NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies, gentlemen, and those of a more difficult to determine nature, we believe that there may be a fatal flaw in the drafting of the Sexual Privacy Act. As a relative newcomer to these exalted halls, in which have echoed the voices of [three minutes of tedious hyperbole omitted from the record], as such a newcomer we find it expedient to ask those who were present at the time whether the gaping void in this otherwise excellent legislation was intentional, and if not whether it can be improved by a supporting Act or whether it must be repealed and replaced.

The flaw is a devastatingly simple one. The Act defines an adult as one who has reached the legal age of consent under the laws of the member state, and proceeds to ban the criminalisation of private sexual acts between consenting adults. Sadly, it fails to recognise the great number of nations who, mistakenly believing such regulation to be their salvation, define the age of consent variably depending on the act under consideration. Any nation may therefore de facto ban any sexual act, in private or otherwise, by insisting that no one below the age of 250 is competant to consent to it.

It may be remarked by some that by observing this infelicity in public we are allowing member states who are otherwise educationally deficient to break the spirit of the resolution. It may be remarked by others that such rather proves our point. In either case, we would appreciate guidance from the more experienced and sensible members of this august chamber, while accepting how unlikely such is.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/13075459/t-221080604.jpg Welcome to the UN! (Or at least the forums!)

Yes this is a potential flaw in the resoluton. Granted there are a plethora of flaws in all resolutions, given the general limitations of resolutions in general and the general nature of the bizzare beings that form the nations of the United Nations.

Age of consent, age of reason, age of just about anything, is a delicate subject in the halls of the UN and in UN resolutions in general. You see not everyone here is ... pure human ... and some aren't human at all. (Those staff members you see around you who look short and wear those pointed hats are gnomes, I know of one nation that is run by dolphins, and so forth.)

So you see, just about every race has some sort of notion of young one, and some sort of idea that young ones should not be entitled to the same thing as the former young ones. Unfortunately, it's hard to state justexactly what a young one is in law. Even the pure humans can't decide on that, given a variety of cultures.

You just have to assume that people and nations are generally sane or reasonable or else you will discover that in your stay in the UN you have become neither yourself.

Ladies, gentlemen, and those of a more difficult to determine nature, we believe that there may be a fatal flaw in the drafting of the Sexual Privacy Act. As a relative newcomer to these exalted halls, in which have echoed the voices of [three minutes of tedious hyperbole omitted from the record], as such a newcomer we find it expedient to ask those who were present at the time whether the gaping void in this otherwise excellent legislation was intentional, and if not whether it can be improved by a supporting Act or whether it must be repealed and replaced.

The flaw is a devastatingly simple one. The Act defines an adult as one who has reached the legal age of consent under the laws of the member state, and proceeds to ban the criminalisation of private sexual acts between consenting adults. Sadly, it fails to recognise the great number of nations who, mistakenly believing such regulation to be their salvation, define the age of consent variably depending on the act under consideration. Any nation may therefore de facto ban any sexual act, in private or otherwise, by insisting that no one below the age of 250 is competant to consent to it.

It may be remarked by some that by observing this infelicity in public we are allowing member states who are otherwise educationally deficient to break the spirit of the resolution. It may be remarked by others that such rather proves our point. In either case, we would appreciate guidance from the more experienced and sensible members of this august chamber, while accepting how unlikely such is.

To borrow a page from the distinguished Dr. Olembe of Ausserland, a reasonable nations wouldn't do that.

But, because the UN is mostly comprised of sadistic, depraved, and insane nations, it's entirely likely. The only possible remedy for this would be emigration. Furthermore, such a nation that outlaws all sexual relations would cease to exist in two generations, with the birth rate being completely eliminated.

There is no doubt that many abuse the law, what is important is whether that abuse is widespread and if it invalidates the meaning of the legislation. This problem, in our eyes, does not.

Most courteously,

Ladies, gentlemen, and those of a more difficult to determine nature, we believe that there may be a fatal flaw in the drafting of the Sexual Privacy Act. As a relative newcomer to these exalted halls, in which have echoed the voices of [three minutes of tedious hyperbole omitted from the record], as such a newcomer we find it expedient to ask those who were present at the time whether the gaping void in this otherwise excellent legislation was intentional, and if not whether it can be improved by a supporting Act or whether it must be repealed and replaced.

The flaw is a devastatingly simple one. The Act defines an adult as one who has reached the legal age of consent under the laws of the member state, and proceeds to ban the criminalisation of private sexual acts between consenting adults. Sadly, it fails to recognise the great number of nations who, mistakenly believing such regulation to be their salvation, define the age of consent variably depending on the act under consideration. Any nation may therefore de facto ban any sexual act, in private or otherwise, by insisting that no one below the age of 250 is competant to consent to it.

It may be remarked by some that by observing this infelicity in public we are allowing member states who are otherwise educationally deficient to break the spirit of the resolution. It may be remarked by others that such rather proves our point. In either case, we would appreciate guidance from the more experienced and sensible members of this august chamber, while accepting how unlikely such is.The Justified ancients of -MU-MU- note the loophole, but note that if a nation is truly willing to adjust their age of consent to 250, and thus make sex an illegal act would instantly find themselves overwelmed with a prison population (or indeed a waiting list for death row exceeding the anticipated life expectancy of many of those on the list) outnumbering the population not incarcerated. If a nation was willing to place itself into this state, then so be it.

Moreover, the age of consent could be 250 for some non-human species. You've noted that it's not just ladies and gents who are within the auspices of the UN mandate, so why not species who consider a lifespan of 250 years to be a short one?
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7197/mumuhk3.jpg

I must agree with your statment of belife of salvation. This resolution would allow for pologamy, which is a sexual deviant using religion as it's sheild.

First, the Continent Arcanum's sizable gnomish population would like to deny that the pointy hats are anything but a stereotype put about by humans who have never visited the Continent.

Second, while the Continent Arcanum's population does not, in general, support polygamy, we note that it is often found in nature, with one, generally a male, animal having the exclusive mating privelege to a number of the opposite sex, generally female. Given this, we feel that the position of polygamy as a 'sexual deviancy' is a socio-cultural decision, usually reached on the basis of religious or ingrained social mores.

Respectfully,
Thaddeus Grellins
Advisor, United Nations Advisory Board of the Continent Arcanum

The Justified ancients of -MU-MU- note the loophole, but note that if a nation is truly willing to adjust their age of consent to 250, and thus make sex an illegal act would instantly find themselves overwelmed with a prison population (or indeed a waiting list for death row exceeding the anticipated life expectancy of many of those on the list) outnumbering the population not incarcerated. If a nation was willing to place itself into this state, then so be it.

Again, however, you err in asserting that each nation has but a single age of consent. This is by no means the case. We imagine, for instance, that the honoured representative from Aqua Anu would consider that at no age may one consent to polygamous sexual acts, if we understand their misunderstanding correctly, and might record that "age" accordingly if they were of a mind to circumvent the spirit of the resolution. It is this inequity that we perceive requires addressing, as it renders the Resolution meaningless.

[In RL, go have a look at http://www.ageofconsent.com/ and consider the wide variation of AoC for straight, gay and lesbian sex just within the US.]

Moreover, the age of consent could be 250 for some non-human species. You've noted that it's not just ladies and gents who are within the auspices of the UN mandate, so why not species who consider a lifespan of 250 years to be a short one?

We begin to regret mentioning any number, having merely attempted to render the matter more clear to delegates. The number itself is irrelevant, intended to convey an unreasonable target for those of a conventional human lifespan, and we apologise to those peoples of greater longevity if they perceived an offense -- none such was intended.

Your point about other species is well made, however, as it brings to the fore a more troublesome issue in dealing with this problem. Clearly a single Age of Consent within any one nation may be insufficient, if that nation has residents of more than one species with different rates of physical and emotional maturation. Is one Age of Consent per species (per gender if biologically required) then sufficient? Or do issue of inter-species relationships complicate matters beyond repair? Suppose, by way of example, that a human female enters into a sexual relationship with a male dolphin; does she require (in addition to breathing apparatus) a greater degree of maturity than she would embarking upon a similar relationship with a human male?

Clearly, this is a matter to be considered carefully before any proposals could reasonably be made.

I must agree with your statment of belife of salvation. This resolution would allow for pologamy, which is a sexual deviant using religion as it's sheild.

OK, I'm confused. How the hell does a resolution that never once uses the word marriage legalize poligamy?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OK, I'm confused. How the hell does a resolution that never once uses the word marriage legalize poligamy?More importantly, what's the big deal about it any way? If everyone involved is a consenting adult, who cares?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

More importantly, what's the big deal about it any way? If everyone involved is a consenting adult, who cares?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We damn sure don't.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

If you are going to talk about the loophole in a resolution, at least talk about the real loophole. You know, the one that works well.

Roderick Spear

This same business came up during Child Pornography Prohibition: preschoolers driving buses and somesuch. If you raise the age of consent to 250 in your nation, that will mean that no one will be able to do most anything until they're 250. Note that the resolution says that one's sexual activities become internationally protected upon reaching "the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place," and not "the special age of consent nations can create solely for sexual activities in order to wank noncompliance with this resolution."

The only real problem with Sexual Privacy Act is that it inadvertently makes adult incest an internationally protected act, but given the overall scope and intent of the document, it's a relatively minor concern.

You can ban incest under it.

Roderick Spear

1. DEFINES sexual activities, for the purpose of this resolution, as behavior, in the form of consensual physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification. Excluded from this definition are acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant.

2. FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual who has reached the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place.

3. BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and B) all participants are consenting adults.I'd sure like to know how.

and what exactly is the legal definition of a consenting adult ?

and are there any limitations upon the ability to consent? is there an absolute minimum age ? puberty perhaps?

Could a masochist who achieves sexual gratification by getting beaten up be considered psychologically stable enough to consent ? should a sadist who satiates his/her sexual desire by inflicting pain be permitted to continue in said actions ? can someone really consent to assault? can a government legalise assault so that some people can get their happies?

ditto a highly patriarchal/matriarchal polygamous/polyandrous nation where the gender power imbalance blurs the line between consent and coercion?
especially regarding incest?

And how exactly does a government ensure there is consent ? Are there going to be agencies which can ensure the most vulnerable in society are protected ? especially financially ?

all we need is some capitalist nation to decree the age of consent is 13 and it begins a lucrative business in pubescent prostitution? can consenting for money be considered consent?

ditto marital laws : is there a social welfare safety net there to ensure that wives or husbands are not being financially or socially forced to remain in abusive relationships where they are possibly being raped...???


It's all very nice and liberally idealistic to formulate these laws if you aren't the ones who have to pick up the pieces....

I must agree with your statment of belife of salvation. This resolution would allow for pologamy, which is a sexual deviant using religion as it's sheild.

"POLOGAMY"? The marrying/coupling of multiple words?

I knew the population of NS was diverse, but Holy Wedded Etymology, Batman!

and what exactly is the legal definition of a consenting adult ?

and are there any limitations upon the ability to consent? is there an absolute minimum age ? puberty perhaps?

Could a masochist who achieves sexual gratification by getting beaten up be considered psychologically stable enough to consent ? should a sadist who satiates his/her sexual desire by inflicting pain be permitted to continue in said actions ? can someone really consent to assault? can a government legalise assault so that some people can get their happies?

ditto a highly patriarchal/matriarchal polygamous/polyandrous nation where the gender power imbalance blurs the line between consent and coercion?
especially regarding incest?

And how exactly does a government ensure there is consent ? Are there going to be agencies which can ensure the most vulnerable in society are protected ? especially financially ?

all we need is some capitalist nation to decree the age of consent is 13 and it begins a lucrative business in pubescent prostitution? can consenting for money be considered consent?

ditto marital laws : is there a social welfare safety net there to ensure that wives or husbands are not being financially or socially forced to remain in abusive relationships where they are possibly being raped...???


It's all very nice and liberally idealistic to formulate these laws if you aren't the ones who have to pick up the pieces....

...and in other news, the sky is falling.:rolleyes:

and what exactly is the legal definition of a consenting adult ?

You know, this has been said fifteen billion times before but it looks like it needs to be said again. If the UN is silent on an issue (aka there are no resolutions passed on it) then nations get to decide it for themselves. And considering the wide variety of species inhabiting UN member nations, it's better for nations to establish those laws themselves.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

and what exactly is the legal definition of a consenting adult ?
Whatever a nation says the definition is.
Could a masochist who achieves sexual gratification by getting beaten up be considered psychologically stable enough to consent ?
Yes, certainly.
should a sadist who satiates his/her sexual desire by inflicting pain be permitted to continue in said actions ?
SPA only protects sexual acts which have mutual consent.
can someone really consent to assault?
Yes. It's called 'boxing.'
can a government legalise assault so that some people can get their happies?
Well if someone consents to being hurt, it's not a crime now, is it?
ditto a highly patriarchal/matriarchal polygamous/polyandrous nation where the gender power imbalance blurs the line between consent and coercion?
Oh no, god help me, there are too few women...I guess I've gotta sleep with this one, or I'm gonna lose the family name! Coercion! Coercion!
especially regarding incest?
Read past UN Resolution "Outlaw Pedophilia."
And how exactly does a government ensure there is consent ?
Don't think there's consent? Charge the offender for rape.
Are there going to be agencies which can ensure the most vulnerable in society are protected ? especially financially ?
Only if you want there to be. Financially? Do we have to pay people to have sex?
all we need is some capitalist nation to decree the age of consent is 13 and it begins a lucrative business in pubescent prostitution?
Sex Industry Worker Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=90) gave nations soverignty (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sovereignty) on this issue. This was possible long before Sexual Privacy Act.
can consenting for money be considered consent?
Yes.
ditto marital laws : is there a social welfare safety net there to ensure that wives or husbands are not being financially or socially forced to remain in abusive relationships where they are possibly being raped...????
Some nations actually don't steal money from people for the good of society without their consent. They use private charity instead.
And rape is already a crime (no consent)...

I hope this clears things up.

Note that the resolution says that one's sexual activities become internationally protected upon reaching "the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place," and not "the special age of consent nations can create solely for sexual activities in order to wank noncompliance with this resolution."


As has been illumined elsewhere, where the resolution remains silent on an issue it is deemed a matter of national sovereignty. The resolution does not attempt to define age of consent, save by reference to national law; therefore no distinction can be made between the 'legal' and 'special' ages of consent to which you refer, all of which are by definition legal.

You can ban incest under it.


Only by exploitation of the loophole which we are considering here; that one could, for example, define that there is no age at which it is legal to consent to incest. This seems to us a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, regardless of one's position on the subject.

Still whining after all this time.....

Why don't you stop complaining and do something about it? Every argument that you have against this was heard during the debate. Every single concern was raised and answered exactly the same way that people are answering them now. It's done. Move on.

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Got to agree with Karmicaria and Cluichstan on this one - your arguements are dated. They were used in the original discussion, and the UN still voted for the proposal.

And you clearly have not read the comments from David6. Read them