NationStates Jolt Archive

This has been submitted (yet again) for approval.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sexual)


The United Nations,

Applauding the intent of UNR # 7 "Sexual Freedom" to protect the individual privacy of citizens of member nations;

Recognizing that UNR # 192 "Sexual Privacy Act" institutes much more effective and appropriate legislation in this area;

Further recognizes that the passage of UNR # 192 "Sexual Privacy Act" has rendered UNR # 7 "Sexual Freedom" redundant and obsolete.;

Hereby repeals UNR # 7 "Sexual Freedom".

Approved (yet again).

Approved (yet again).

Ditto (yet again).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We would raise again the single massive loophole rendering UNR #192 a worthless piece of paper, namely the lack of definition of "age of consent", and urge delegates to consider the matter very carefully before repealing this resolution. We consider further that as it stands, the UNR #7 does no harm, and urge the proponents to work on the removal of less positive legislation.

We would raise again the single massive loophole rendering UNR #192 a worthless piece of paper, namely the lack of definition of "age of consent".I agree. My species isn't fully mature until around age 100. Clearly, all nations should adopt that as the age of consent.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We would raise again the single massive loophole rendering UNR #192 a worthless piece of paper, namely the lack of definition of "age of consent"

We cannot give a definite definition of age of consent since each individual nation will be different. Not every nation is made up of humans.

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.

I'm sure that your nation will be able to do this, unless your government is that...useless.

UNR #7 does no harm

You're right, it does no harm. It also doesn't do what it was intended to do. You want lack of definitions and massive loopholes, take a good hard look at Sexual Freedom.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

We cannot give a definite definition of age of consent since each individual nation will be different. Not every nation is made up of humans.
We fully recognise that fact. It is, in fact, not the matter at issue. Perhaps we have failed to make it clear to the honoured delegates that it is consistency that we seek in this matter, and which the otherwise admirably specific resolution fails utterly to provide.

I'm sure that your nation will be able to do this, unless your government is that...useless.
My government indeed has seen no need to change its laws at all to conform with that resolution, since they provide a clear, single age of consent of 16 for our (to all intents and purposes) purely human population. My sibling princes have been giving some consideration to generalising this in order to avoid embarrassing visitors of other species, be they short or long-lived, but I am not aware of how far their deliberations have progressed.

What my government is fully capable of doing under the terms of the resolution, but expresses an absolute abhorrence for, is defining that the age of consent for congress between a man and a woman is 16 for both parties, but that a man may not lie with a man unless both are older than 30, and that the age of consent for a group of three or more parties wish to share sexual pleasure is 177. It is debatable whether the obvious omission from that list allows lesbians to enjoy one another freely or not at all, but our point is that the mere existence of this possibility completely undermines the spirit of the resolution.

You're right, it does no harm. It also doesn't do what it was intended to do. You want lack of definitions and massive loopholes, take a good hard look at Sexual Freedom.
In this case we believe that its very lack of specificity is its saving grace. As with a number of other early resolutions that have come under the gaze of those perhaps over-eager to repeal, it establishes a principle. That principle is regrettably not completely covered by the Sexual Privacy Act. As such, repealing is would be a mistake

Approved.

I don't care how much I like the ideals of a resolution, if it sucks, then it must be repealed.

On another note: Ahahaha! I am a delegate and my approval actually matters. Wheeee!

Mr. Mawr, your concerns with Sexual Privacy Act have been debated and addressed in the original thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513352)and in the thread that you started (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=514953).

This is not the place to discuss what you believe to be problems with Sexual Privacy Act. This is for the repeal of Sexual Freedom. If you have nothing to offer on that subject, then please leave.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Approved.

I don't care how much I like the ideals of a resolution, if it sucks, then it must be repealed.

On another note: Ahahaha! I am a delegate and my approval actually matters. Wheeee!
Damn you, stealing my delegacy. What's that you say? I didn't run? I don't care! I should still be delegate! Besides, it's PM Strong's choice whether or not Paradica runs, not mine. *grumble*

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador
NOT a UN Delegate *grumble*

Retired Werepenguins stands in support of this repeal. We are dissapointed in that the repeal fails to mention that UN Resolution #7 is a worthless piece if shit that did absolutely nothing except annoy the letigimate agents of national law enforcement in areas that had nothing to do with sex in the first place, due to the nature of the resolution being so written that even a five year old would bitterly complain about it. But one needs to overcome the trappings of emtion in order to achieve high intelletual goals.

Tzor Red Brown

Liubenia cannot agree with the repeal of this act. While resolution #192 may be more clarified in sexual privacy, it does not provide a definition for the age of consent, like the ambassador Mawr has pointed out. What nobody has mentioned however is religious and spiritual beliefs on the age of consent, and how resolution #192 does nothing to protect them. Therefore, we believe it should be resolution #192 be repealed and clarified before resolution #7 is repealed.

Furthermore, we do not believe we should jail masochists and homosexuals for having sexual pleasure with each other. That in itself is a hypocrisy for everything the resolution stands for, if it does indeed stand for sexual privacy.

Oh, sweet Cluich...not the same ignorant arguments against this repeal again...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The thing is Sheik, their arguments are that the Sexual Privacy Act should be repealed instead. What a brilliant idea! Let's get rid of the more comprehensive legislation because we're not smart enough to understand it.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a discussion for the repeal of Sexual Freedom, not the Sexual Privacy Act. If you have nothing to say on the matter, there's the door. Please don't let it hit you on the way out.


Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Representative Dioce, the very nature of this debate is to repeal UNR #7 because UNR #192 is more clarified compared to the former. While this is true, we believe UNR #192 is not clarified enough, and should be repealed before UNR #7 is repealed.

Representative Dioce, the very nature of this debate is to repeal UNR #7 because UNR #192 is more clarified compared to the former. While this is true, we believe UNR #192 is not clarified enough, and should be repealed before UNR #7 is repealed.

That makes perfect fucking sense.

Oh, wait. No, it doesn't. Not a lick.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We do not believe UNR #192 is a viable substitute for UNR #7. Sometimes, Sheikh, it is better to read things more clearly than to imagine yourself as one who might intimidate me and demean what I say.

And sometimes it's actually better to use your brain when you read text.

it does not provide a definition for the age of consent,What you need to consider is that there are a vast number of species in the NS multiverse, and setting an age as a one size fits all is foolish. As Vermithrax Pejorative pointed out, the consent for her particular species is 100 - for humans this would be a difficult number to live to, let alone being able to concieve.On the other hand, I know the What nobody has mentioned however is religious and spiritual beliefs on the age of consent, and how resolution #192 does nothing to protect them.So what you are saying here is what exactly? That the UN or the national governments have to tell people when to keep their clothes on?

Please....if your religion commanded you to not have snoo-snoo (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snoo+snoo&defid=362161) till you were 40, then there is no conflict with state legislation. I don't see member states forcing their population to make the beast with two backs anywhere, do you?Therefore, we believe it should be resolution #192 be repealed and clarified before resolution #7 is repealed.Well then laddie, go and draft a repeal! It's not that difficult, if you know what you are doing.Furthermore, we do not believe we should jail masochists and homosexuals for having sexual pleasure with each other. That in itself is a hypocrisy for everything the resolution stands for, if it does indeed stand for sexual privacy.Quite right, now tell us where that is not protected.We do not believe UNR #192 is a viable substitute for UNR #7.Well, do something about it, instead of complaining. Go submit a repeal, see how far it goes.Sometimes, Sheikh, it is better to read things more clearly than to imagine yourself as one who might intimidate me and demean what I say.Perhaps what you are saying is such an obvious target for demeaning it is impossible to resist?

Ah by the way, Hirota will SUPPORT this repeal.

You know, Sheikh, I begin to wonder if you simply have an issue with me, or with what I'm saying. You have not once stated your reasons for disputing what I say, and quite frankly it's beginning to annoy me. If you have any real quarrels, state them now, or just get lost.

You know, Sheikh, I begin to wonder if you simply have an issue with me, or with what I'm saying. You have not once stated your reasons for disputing what I say, and quite frankly it's beginning to annoy me. If you have any real quarrels, state them now, or just get lost.
Welcome to the UN forum.

I believe my fine Hirotan friend has said all that needs to be said. We do not take things personally here. This is government business. You may take your martyr complex elsewhere, though, if you like. Or, if you really want, I can have my assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel (http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg) nail you to a tree.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Liubenia cannot agree with the repeal of this act. While resolution #192 may be more clarified in sexual privacy, it does not provide a definition for the age of consent, like the ambassador Mawr has pointed out. What nobody has mentioned however is religious and spiritual beliefs on the age of consent, and how resolution #192 does nothing to protect them. Therefore, we believe it should be resolution #192 be repealed and clarified before resolution #7 is repealed.


This makes absolutely no sense at all. The representative claims that NSUNR #192 is defective because it doesn't define age of consent, and therefore NSUNR #7 should stay on the books. Now, the only possible logical reason for this would be if NSUNR #7 did define age of consent. Does it? Nope. It just talks about "consenting adults".

NSUNR #192 may not be all that the represntative wishes it was, but it's good, sound legislation. NSUNR #7 is garbage. The notion that NSUNR #192 should be repealed before -- or instead of -- #7 is nonsense.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Honoured delegates, it appears that the manner of formation of our name is causing some confusion. 'Mawr' is not a patronymic, such being uncommon in Gobbannium and in any case redundant given our royal title. If one prefers not to use the honorific "Your Highness", which we quite understand in this assembly, then the use of my forename is more proper.

This is not the place to discuss what you believe to be problems with Sexual Privacy Act. This is for the repeal of Sexual Freedom. If you have nothing to offer on that subject, then please leave.

With respect, Ambassador Dioce, given that we believe the repeal of the Sexual Freedom Resolution will aggravate the omissions in the Sexual Privacy Act, then we believe it is highly relevant and would appreciate a more constructive attitude than mere dismissal on your part.

Our problems with this repeal are not insurmountable, but if delegates here present are bound and determined to reduce the mandation of civil rights in this manner then we will bring forward a resolution to "patch the hole" as it were as a matter of great urgency.

Oh, sweet Cluich...not the same ignorant arguments against this repeal again...

Yea, it really should use a solid number, like that other resolution under consideration for repeal does. :p

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Please....if your religion commanded you to not have snoo-snoo till you were 40, then there is no conflict with state legislation. I don't see member states forcing their population to make the beast with two backs anywhere, do you?

We meant to say religions and spiritual groups who believe the age of consent should be LOWER than what the government mandates are not protected. UNR #192 doesn't help them at all.

Quite right, now tell us where that is not protected.

We are under the impression acts of sexuality which harm individuals is exempt from this act. For instance, sodomy may be considered a "serious" enough injury as to warrant persecution by certain nations. Just like varying age's of consent for different peoples, you should understand this is the same principle.

Like we said earlier, this resolution provides no clear stance on such things.

Our problems with this repeal are not insurmountable, but if delegates here present are bound and determined to reduce the mandation of civil rights in this manner then we will bring forward a resolution to "patch the hole" as it were as a matter of great urgency.

On that, with the ambassador of Hirota's blessings to do so, we are in support of this notion.

Like we said earlier, this resolution provides no clear stance on such things.

It's a repeal, smart guy. All it has to do is point out how the existing resolution it's trying to bring down is flawed. In fact, presenting a clear stance on the issue, other than demonstrating flaws in the existing resolution, could tread very close to introducing new legislation, which is illegal in a repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I have approved this (again)

Happily APPROVED.


With respect, Ambassador Dioce, given that we believe the repeal of the Sexual Freedom Resolution will aggravate the omissions in the Sexual Privacy Act, then we believe it is highly relevant and would appreciate a more constructive attitude than mere dismissal on your part.

How?

Another question for those that believe that the lack of definition for the term "age of consent" is an issue. How would you like to see it defined?

(OOC)
I would also like to see how you'll manage to come up with one all encompassing definition for age of consent that includes every single species that exists within the NationStates world. This could be interesting.

Well, I'll give him this: He tried (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517890). Failed. But tried nonetheless.