NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted this one, and I wish prostitution was a national choice instead, anyways heres the proposal:

ACKNOWLEDGING the good intentions of this resolution,

NOTICING the lack of STD prevention in the resolution,

ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations may have different views on sex and values, and prostitution can be seen as demoralizing female rights,

EMPHASIZING that prostitution should be an individual nations choice, and not a UN enforced trade, and that it is a controversial choice that should be put back in the nations hands to decide,

REPEALS Resolution #91

NOTICING the lack of STD prevention in the resolution,
Why would it need STD prevention?

ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations may have different views on sex and values, and prostitution can be seen as demoralizing female rights,
Men can be prostitutes too.

Besides, if they see it as demoralizing, they don't have to be one.

EMPHASIZING that prostitution should be an individual nations choice, and not a UN enforced trade, and that it is a controversial choice that should be put back in the nations hands to decide,
Redundantly repetitive. (do do TSH!)

You know, it isn't hard to loophole through SIWA.

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,
That's wiggle room if I ever saw any.

I am fully aware that men can be prostitutes, but the vast majority are women.

And you never said why it is so bad for nations to choose if they want prostitution...

So waht if my post is redundant, or anything else, the basic rules behind it are for a good cause: Nations who want prostitution can have it, those who don't do not have to have it. I do not think it is the UNs place to enforce the trade of prostitution. Surely you can see that?

I am fully aware that men can be prostitutes, but the vast majority are women.
Doesn't matter if you yourself are aware, your repeal doesn't mention it. I don't care about what you know, I'm commenting on the proposal. That's what you put it here for.

And you never said why it is so bad for nations to choose if they want prostitution...
Nor do I have to.

So waht if my post is redundant,
Do you want critique, or for people to just agree with you and encourage you to submit crap proposals?

the basic rules behind it are for a good cause:
Just because you say it is good, doesn't mean it is. Back it up.

Nations who want prostitution can have it, those who don't do not have to have it. I do not think it is the UNs place to enforce the trade of prostitution.
There is no enforcement. There is only a legalization.

Surely you can see that?
I can see what I read just fine, thank you.

(And don't call me Shirley)

Doesn't matter if you yourself are aware, your repeal doesn't mention it. I don't care about what you know, I'm commenting on the proposal. That's what you put it here for.

Well seeing how prostitution does effect women to, it is not an incorrect statement that it can be seen as demoralizing womens rights.


Nor do I have to.

Well if you are not going to argue or say why you don't like the idea behind the proposal...why post?

Do you want critique, or for people to just agree with you and encourage you to submit crap proposals?

I like critique, but I like straight answers about why you think the idea of UN taking away national choice on prostitution illegal.

Just because you say it is good, doesn't mean it is. Back it up.

I have tried...you won't answer accept with "Well it isn't that well written"

There is no enforcement. There is only a legalization.

Well if the UN didn't enforce its laws (through threats of bannings or otherwise), then noone would follow them. So enforcement is implied. If the UN legalized marijuana, I am sure it would do something about a UN nation that illegalized it.

I can see what I read just fine, thank you.

(And don't call me Shirley)

I will try not to...

Yes, but it all depends on interpretation. Each nation can interperate #91 in whichever way they please. It may "Legalize" prositution, but it is up to the individual nations to allow it or not.

How would you legalize prostitution and not allow it? :confused:

Well seeing how prostitution does effect women to, it is not an incorrect statement that it can be seen as demoralizing womens rights.
I didn't say it was incorrect. All I said was that men could be prostitutes as well.

Well if you are not going to argue or say why you don't like the idea behind the proposal...
I never said I don't like the idea behind the proposal.

why post?
Because when people put their proposals in this forum, other people come to critique, proofread, anticipate points of argument, etc. If you don't want people to critique it or raise points about your proposals, don't post them.

I like critique, but I like straight answers about why you think the idea of UN taking away national choice on prostitution illegal.
I haven't voiced an opinion. You made the mistake of trying to infer an opinion from the critique I was giving you.

I have tried...you won't answer accept with "Well it isn't that well written"
You haven't tried. All you said was "This is a good idea," but you didn't offer any reasons why it is. Arguments are made of claims/conclusions AND premises. Just because you say something is a good idea, why should the reader believe you? The burden of proof is on you, not the reader.

Well if the UN didn't enforce its laws (through threats of bannings or otherwise), then noone would follow them. So enforcement is implied. If the UN legalized marijuana, I am sure it would do something about a UN nation that illegalized it.
The only thing that is enforced is the word of the laws. Not the spirit. I already pointed out a clause in SIWA that could provide you with many a loophole for making prosititution legal but veeeery difficult.

I don't care enough about prosititution to have an opinion, or even to argue it here. You post here, you'll get critique. If you want an argument, then argue with someone who gives an argument, not someone who shows you things that are wrong or suspect with your proposals.

Regulate it into oblivion.

How would you legalize prostitution and not allow it? :confused:

I could try to dig up Gruenberg's Creative Solution to the Legalize Abortion Resolution.... It was a fine example of how something was legal but not allowed.

How would you legalize prostitution and not allow it? :confused:Legalise the selling of the service, criminalise the purchase of the service. That's what Hirota has done (following the RL Swedish laws).

Don't get me wrong, Hirota is not a fan of this proposal (mainly because it legislates to allow nations to tax prostitution - if those who are in such dire straits have to resort to the service, then they don't need taxation as an additional burden on them - indeed it was because of this resolution that hirota stopped using income tax)., but it would take something pretty special to repeal this one.

EMPHASIZING that prostitution should be an individual nations choice, and not a UN enforced trade, and that it is a controversial choice that should be put back in the nations hands to decide,

REPEALS Resolution #91Why is it that anytime one says LEGALIZE this one thinks that it is bad. We LEGALIZE it so that people can own guns but put laws in place for when they abuse their right to own that guns and go out and just kill folks with them. We LEGALIZE it so that people can drive cars then have laws that send us to prison if we get drunk and kill a few folks. To LEGALIZE it don't mean one can go out do it anyway, anytime, anyplace, with anyone they want.. As you say individual nations should have some laws on the books dealing with it based on the beliefs of the people of that nation on the subject. This one simply says the UN recogonizes that this is an issue of interest to members and they have different views on it. That the UN is not going to dictate what they do about it but will not allow a few nations to dictate their ideas on it over another. Be it for or against the issue.. Thus if a nation wants all girls at age 12 to serve until 16 as prostitutes in the national industry they that nation can do it. If another wants no part of it then they don't have to allow it. Thus what we do in our own borders is left up to individual nations but what we do outside those becomes a concern for the UN.


And before you get the idea that I indorse forced prostitution..... I beleive in a regulated industry with laws over it that protects the workers. This includes setting age limits based on sound reason for one to work in any industry... But not because the industry is a hazzard to people but because some age groups are not mature enough to work in that industry yet. As if the industry is a hazzard to those age 100 then it's a hazzard to those 10 thus safety standards must protect all workers and citizens not just a certain age group from the dangers.

Age limits and sex laws are already in place for those who do practice prostitution.

Its not so much that it is being legalized that I don't like, its that it takes the decision out of nations hands to legalize or illegilize it.

Saying that something as controversial as prostitution is hereby legal in all UN nations is like if something like meth was declared legal in all states.

They are two totally different things, but just as controversial. I would rather not have meth on my streets, but if another nation wants it sure.

Same with prostitution, some may or may not want it, and by repealing #91, the choice is the nations again and not a UN enforced law.

How would you legalize prostitution and not allow it? :confused:By eductating you people and letting them decide it they want it or not. Also by placing laws in place that don't ilegalize the prostitution but deal with other issues.. Force sex with a person is rape... thus if they are forcing workers in the industry to serve then they get hung for rape not prostitution. The age of majority in many nation can be set and if one has sex before that age it's rape thus bring in minors and rape them in the industry you don't make prostution illegal you make rape illegal.

Same idea as owning a gun.. It's legal to own a gun but when you kill somebody with it they don't try you for owning the gun but for murder.

Same idea as drinking a driving.. They don't try one for either of them they try them for murder when they get drunk and drive and kill.

Thus if one is forced to serve as a prostitute and is raped then try those involved for the crimes they do.. If that person is a minor age another charge to the rape. If their are laws that require all to have medical clearances to indulge in the industry then enforce that law. When I say all this is the prostitute and the john as well. If they are found to not have the proper documents to use the service then they are criminals. We check ID at store when folks by beer or cigarets so one can do it at the cathouse.


The idea that if you make it illegal it going to go away is wrong but by making it legal you gain better control over it. Thus make it safer for all involved as long as you enforce the rules set to work in the industry. Where making it illegal you leave it open to crooks to run the industry and they follow one rule... Make more money....


In effect what R91 does is move nations to think about the issue and take some action to limit and restrict it according to their beliefs.. Where most would not do this and thus leave the issue open and no restrictions thought out. Thus leaving it open for abuse where those who would abuse it since no laws are in place at all.

Although we support a repeal, we are unconvinced the "Ban Trafficking in Persons" resolution does not also mandate legalised prostitution. As such, this repeal may be either illegal, or pointless.

Although we support a repeal, we are unconvinced the "Ban Trafficking in Persons" resolution does not also mandate legalised prostitution. As such, this repeal may be either illegal, or pointless.I'd have to think about the legality, but a Repeal would be no more pointless than the Repeal of 'Gay Rights'.

When have we ever opposed the removal of redundant crap? Even though that's not the argument used here, ahem.

Age limits and sex laws are already in place for those who do practice prostitution.

Its not so much that it is being legalized that I don't like, its that it takes the decision out of nations hands to legalize or illegilize it.

Saying that something as controversial as prostitution is hereby legal in all UN nations is like if something like meth was declared legal in all states.

So the whole thrust of your argument is that you don't mind prostitution, but don't like the fact that the U.N. bothered to legislate on it.

Sir, that does not constitute an argument. Find another reason then legislate.

They are two totally different things, but just as controversial. I would rather not have meth on my streets, but if another nation wants it sure.

This isn't quite the same. The resolution essentially legalised the right of people to sell their bodies by means of prostitution, so as to consistently apply the right of all people to self-determination and freedom of choice. So what it says is, people can become prostitutes, but you (the national authority) get to set all the regulations and actively work against prostitution. You could create an environment that makes prostitution downright impossible, without resorting to an outright ban. Equally, the resolution makes no mention of pimping or providing prostitution, so you could still ban brothels and reduce the chance that women will be exploited through unscrupulous 'managers'.

Consider what will happen if you merely ban prostitution. It will go underground and become even more dangerous for sex-workers and clients alike. Even more men/women could end up being degraded as part of their profession or end up becoming prostitutes. Resolution 91 puts essential safeguards on the act of prostitution, for the good of all involved.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

As the largest segment of the Cluichstani economy is primarily a prostitution service (just above our uranium-mining operations), we will vehently oppose any attempt to repeal this resolution.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Consider what will happen if you merely ban prostitution. It will go underground and become even more dangerous for sex-workers and clients alike. Even more men/women could end up being degraded as part of their profession or end up becoming prostitutes. Resolution 91 puts essential safeguards on the act of prostitution, for the good of all involved.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.We strongly agree here as banning anything is like saying it don't exist at all so we do nothing until somebody gets hurt from it. Thus makes no sense to ban it as folks will do it anyway.. To bring it out and deal with it cuts down on abuse if you enforce the laws on have in place on it. Also you by making it legal don't have workers in the idustry afraid to get help when they find they are abused as a system should be in place for them to get the help they need.. Be it over health issues or how long they might have to work for what wages. As to let it go underground we leave it open for all sorts of abuse.. thus not only the worker get hurt but those that might use the services do also.

Since most believe this needs to be in the nations ballpark to deal with then a so called neutral resolution is what is needed on it thus R91 fits that as it don't keep any nation from limiting or restricting it in their own nation and yet protects other nations who might have lack laws on the issue than they might have. Yet it's hard to stay neutral when one bans something as then it's not suppose to exist anywhere. Thus when a citizen from Nation A goes to visit Nation B and uses the services in that nation do you bring them to trail when they come back home for their crimes or not... And yes if they use expense funds meant for other things on this one can but if they use their own funds then?

As the largest segment of the Cluichstani economy is primarily a prostitution service (just above our uranium-mining operations), we will vehently oppose any attempt to repeal this resolution.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Come on, you're a sovereigntist you should know as well as anyone that repealing the resolution doesn't automatically make prostitution illegal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Come on, you're a sovereigntist you should know as well as anyone that repealing the resolution doesn't automatically make prostitution illegal.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeI suppose you could say it's their biggest export.

I'd have to think about the legality, but a Repeal would be no more pointless than the Repeal of 'Gay Rights'.

When have we ever opposed the removal of redundant crap? Even though that's not the argument used here, ahem.
Well, yes. What I suppose I meant was, rather than this repeal being "pointless", that it reminded me of Dresophila Prime's repeal of Gay Rights - the one that said gay rights should be returned to the national level, where repealing Gay Rights would do no such thing. I think this might be true for this resolution too.

That said, I'm misremembering Ban Trafficking in Persons. The line I was referring to is "Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will,"

So I suppose if this was repealed, at least the issue of male prostitution would become a national issue again.