations or attempting to actually unite the UN, which is an impossibility.

2. Those in poverty either come from societies that need fixing or are lazy. Neither of which are problems the UN can solve.

3. Education and pollution have been dealt with.

4. Civil rights have gone pretty much as far as they can legally.

5. This is about economics, not civil rights.

The list can go on and on. Even Demon Lord's entertaining posts no longer are interesting on this issue and that is saying a lot because even when I disagree with him I usually enjoy reading them. MOVe on to something more interesting, more significant, (economic and civil rights lol) and more entertaining.

The reason is because young nations, such as the one at the top of my post, come in, don't bother to even attempt to read the topic, think they have something revolutionary we haven't covered before, and post. Often, it's the same bull as before.

Lets alolcate funds for poor nations. we need your help.

You got where you are because of your choices. Make the proper choices and you'll stop being there.

I see no reason poor nations shouldn't suffer the consequences of their actions.

That's the point. Why legalize and delve into a professional endevour when it won't do anything for your nation except allow a minority, who had no problem investing in illegal actions, to do their business legally? Some nations do not need this load, why does it have to be in the U.N.? STDs cannot be a sole drive for this reformation of the sex industry.

They aren't. The main issue is economic freedom - the right to "sell" your body. This is best done throughout the NSUN - I don't want my people to be arrested somewhere for visiting or being a prostitute. It's ridiculous that someone who has made a certain career decision can be excluded solely on that ground. And don't start about criminals - having sex with someone is entirely different from stealing or doing physical harm.

Besides, the things people come up with (crime, drugs, STDs) are all effects of illegal prostitution, or unregulated prostitution. This resolution will change that. Now, the moral argument is difficult, because I can't change nations's viewpoints if they're that strong. However, my reasoning is: this resolution only legalizes prostitution. It doesn't say what you have to think about it. It doesn't say you have to promote it. And if you are so against, then educate your people, take away the cause of prostitution. It is only a symptom, there is no point in trying to put it away because it will come back anyway. So you will have to do more than that, you have to put effort into it to go to the root. That might be poverty, or strict morals about sex, poor education, the treatment of women. Fix that, whatever it is (your nation can decide that) and prostitution will disappear.

Isn't that a great prospect? Less prostitution through legal prostitution? I have yet to see a convincing argument against this. And remember: forbidden fruit tastes best.


OOC: Where I live lots of things (prostitution, euthanasia, softdrugs) that people in this thread probably condemn are legal. But it doesn't lead to the problems people mention, and if it does, it's because of the restrictions, not the freedom. I'm not a sex-mad individual smoking dope all the time. On the contrary, I've never smoked anything and am in a stable relationship. Lots of stuff is extremely boring when it's legal. Walking through a street with prostitutes is not a lot different from walking past other shops. And as soon as you reach that point, where things become normal, it's much easier to deal with, and society benefits from that by being more open and friendly towards each other and other people. If you repress that, or put away the different people, society becomes hostile and closed. Especially societies with strong moral rules, laid down from Above, tend to be very violent. Ignoring that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Sounds like you trying to just quell debate here.

Well, in part, because the whole "what should the UN do" is irrelevant to the subject. The UN delegates have already spoken on this, don't think it's easy to get enough endorsements, so we can assume that the UN should decide on this.

All members of te UN have a right to discuss, debate and dissent. That is the core basis of a democratic body, wouldn't you agree? As you say, the UN decides its boundries, via debate and discussion. Sounds like your saying, "if you disagree with me, your being a self centered jerk." I find that unaccceptable. All voices have a right to be heard.

Sure, we can discuss it. But in the end, the discussion is pointless. And not only because only a small percentage of nations comes here to discuss. The NSUN has no boundaries on what it should do, except "game mechanics", and whatever the mods think unacceptable. Anyone with 2 endorsements can submit a proposal, and if it gets enough endorsements it becomes a resolution. And then you can vote for or against (or not). It doesn't matter what I think belongs in the NSUN (personally, I have my doubts about a cetegory for personal firearms), or what you think. It's the collective that decides which proposals become a resolution. And that can be anything.

But that's not the issue here. This resolutions should be discussed, because the delegates decided it was worthy or becoming a resolution. It's too late now to say "this shouldn't be in the UN". All you can say now is whether you are for or against, and why. "It doesn't belong in the UN" is mostly something nations who are against use, so I assume there must be an underlying reason. That is what should be discussed here.