NationStates Jolt Archive

For reference:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7
Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: 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.).

Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003



NOTICING that Resolution #7 fails to define or specify any particular acts between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

DECLARING that such non-specification gives license for two (or more) consenting adults to do anything in the privacy of their own homes, including actions that are banned in every other setting, such as constructing biological weapons.

CONCLUDING that the problem could be solved with specification of the resolution as dealing with sexual practices.

PETITIONING for the immediate nullification of Resolution #7 and

ENCOURAGING the immediate passage of a resolution similar to Resolution #7 which includes specification of the actions being protected by the resolution as sexual actions.

What do you all think?

I agree that this is the problem with Sexual Freedom as a resolution, so I would support this repeal. However, some will see this as being 'overly legalistic', so it will need a strong campaign.

I agree that this is the problem with Sexual Freedom as a resolution, so I would support this repeal. However, some will see this as being 'overly legalistic', so it will need a strong campaign.

Well, I am willing to help campaign, so that's one, and if you are willing, that makes two ;)

It's a start, at least.

There have been more than a few questions about whether, say, a gangrape pediophilia attack would be....ahem....."legal" due to this resolution.

I agree that this law definitely needs to be better defined.

There have been more than a few questions about whether, say, a gangrape pediophilia attack would be....ahem....."legal" due to this resolution.
It wouldn't be legal, given Outlaw Pedophilia is UN law, but the government would have no right to intrude on it, I assume, if it was done in the privacy of the rapist's home.

Given the contentious debate over the last repeal, it might be wise to sit on this for a while.

It wouldn't be legal, given Outlaw Pedophilia is UN law, but the government would have no right to intrude on it, I assume, if it was done in the privacy of the rapist's home.

Pedophilia is covered in the "adults" clause, and rape is covered in the "consenting" clause. (That's my understanding, at least)

Given the contentious debate over the last repeal, it might be wise to sit on this for a while.

Most likely, it will never be a "good" time to repeal a resolution involving sexual freedoms, but if it's badly worded like this one, it needs to be done.

PETETIONING for the immediate nullification of Resolution #7 and



I think you want "petitioning" but I'm not sure on that spelling either...

I think you want "petitioning" but I'm not sure on that spelling either...

Good point. Did you know that spell check doesn't work if it's written in all caps? I didn't :p

Good point. Did you know that spell check doesn't work if it's written in all caps? I didn't :p
Believe me, you're not alone when it comes to that little tidbit of information. I found that out during the debate on my resolution when someone pointed out a spelling error I had made.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Seeing the major loophole left in Resolution #7, the Legal Federation of Legalese would, as the soon-to-be delegate of Atlantian Oceania, endorse a well-written repeal, contingent on a tighter-written version of Resolution #7 also in place for consideration. To start the actual drafting on the replacement, we offer this:


Sexual Privacy Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS, the United Nations priorly passed Resolution #7, Sexual Freedom, on the basis of allowing consenting adults freedom from fear of prosecution for their sexual practices.

WHEREAS, it is still the opinion of the member states that despite the repeal of Resolution #7, it should be forbidden for the government to interfere in the sexual practices of consenting adults.

DEFINING "consenting adults" as persons within the member state who are of the legal age of majority, and have made the decison in question of their own free-will, with no impairment whatsoever.

Therefore, let it be:

RESOLVED, that no member state shall be permitted to regulate the sexual practices of legal consenting adults.

NOTING that this restriction does not apply to non-sexual practices, nor does it prohibit laws regarding sexual activity in a public area.


How's this for a start?

Seeing the major loophole left in Resolution #7, the Legal Federation of Legalese would, as the soon-to-be delegate of Atlantian Oceania, endorse a well-written repeal, contingent on a tighter-written version of Resolution #7 also in place for consideration. To start the actual drafting on the replacement, we offer this:



How's this for a start?
I'm thinking, perhaps you could submit this before the repeal? You'd have to ask the mods, but this covers actions outside of their home as well (in someone else's home, which is "private"), so it's not saying exactly the same thing. It might contradict SF, though, or overlap too much.

You might also need to define "sexual practices" (in a suitable manner).

Thanks for the comments so far. I'd rather keep "in the bedroom" out of the resolution, since even that is a little too specific. That said, changing the wording to forbid the regulation of "sexual practices between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes", might work, but then again, does lead to potential problems as well; surely we wouldn't want two participants in a threesome prosecuted, since the protection doesn't apply, since they were having sex with each other in a home that's not theirs!

As for your concern regarding the term "sexual practices", I'm not sure there's really a definition that will do it here that doesn't break decorum (i.e. is a bit graphic for a resolution). Any suggestions?

You've got optischers support if you replace it. Wich you will do, won't you?:cool:

You've got optischers support if you replace it. Wich you will do, won't you?:cool:

Refer to post #12 in this thread for the suggested replacement.


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

Refer to post #12 in this thread for the suggested replacement.


Speaking of which, since the repeal is your baby, I'd like to hear your opinion on the replacement draft, if you please.

Speaking of which, since the repeal is your baby, I'd like to hear your opinion on the replacement draft, if you please.

Well, it is a good start, but you must define "public areas", so there is no confusion.

Sorry for not getting back to everyone for a couple of days, but based on the suggestions offered, here's Draft 2 of the replacement resolution.


Sexual Privacy Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS, the United Nations previously passed Resolution #7, Sexual Freedom, on the basis of allowing consenting adults freedom from fear of prosecution for their sexual practices.

WHEREAS, it is still the opinion of the member states that despite the repeal of Resolution #7, it should be forbidden for the government to interfere in the sexual practices of consenting adults.

DEFINING "consenting adults" as persons within the member state who are of the legal age of majority, and have made the decison in question of their own free-will, with no impairment whatsoever.

DEFINING “sexual practices” as intimate activities involving the use of body parts in which normal public display of said parts would be considered indecent.

Therefore, let it be:

RESOLVED, that no member state shall be permitted to regulate the sexual practices of legal consenting adults in private places.


Thoughts/Comments/Questions? Let's not let this repeal/replacement die!

DEFINING “sexual practices” as intimate activities involving the use of body parts in which normal public display of said parts would be considered indecent.

Maybe replace the public indecency part with

DEFINING “sexual practices” as intimate activities involving the use of the reproductive organs

what do you think?

Sorry for not getting back to everyone for a couple of days, but based on the suggestions offered, here's Draft 2 of the replacement resolution.



Thoughts/Comments/Questions? Let's not let this repeal/replacement die!

A worthy effort to remove a loophole-ridden resolution from the books. But let's not use the "let's not let" construction.

Maybe replace the public indecency part with

DEFINING “sexual practices” as intimate activities involving the use of the reproductive organs

what do you think?

Slight problems with this...for instance, spanking and whipping could be considered of a 'sexual' nature sometimes (S&M), but really, I'm having a tough time thinking up a better definition.

reproductive and excretory organs?
Genitalia?
You could go into the propoer names if you wanted too, but you might get embarassed:p

Therein lies the rub: using an effective definition without being too graphic, so to speak. No wonder the original resolution was so loosely worded.

In a way, I almost wonder if simply listing laws which generally refer to these crimes might be the best way to close the loophole, such as:

"...prohibits member states from enacting and establishing laws against sodomy and group sex, should all the persons involved be consenting adults."

It might be too exclusive, but it solves the delicate description problems we're currently having here.


Oh, and touche Fonzoland... I'll keep poor english out of the resolution.

In some cultures

intimate activities involving the use of body parts in which normal public display of said parts would be considered indecent.

could be taken to include the breast-feeding of babies...

In some cultures



could be taken to include the breast-feeding of babies...

The sneaky perverts... feeding, right! :mad:

Some people do complain about it, though.

In some cultures

could be taken to include the breast-feeding of babies...

Yes, it could. But since the intent of the resolution is to protect such actions from legal descrimination, not to ban such actions, I don't see how that is a problem.

Sexual Privacy Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS, the United Nations previously passed Resolution #7, Sexual Freedom, on the basis of allowing consenting adults freedom from fear of prosecution for their sexual practices.

WHEREAS, it is still the opinion of the member states that despite the repeal of Resolution #7, it should be forbidden for the government to interfere in the sexual practices of consenting adults.

DEFINING "consenting adults" as persons within the member state who are of the legal age of majority, and have made the decison in question of their own free-will, with no impairment whatsoever.

DEFINING “sexual practices” as intimate activities involving the use of body parts in which normal public display of said parts would be considered indecent.

Therefore, let it be:

RESOLVED, that no member state shall be permitted to regulate the sexual practices of legal consenting adults in private places.

I never thought that I'd ever support a repeal of this resolution, but I like the replacement draft so much, I do support it :).

One problem though..

DEFINING "consenting adults" as persons within the member state who are of the legal age of majority, and have made the decison in question of their own free-will, with no impairment whatsoever.

This clause ends with the words "with no impairment whatsoever". Unscrupulous states could use that as a massive loophole to pretty much nullify the proposal all together. All they have to do is declare homosexuality, group sex or whatever they don't like a mental impairment, and anyone who wants to paticipate in those activities unable by mental impairment to make a free decision, and bingo bango, proposal bypassed and those acts are effectivly banned.

I don't think you really need that bit at all, as the proposal looks to me like it could work fine without it. Maybe you should consider taking those words out.

*snip*

This clause ends with the words "with no impairment whatsoever". Unscrupulous states could use that as a massive loophole to pretty much nullify the proposal all together. All they have to do is declare homosexuality, group sex or whatever they don't like a mental impairment, and anyone who wants to paticipate in those activities unable by mental impairment to make a free decision, and bingo bango, proposal bypassed and those acts are effectivly banned.

I don't think you really need that bit at all, as the proposal looks to me like it could work fine without it. Maybe you should consider taking those words out.

Actually, "no impairment whatsoever" would include anyone who's even had, say, a single glass of Cluichstani whiskey.

Thanks for the comment and support. At this rate, this should be ready to go, if the repeal gets off the ground.

St. Edmund: In regards to your concern, the worst that could result regarding breast feeding is that this could be interpreted to permit breast feeding in private. What a member state decides to do with breast feeding (or sexual activity, for that matter) in public is that member state's business.

Waterana: Thank you for pointing it out. While the intent of that clause was to ensure that someone who was legally intoxicated or drugged could be considered consenting, but the result would be a rights-limiting loophole worse than the resolution this would replace. Consider the part of that sentence after "free will" sticken. I think the rest of the definition appropriately covers the meaning of "consenting adults"

Grand Maritoll: when do you plan on submitting the repeal?

Ok, some thoughts. First, I think this is a great idea, and both proposals are good. But it is going to take one hell of a TG campaign to convince delegates. I'm willing to help, incidentally. I also suggest you post the drafts on the Feeder forums, and try to get the support of the Feeder regions - that's crucial.

----

Then, the repeal: I think it's fine. I'd add two more clauses, though, to really spell it out. Start with:

"REAFFIRMING its commitment to the protection of sexual privacy"

So delegates know you're on their side.

And then I'd suggest including a link to this thread - or a fresh one, if needs be - with Legalese's proposal draft in, so that delegates i) know about the replacement and ii) can comment on it. So you could have something like:

"SUGGESTING that upon the passage of the repeal, a replacement, such as the one drafted in this thread - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467112 - be submitted, so as to reinstate UN legal protection for sexual privacy"

----

Now, the replacement. First, I think the preamble is fine. You might have something else like:

"WHEREAS Resolution #xxx, "Repeal "Sexual Freedom"", called for the swift replacement of the protection of sexual privacy"

The definitions: I think 'consenting adults' is fine. 'Sexual practices' less so, though.

OOC: For example, I'm currently doing research on a tribe called the Azande, the subjects of a very famous book in anthropology. During their poison oracle rituals, men must display their genitals. Why? I don't quite know. But it's not regarded as indecent. Many tribes do not require women to cover their breasts. And, perhaps more, do we usually have to avoid displaying our mouths, our hands? There are 'sexual practices' which would involve them.

IC: So, I know I suggested defining them earlier, but I'm going back on that. A 'sexual practice' should be obvious to everyone. I think defining sodomy as 'clearly not sexual' is wank beyond the realms of reasonable interpretation. So I would be tempted to exclude the definition. If you do keep it, remove the part about public nudity laws, because they're very variable. 'Decency' is hugely relative, and I wouldn't base a definition on it.

Finally, I think the operative clause is a little bit too weak. It shouldn't just be 'regulate': surely it should also be 'observe' or 'prohibit'?

Finally finally, there was a medical exemption in #7. You might want to consider this: for example, would your proposal prevent states from charging someone who has HIV who deliberately transmits that to someone else with assault?

Sorry for not getting back to everyone for a couple of days, but based on the suggestions offered, here's Draft 2 of the replacement resolution.


DEFINING “sexual practices” as intimate activities involving the use of body parts in which normal public display of said parts would be considered indecent.


Thoughts/Comments/Questions? Let's not let this repeal/replacement die!

Just a thought, but what if your country allows public nudity?

Just a thought, but what if your country allows public nudity?
Exactly. That's why public decency laws can't be taken as the measurement of a sexual act.

I object to this reduction in civil rights. The United Nations already had a reduction in civil rights recently. Please wait on proposing this. I will vote against this simply to maintain my status as a government with a strong civil rights record.

I object to this reduction in civil rights. The United Nations already had a reduction in civil rights recently.

We did? Oh yeah...the repeal of the "Gay Rights" resolution that didn't do anything.

Please wait on proposing this. I will vote against this simply to maintain my status as a government with a strong civil rights record.

Right, gotta keep up appearances. :rolleyes:

With the akwardness of the "sexual practices" definition, it will be removed, and other comments made by myself and others will be taken in the next draft, which will be posted shortly.

I agree with Gruenberg's comments on the repeal, and encourage Grand Martoli to add them into the repeal resolution.

In reply to Commonalitarainsm, the repeal alone is a blow to civil rights, we agree, but the wording of the intial resolution is too loophole-worthy to remain in place. Hence, the replacement resolution that's being drafted closes the loophole, yet will protect every person from persecution and prosecution for their sexual behavior in private. This is a victory for civil rights, and a blow to criminals looking for loopholes.

As promised, Draft #3 of the replacement to Resolution 7:


Sexual Privacy Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS, the United Nations previously passed Resolution #7, Sexual Freedom, on the basis of allowing consenting adults freedom from fear of prosecution for their sexual practices.

WHEREAS, Resolution #xxx, Repeal "Sexual Freedom", called for the swift replacement of Resolution #7 with an appropriate replacement.

REAFFIRMING, the opinon of the United Nations that it should be forbidden for the government to interfere in the sexual practices of consenting adults.

DEFINING "consenting adults" as persons within the member state who are of the legal age of majority, and have made the decison in question of their own free-will, with no impairment whatsoever.

Therefore, let it be:

RESOLVED, that member states shall be prohibited from regulating the sexual practices of legal consenting adults in private places.

EXCEPTING provisions passed by member states prohibiting the knowledgeable passage of sexually transmitted diseases from this resolution.



Just to note the changes:

-The preamble was altered to accomodate noting the repeal of Resolution #7.
-The defintion of "sexual practices" was removed, being too awkward and problematic
-A medical exception was added, excepting laws prohibiting the knowledgable passage of sexually transmitted diseases.

There have been more than a few questions about whether, say, a gangrape pediophilia attack would be....ahem....."legal" due to this resolution.
this would be covered by the consenting adults phrase

this would be covered by the consenting adults phrase

Exactly. The Pedophiles are having sex with a child, which can (and IMO, should) still be illegal, while the consenting would also apply, since in most cases, minors can't legally give consent.

CONFIRMING the importance of importance of sexual privacy and freedom and a resolution which properly protects individuals from discrimination based on sexual practices.

NOTICING that Resolution #7 fails to define or specify any particular acts between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

DECLARING that such non-specification gives license for two (or more) consenting adults to do anything in the privacy of their own homes, including actions that are banned in every other setting, such as constructing biological weapons.

CONCLUDING that the problem could be solved with specification of the resolution as dealing with sexual practices.

PETITIONING for the immediate nullification of Resolution #7 and

ENCOURAGING the immediate passage of a resolution similar to Resolution #7 which includes specification of the actions being protected by the resolution as sexual actions.

I added your first suggested clause, Gruenberg (thanks for the help), but I would like to request that Legalese posts his replacement in another thread so people looking into it will not have to look through this thread for it (after all, the more accessible the information is, the more likely they'll actually take the time to look it up).

Sorry for being away for a while, things are busy "at home", with revolutionaries and other lunatics trying to take control...

I plan to submit the final version within the next 3 days, so please make sure to let me know if I am missing something important before I do so.

consider it done, GM, with my apologies for hijacking your repeal draft thread.

The draft for the Sexual Privacy Act, to replace the repealed Resolution #7 (upon passage of this drafted resolution here, of course), is now here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468209

consider it done, GM, with my apologies for hijacking your repeal draft thread.

No apologies necessary

There have been more than a few questions about whether, say, a gangrape pediophilia attack would be....ahem....."legal" due to this resolution.


Description: 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.)..


I believe that with the term ADULT and CONSENTING in this one that gangRAPE pediophilia attack would not be legal under it. As rape means one party involved is not consenting and pediophilia usualy involves other than adults as victums of the action. Thus since one is not an adult nor giving consent then 'gangrape pediophilia attacks' are illegal. Also since rape may cause pregancy or pass on certain unwanted virus; it would be a reason for medical intervention... since these are medical conditions...

Personal illness means that I will not be making my self-imposed deadline, but I will submit the repeal as soon as I am well (hopefully in a day or two).

Riots and the threat of a revolting "revolution" have lead to a descision: I will not be able to be active in the UN anymore. If someone else would like to adopt and submit my repeal, they are welcome to it, but as for me...

I'm going golfing.

Riots and the threat of a revolting "revolution" have lead to a descision: I will not be able to be active in the UN anymore. If someone else would like to adopt and submit my repeal, they are welcome to it, but as for me...

I'm going golfing.

I bagsie his office!

As I do have an interest in seeing this through, so that my replacement gets in as well, I'm willing to submit this on behalf of Grand Martoli. Would anyone be interested in assisting me in a TG campaign?

The likely final draft of the replacement is here, by the way: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468209

I bagsie his office!

As usual, I call dibs on the hot secretary!

As I do have an interest in seeing this through, so that my replacement gets in as well, I'm willing to submit this on behalf of Grand Martoli. Would anyone be interested in assisting me in a TG campaign?

The likely final draft of the replacement is here, by the way: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468209
I might be able to help.

Thanks. Before I do submit this, I just want to make sure we have a good version finalized here:


Repeal Sexual Freedom

CONFIRMING the importance of importance of sexual privacy and freedom and a resolution which properly protects individuals from discrimination based on sexual practices.

NOTICING that Resolution #7 fails to define or specify any particular acts between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

DECLARING that such non-specification gives license for two (or more) consenting adults to do anything in the privacy of their own homes, including actions that are banned in every other setting, such as constructing biological weapons.

CONCLUDING that the problem could be solved with specification of the resolution as dealing with sexual practices.

PETITIONING for the immediate nullification of Resolution #7 and

ENCOURAGING the immediate passage of a resolution similar to Resolution #7, which includes specification of the actions being protected by the resolution as sexual actions.

Submitted on behalf of Grand Martoli

Remove the link, I am not sure it is legal, and it certainly looks silly.

aye, I was not certain of that. Consider it fixed.

Remove the link, I am not sure it is legal, and it certainly looks silly.For future reference, a link would be metagaming.