NationStates Jolt Archive

Feedback needed:

UN Proposal

Moral Decency

Outlaw Bestiality

DEFINING bestiality, for the purposes of this resolution, as any sexual act performed on a beast,

DEFINING a beast as a member of any species not known as Homo sapiens,

DISTURBED by the occurrence of bestiality within some of the member nations of the UN,

RECOGNIZING that according to United Nations Resolution #192, the Sexual Privacy Act, “BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and b) all participants are consenting adults,”

NOTING that animals are incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

SEEING that United Nations Resolution #173, Repeal “Definition of Marriage” says, “The last line is also disturbing: "FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit."

This is an endorsement of bestiality, and it should have no business being in the UN,”

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw bestiality,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of bestiality to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of bestiality.

Strength: Mild

...You do realize that there are other races out there other than the human race? Aliens? Clones (OOC: I ran a FT clone race once)? Our nation in fact grants citizenship to animals and some bacteria...if this law passes, the ability for animals to reproduce would be BANNED.

A local law might be fine, but not for the UN.

...however, I don't think its UN worthy. It makes perfect sense and is a wonderful guideline, but the pretense to bring it forth in front of the UN seem kinda rash. I mean the UN proposes things like Nuclear arms, Economically important facts and, just recently added to the roster Biological weapons and their necessity. If your neighbor wants to pork the pooch on his own time, let him remain within his little home across the street and it shouldn't get out of control.
As mentioned previously, I agree, its totally wrong and indecent. So maybe doctor Ban to Controlling? If you ban it, than racists will try to ban interracial relationships, homosexuality, etc. Like I said, if you want to bring the issue forth, try to at least doctor it. Banning it all together might not be too savvy to some folks.

NOTING that animals are incapable of consent

We should also outlaw animals having sex with each other. I mean it's animal rape, you know, they can't give consent!

I think the nation of Kampers delegation does bring up a very good point with regards to Beastility. However, since the other U.N representatives note that in NS other races are playable that are not homo sapien and have 'animal' traits it is not right to ban their production or state they can not give consent if they want to produce with their own race or with another race. Therefore as an individual law or clearly define it as the pet variety and change about consent or you might have a small bit of trouble with the idea of races being played in NS.

so how could i imporve upon this?
it was only intended to be for the human race
it was slightly based on the outlawing of necrophelia, and if bestiality doesn't belong in the UN, neither does that resolution

so how could i imporve upon this?
it was only intended to be for the human race
it was slightly based on the outlawing of necrophelia, and if bestiality doesn't belong in the UN, neither does that resolution

It would be better, frankly, to dispense with this idea altogether. Individual nations can decide well enough for themselves what their laws concerning bestiality should be.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Why do we decide if people should or shouldn't be allowed to have sexual intercourse with animals of other species? If naturally or instinctively a person chooses that they are sexually attracted to animals its none of my business, its what they do. I don't want anyone telling me who I can have sex with, they don't want people telling them what type of animal they can have sex with...

Whatever, its a part of evolution maybe. Who knows strange things happen all the time if its a developing trend, then so be it. All I'm saying is people should have the freedom to make that decision on their own. Obviously, I am not trying to condone public bestiality or anything like that... but hey it's not my choice.

It would be better, frankly, to dispense with this idea altogether. Individual nations can decide well enough for themselves what their laws concerning bestiality should be.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

This is my exact point. It shouldn't be brought to the UN for any reason. Its more of a personal conflict than anything else.

We opposed the resolution on necrophilia and we would oppose this proposal. There is simply no justification whatever for the NSUN to legislate on this matter. It is completely within the ability and properly within the purview of individual nations to do so.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Obviously, as a nation of non-humans, I oppose this. :p I think sexual matters should be decided by individual nations rather than a big global UN. Even something gross like necrophilia might be acceptable to a nation of zombies.

<frowns>

You could make bestiality an issue of consent - that a being unable to give consent is illegal. You could do the same with necrophillia - the idea being that a dead person is unable to give consent (which clearly is not the case with some nations).

We opposed the resolution on necrophilia and we would oppose this proposal. There is simply no justification whatever for the NSUN to legislate on this matter. It is completely within the ability and properly within the purview of individual nations to do so.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Moreover, there are different cultural identities of which account should be held.
It would be dangerous that the UN takes a position.

We strongly suspect that the representative of Kampfers is struggling with urges to engage in sexual relations with a wombat and is just hoping that the UN will prohibit bestiality so he can have an excuse to suppress those urges, thus relieving him of his own personal moral dilemma.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We strongly suspect that the representative of Kampfers is struggling with urges to engage in sexual relations with a wombat and is just hoping that the UN will prohibit bestiality so he can have an excuse to suppress those urges, thus relieving him of his own personal moral dilemma.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

lol. Regardless, I agree more with the consent idea. The bill should cover both by saying that exchanging in intercourse with someone or THING incapable of giving consent should be illegal. that was a wonderful idea, i must say. Good show, man!

We strongly suspect that the representative of Kampfers is struggling with urges to engage in sexual relations with a wombat and is just hoping that the UN will prohibit bestiality so he can have an excuse to suppress those urges, thus relieving him of his own personal moral dilemma.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

LOL

BURN!!!

*Mutters about and at no one in particular - no reason to create favoritism

Feedback needed:

Ok, despite the fact that I am not particularly happy with a proposal on this matter (like just about everyone else here), the fact of the matter is a well worded proposal on this subject would probably pass with a decent margin which hasn't had a chance to be vetted by this community to resolve issues such as the fact that we have non-human sapient species in the UN because the UN can't comprehend the sapient species crap (as was proven by the fact that the sapient species rights proposal was, quite literally, thrown out by this body - speaking of which, we should see if we can take another run at that one at some point)

Honestly, if I had the energy (which I don't), time (which I definitely don't) and motivation (well.....actually no), I'd have shoved through a proposal that gave sapient species the rights and privleges of being citizens and then we could talk about making it so sapient species can't have sex with non-sapient species. However, we got ALC so clearly I'm not always going to get my way.

UN Proposal

Moral Decency

A sex proposal from a newbie that got the right category - Good start.

Outlaw Bestiality

DEFINING bestiality, for the purposes of this resolution, as any sexual act performed on a beast,

To shut David6 up: "performed on a beast by a non-beast". You may want to think of a way to word that a bit better.

DEFINING a beast as a member of any species not known as Homo sapiens,

This definition is probably the crux of the entire proposal. We could throw things in like "that is not sentient", "that is not a citizen", "that is not part of the societal structure".....but all of them have problems that I just don't like. Honestly, the first one is probably the best as it doesn't really screw with the vast majority of societies.

DISTURBED by the occurrence of bestiality within some of the member nations of the UN,

I want to pause here to deal with something else that I noticed

Moreover, there are different cultural identities of which account should be held.
It would be dangerous that the UN takes a position.

Y'know, here's the problem with some of you people. Sometimes, a proposal intentionally wishes to stomp on cultural traditions because it considers those very traditions morally repugnant. You may take offense to that concept, you may threaten the fact that your cultural values and norms are being stepped on gives you the full right to step on ours, you may whine all you want about how it infringes upon national sovereignty, but it isn't an argument until you can give me a reason that's better than "it'll interfere with our culture".

That's been lying in wait for a good 3 months. Moving on

RECOGNIZING that according to United Nations Resolution #192, the Sexual Privacy Act, “BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and b) all participants are consenting adults,”

NOTING that animals are incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

If you were to take Hirota's method, I'd actually start with these two lines and then build towards a climax where you define and outlaw Beastiality in one swoop.

SEEING that United Nations Resolution #173, Repeal “Definition of Marriage” says, “The last line is also disturbing: "FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit."

Toss this. This is completely about the previously stated facts about non-humans.

This is an endorsement of bestiality, and it should have no business being in the UN,”

This is pointless at best and an attempted amendment at worst. Drop it.

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw bestiality,

RECOMMENDS? Your title is outlaw beastiality and your RECOMMEND? Wow...

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of bestiality to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of bestiality.

Hehe, I love this sort of stuff :)

Strength: Mild

Yeah....could you stick this at the top in the future?

The bill should cover both by saying that exchanging in intercourse with someone or THING incapable of giving consent should be illegal. that was a wonderful idea, i must say. Good show, man!

I'll have to disagree with you about the idea of including things to be a "wonderful idea." By including inanimate objects you pretty much cripple the sex toy industry.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'll have to disagree with you about the idea of including things to be a "wonderful idea." By including inanimate objects you pretty much cripple the sex toy industry.


And we'll never stand for that!

Cheers,
Sheik Eralc bin Cluich
President and CEO, CPESL

Y'know, here's the problem with some of you people. Sometimes, a proposal intentionally wishes to stomp on cultural traditions because it considers those very traditions morally repugnant. You may take offense to that concept, you may threaten the fact that your cultural values and norms are being stepped on gives you the full right to step on ours, you may whine all you want about how it infringes upon national sovereignty, but it isn't an argument until you can give me a reason that's better than "it'll interfere with our culture".


Oh sorry, I thought that the argument was clear considering UN is nothing but a free association of nations.
I don't speak about national sovereignty but about right to the cultural differences.
I didn't say that we couldn't take so a proposal but that would be dangerous to take for the UN. UN is a free association of nations, so if you stomp on cultural traditions without a little bit of diplomacy, you just risk to have some nations resigning UN. And for me, a UN that doesn't concern the largest part of our world is useless.

And for me, a UN that doesn't concern the largest part of our world is useless.

Hmm, that's an interesting statement. Let's crunch some numbers. According to here (http://www.nationstates.net/48398/page=world) there are 91,057 nations in the world, and according to here (http://www.nationstates.net/48398/page=un) 26,116 of them are in the UN. Now this means that of all the nations in the world only 28.68% of them are actually members and since the UN only cares about it's members it looks like the UN actually doesn't care about the majority of the world.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'll have to disagree with you about the idea of including things to be a "wonderful idea." By including inanimate objects you pretty much cripple the sex toy industry.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Ok, let me be a little more specific. I understand now that when I said thing, I meant organism, or biotic being. Not abiotic inventions that cause private pleasure in one's home (though easier and more readily available/mass produced than some pets.lol)

Hmm, that's an interesting statement. Let's crunch some numbers. According to here (http://www.nationstates.net/48398/page=world) there are 91,057 nations in the world, and according to here (http://www.nationstates.net/48398/page=un) 26,116 of them are in the UN. Now this means that of all the nations in the world only 28.68% of them are actually members and since the UN only cares about it's members it looks like the UN actually doesn't care about the majority of the world.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Which is why I've stopped accepting Cultural Traditions as an acceptable argument. The UN will NEVER return to its days of having 1 in 3 membership and that was its peak. The organization is too complex and there are too many resident nations who have lost the luxury of being members.

FURTHER: there are 26, 116 nations in the UN and I can guarantee you that if we passed a resolution that defined the word "the" or decreed that 1 + 1 = 2, we would be stepping on someone's toes. We can't BLINK without inadvertantly insulting a fellow ambassador.

The UN has adjusted, over the past 3 years, to an organization that isn't the top of the world. UNR #109 is a great example of some of the sacrifices we've had to make because of our newfound position in this world. However, we can still set an example of what is exemplary behavior. We can still find ways to benefit from each other's presence within the UN. We are the one International Body with the GREATEST publicity thanks to the work of the UN's founder (if only he'd have given us a building with enough space for ambassadors to have offices, it would have been Great Work)

I fully accept the consequence of nations leaving because of cultural differences. However, the problem is far too diverse and complex for me to concern myself with the matter when there is a right being violated in the process. If the cultural norm is to execute everyone through Quartering or Tar and Featering and a resolution wanted to outlaw such a practice, I would fully support the resolution and not give a damn about what people said about their Cultural Norm. Hell, I'm more likely to spend a lot of time trying to tell them why their culture is stupid.

As crude and stinkingly immoral as bestiality is, it is hardly an appropriate matter for the United Nations to be legislating on. Instead, a resolution could be written to ensure that all nations have the right to outlaw and fully regulate such vile and outlandish practices.

Hellar Gray

As crude and stinkingly immoral as bestiality is, it is hardly an appropriate matter for the United Nations to be legislating on. Instead, a resolution could be written to ensure that all nations have the right to outlaw and fully regulate such vile and outlandish practices.

Hellar Gray

Er.....not really. All resolutions must do SOMETHING to the member nations, no matter how small the issue may be. The most minimal that could be done is a condemnation be written that appends a little declaration that they have the right to outlaw it.

Er.....not really. All resolutions must do SOMETHING to the member nations, no matter how small the issue may be. The most minimal that could be done is a condemnation be written that appends a little declaration that they have the right to outlaw it.

Ah. You refer to the Secretariat's allowance of resolutions guaranteeing nation's rights so long as they contain a token clause that fits the category and strength of the proposal.

I am well aware of it, though I see it as quite nonsensical to consider granting nations rights not doing "SOMETHING" just as much as I would see it as nonsensical to consider granting individuals rights not doing "SOMETHING".

Hellar Gray

DEFINING a beast as a member of any species not known as Homo sapiens,

As a nation of lycanthropic Aptenodytes forsteri / Homo sapiens I must strongly object with all the passion one can possibly muster to OBJECT.

I AM NOT A BEAST!

So ladies, shall we defenestrate this bozo in the manner he or she deserves?

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/208283196.jpg

(Flash throws the rep on the backs of a dozen emperor penguins who carry the rep to the window to be unceremonously defenstrated thereupon.)

my people will do as they please it is in their personal lives. however should they take it into the public domain then it would be indecent exposure. i will not intrude on my peoples personal affairs.

"I, too, as an artificially created cat... dog... human... thing, must express my dislike of the wording of this proposal. Not all of us are humans in this Multiverse. Further, it's just... kind of silly. While I would... probably vote FOR a better worded and non-exclusive version if it came to vote, I just can't see the need for putting up the effort. There are more crucial things in the Multiverse to which we could be diverting our time. Like drinking. Or having sex. Or any of thousands of other things that happen in the building, particularly in the Bar and the Cluichstani offices."

OK, heres an updated version for ya'll to yell about

UN Proposal

Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Outlaw Bestiality

RECOGNIZING that according to United Nations Resolution #192, the Sexual Privacy Act, “BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and b) all participants are consenting adults,”

NOTING that animals are incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

DISTURBED by the occurrence of bestiality within some of the member nations of the UN,

HEREBY

DEFINES bestiality, for the purposes of this resolution, as any sexual act performed on a beast,

DEFINES a beast as a member of any species different than the partner’s species,

DEMANDS that member nations outlaw bestiality,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of bestiality to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of bestiality.

OK, heres an updated version for ya'll to yell about

UN Proposal

Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Outlaw Bestiality

RECOGNIZING that according to United Nations Resolution #192, the Sexual Privacy Act, “BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and b) all participants are consenting adults,”

NOTING that animals are incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

DISTURBED by the occurrence of bestiality within some of the member nations of the UN,

HEREBY

DEFINES bestiality, for the purposes of this resolution, as any sexual act performed on a beast,

DEFINES a beast as a member of any species different than the partner’s species,

DEMANDS that member nations outlaw bestiality,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of bestiality to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of bestiality.

That looks awfully familiar, I must say.

The leader of Forgottenlands has released the following statement:

I object to any proposal that revokes my right to sleep with Tricordians or Cat-girls - two races that are very capable of giving consent, have demonstrated sentience - in the case of the former, sentience that exceeds our own - and providing me great pleasure.

Chuck Dobson
President of Forgottenlands

We humbly suggest that the author re-evaluate their definition of beast. I, personally, find it objectionable to be defined as a beast under this new document if I would ever consider sleeping with a Werepenguin.

DEFINES a beast as a member of any species different than the partner’s species,

DEMANDS that member nations outlaw bestiality,

"So... I couldn't mate with, say, a human or other sentient and sapient being? I'm restricted specifically to Guardians? Furthermore, I don't like pieces of paper that demand things. Or that try to do things relative to the future. You should write as though the document is already in place. For example, 'OUTLAWS bestiality,' would be a more suitable replacement [OOC: for the second line quoted, of course]. However, I still see the wording of the limitation as xenophobic and just generally not very nice."

I still object to this beast definition. It's all a matter of consent and non consent and ... hey pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

(Red Hot Blonde) I don't know Flash, isn't that a violation of a previous UN resolution? Besides I'm Red Hot not Pink.

Oh in any event, how about dropping out the whole inter species thing all together and simply ban creatures capable of having consent with having sex with creatures not capable of having consent.

I mean do you really want to prevent UN gnomes from having sex with dwarves or with either gnomes or dwarves having sex with Gruenberg Goats? I think it's the latter and if you move away from the inter species thing you are more likely to succeed.

Oh in any event, how about dropping out the whole inter species thing all together and simply ban creatures capable of having consent with having sex with creatures not capable of having consent.

I'd concur. Still...In our nation, we would like to point out that since all animals and some species of bacteria in our nation have 'ambassdors' that could represent the species' best interest, and thereby, can give consent via that method. (The bacterium and the animals can also vote, pay taxes, serve in the military...etc.) So, well, at least in our nation, beastily isn't that big of a deal, since any animal can now give consent.

For other nations who are not so...enlightened, I'd think this would be an acceptable compromise.

Legislating sexuality limits freedoms. Legislating against sex crimes based on the concept of abuse and/or harm either mental or physical is federal and not international jurisdiction. It's a matter left to individual nations. Protecting those unable to defend themselves from being sexually violated is federal and not international jurisdiction because all nations have different laws.

DEFINES a beast as a member of any species different than the partner’s species,

You still haven't hit the jackpot.

How do you determine species? There are any number of humanoid/humanish species around NS, some of which may well be genetically human, yet which would appear to you to be another species. Are you going after them, too?

What constitutes a member of a species? There are hive species, group minds ... The Godulans, for example, occupy what are to all appearances human bodies but have a number of legally separate and distinct personalities within them -- should a body used by five minds transgress, which Godulan do you invoke your law against?

When my President morphs into an Invisible Wabbit, of which species is she a member?

Who is "the partner"? The person(s) performing the act, or the recipient(s) of it? If you use "partner" you are suggesting agreement/consent/readiness to take part between/among the parties.

Furthermore, your current proposal fails to consider the possiblity of the "beast" being the instigator of the act. How convincingly is a human going to be able to resist the desires of an huge, amorous, but not sapient dragon? "But you can't do that, a UN reso says I'm not allowed"?

This discussion has the attrractive potential to become a sex tour of NS societies as representatives of various nations explain why and how they are or should be exempt or included.

Nonetheless, I feel it has an even more limited application than the necrophilia resolution on which it is based, and that alone should remove it from the possibility of being discussed as suitable legislation for an international body.

(I'm none too thrilled, either, with the phrase "the fullest extent of the law", which seems to have slipped through in the necrophilia reso, but I'll leave arguing about that one till the proposal makes quorum or I get bored with the interesting question of who, doing what, to whom or which, comes within the scope of your wording.

Speaking of wording, I have qualms about the use of "different than", instead of "to" or "from", but I gather that's acceptable in American English.)

-- John McGonnagle, Secretary for Situations Like This.

DEFINES a beast as a member of any species different than the partner’s species,The Federation is made up of several different sentient/sapient species. Somewhere around a dozen in all. Intermarrying is exceptionally common. This definition is not going to cut it.


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

Speaking of wording, I have qualms about the use of "different than", instead of "to" or "from", but I gather that's acceptable in American English.)

OOC: It's acceptable -- even preferred -- in a few cases, but this is not one of them. In this case, "than" should be replace with "from."

The Federation is made up of several different sentient/sapient species. Somewhere around a dozen in all. Intermarrying is exceptionally common. This definition is not going to cut it.


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

I agree. I would recommend this:
DEFINES a beast as a member of any species different than the partner’s species that is incapable of independent, sentient thought and ability to express consent in any way;

Granted, this may still cause some debate as it's not perfect. (Nothing's ever perfect in the UN, isn't it?)

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
General Secretary and
Head of UN Affairs,
Akimonad

That looks awfully familiar, I must say.Oh, good. I thought I was the only one. Thankfully all those years in college of smoking myself retarded haven't fried my brain completely.