NationStates Jolt Archive

I am writing my first proposal and would like to hear your opinions and suggestions. Let me know what you think.

Resolution name: Sexual Freedom
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:
DEFINES a consenting individual as anyone above the relevant age of consent who is physically and mentally able to object to the given form of sexual behavior and who did not object to the given form of sexual behavior.

REQUIRES that national ages of consent shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity and to no more than 8*log(x/10 + 1), where x equals the average lifespan for the relevant group the individual in question belongs to and log signifies a natural logarithm function.

DEFINES a private sexual act as a sexual behavior between consenting individuals in a non-public place that is not directly visible from any public place.

RECOGNIZES that every consenting individual has the right to engage in private sexual acts.

PROHIBITS any governmental investigation of private sexual acts, unless an investigation is called for by one of the individuals (or his/her legal representative) in order to determine whether he/she was consenting at the time.

PROHIBITS any discrimination based on sexual orientation or any previous private sexual act.

Current issues:
Groups and sex toys - Resolved!

Human vs. sentient being - Resolved! WA is not expected to make such distinctions in every proposal. It is assumed sentient non-humans get the same rights as humans.

Age of consent - Resolved!
Poll winner: Locally defined upper-bounded age of consent, depending on conditions (only biological maturity allowed)
Upper bound defined by computation.

Table for reference:
Average lifespan - Upper bound for the age of consent
20 - 8.79
80 - 17.58
100 - 19.18
120 - 20.52
200 - 24.36
300 - 27.47

Graph for reference:
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3272/nseq3.th.png (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nseq3.png)

Informed/uninformed consent - Resolved! Ability to object

I would like to ask those that oppose this proposal on religious grounds to not post in this thread as it is intended for constructive criticism. Thank you

Proposal posted! Let's hope it will pass the first phase

OOC: Lol wut? Only TWO individuals!!? What if my country's people are feeling a bit "adventurous."

Sorry but I couldn't resist posting this. Your choice of words brought this upon yourself.

the government of the emperor of urgench warmly welcomes the delegate of kattias proposed resolution and think it is extremely needfull indeed.
however we feel it is a little broad and could do with some refinement, particularly in regard to the definition of free consent. and the matter of age may well prove to be a controversial stumbling bloke.
again we aplaud your work and wish you luck with it.


your e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

The Volzgrad delegation may think it's being cute, but the point is a perfectly fair one; if you're serious about protecting sexual freedom, you ought to be protecting threesomes and moresomes too.

The question of age is a tricky one. You can (and should) use the concept of "Age of Consent" to avoid giving an absolute age, but if you do, you must make sure that all ages of consent have to be set without unfair discrimination. Every resolution I've seen on the subject has failed on this last point, generally by naively assuming (but never stating) that there is only one age of consent, which has made them all utterly useless as anti-discrimination laws.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

DEFINES a willing individual as a human being that didn't object to the given form of sexual behavior, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of race, sexual orientation, social status, age or any other trait, chosen or not.
So intelligent non-humans are to be deemed completely incapable of giving consent, even when the other being[s] involved would be members of their own species!?!

This resolution would also not protect zoo-philes or others who's sexual expression does not involve human beings. One possible consequence would be to allow outlawing sex-toys, as well.

I have corrected my proposal by explicitly mentioning groups. I thought the fact would be implicitly assumed, because when, say, 3 individuals engage, it could be interpreted as three pairs: 1-3, 2-3 and 1-2... I hope the correction helps with clearing this problem.
Regarding the non-humans, I didn't want to make this proposal overly controversial. Most people don't like the idea of zoophilia (personally, I have nothing against it). Please note this proposal does not forbid any such act, it simply does not mention it. Zoophilia can be addressed in a different proposal.
Also note that the use of sex toys is not prohibited by this proposal. It can be implicitly treated as a sexual activity of a group of people by the size of one.
The introduction of inanimate objects would also imply the need of addressing material rights (like ownership - don't masturbate with another person's vibrator, etc.). These are better addressed elsewhere (and that would constitute the "use" of said item).
With that said, would there be any other objections to this proposal?

Resolution name: Sexual Freedom
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:
DEFINES a willing individual as a human being that didn't object to the given form of sexual behavior, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of race, sexual orientation, social status, age or any other trait, chosen or not.

RECOGNISES that every group of willing individuals have the right to express their sexuality.

PROHIBITS any governmental investigation of sexual behavior between a group of willing individuals.

PROHIBITS any discrimination based on sexual orientation or any previous sexual behavior, except in cases where a participant was not a willing individual.

It concerns me that the word 'consent' does not appear in your proposal, though I do realise you've gone to the effort of trying to exhaustively define it. But there are situations that I think should be covered that may be ok with your definition such as the use of certain date rape drugs where the person may be aware of what is happening but unable to do anything about it.

On second thoughts though, I'm not sure if consensual areas are important in what you're trying to achieve here, which is basically discriminatory laws regarding sexual orientation. Rape laws are a separate issue.

However, there is a very important issue raised by your proposal:

"DEFINES a willing individual as a human being that didn't object to the given form of sexual behavior, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of [...] age [...]"

You're basically saying here that children can consent to sex, and that sex with children must be tolerated. Which I and many others would strongly oppose.

It concerns me that the word 'consent' does not appear in your proposal, though I do realise you've gone to the effort of trying to exhaustively define it. But there are situations that I think should be covered that may be ok with your definition such as the use of certain date rape drugs where the person may be aware of what is happening but unable to do anything about it.

I think that the "didn't object" part should cover this. A simple "no" should be enough and even when under the effects of a sedative or other drug, the person should be able to express the objection. Or am I wrong? I actually never did any research on such pharmaceuticals.
Also I didn't want to use the word "consent" or "informed consent" because of it's uncertain definition, so I invented my own definition to correct these problems. I don't want governments to redefine this word such as "Only a white male person of age 30-40 can give informed consent".

On second thoughts though, I'm not sure if consensual areas are important in what you're trying to achieve here, which is basically discriminatory laws regarding sexual orientation. Rape laws are a separate issue.

In fact I am trying to deal with a multitude of issues here. Discrimination is the main one but there is also abuse of rape laws on a personal level(like "I was too scared to reject him"), abuse of rape laws on a governmental level (like "no sex for Jews beacuse they can't consent"), etc.

However, there is a very important issue raised by your proposal:

"DEFINES a willing individual as a human being that didn't object to the given form of sexual behavior, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of [...] age [...]"

You're basically saying here that children can consent to sex, and that sex with children must be tolerated. Which I and many others would strongly oppose.

See above example of "consent" abuse. Restricting these things to certain age groups could allow governments to circumvent this law entirely. I can also imagine that if I set any specific age, there would be a lot of people against it, requesting that I lower/raise it. Furthermore, I don't want to prohibit individuals that matured quicker (than others of their age group) engaging in sex (as that could have negative effect on their development).

At first, I thought that the simple no-objection definition would suffice, but as I think about it now, it could be troublesome to prove certain kinds of objections (such as a baby crying). I could add "capable of engaging in the said behavior" to remedy this problem. Would that suffice?

I think that the "didn't object" part should cover this. A simple "no" should be enough and even when under the effects of a sedative or other drug, the person should be able to express the objection. Or am I wrong? I actually never did any research on such pharmaceuticals.
Also I didn't want to use the word "consent" or "informed consent" because of it's uncertain definition, so I invented my own definition to correct these problems. I don't want governments to redefine this word such as "Only a white male person of age 30-40 can give informed consent".

I can't say that I'm an expert myself. And I won't suggest that you include explicit consent because it would be ridiculous to legislate that people must physically say "Yes, I allow you to have sex with me". Perhaps a way around this, and also preventing governments from abusing the definition of consent, would be to actually define consent, perhaps including a clause on a non-discriminatory application of the ability to consent.


In fact I am trying to deal with a multitude of issues here. Discrimination is the main one but there is also abuse of rape laws on a personal level(like "I was too scared to reject him"), abuse of rape laws on a governmental level (like "no sex for Jews beacuse they can't consent"), etc.

But your proposal doesn't prevent rape, it only prevents governments from preventing certain groups of people from having sex. It doesn't mention anywhere that it must be illegal for people to have sex with people "unwilling" to have sex; only that it must be legal for people who are willing to have sex.

See above example of "consent" abuse. Restricting these things to certain age groups could allow governments to circumvent this law entirely. I can also imagine that if I set any specific age, there would be a lot of people against it, requesting that I lower/raise it. Furthermore, I don't want to prohibit individuals that matured quicker (than others of their age group) engaging in sex (as that could have negative effect on their development).

At first, I thought that the simple no-objection definition would suffice, but as I think about it now, it could be troublesome to prove certain kinds of objections (such as a baby crying). I could add "capable of engaging in the said behavior" to remedy this problem. Would that suffice?

I realise there are difficulties with age. But I think it is an important issue to deal with and it is not adequate to simply ignore the issue. I think reference to age of consent is appropriate, and I think you can prevent abuse either by trying to define it (other than by a universal age limit); or alternatively, and perhaps more in keeping with the intentions of your proposal, by mandating that governments cannot discriminate with their age of consent, i.e. the age of consent must be the same for all citizens, regardless of gender, orientation, race, etc.

I can't say that I'm an expert myself. And I won't suggest that you include explicit consent because it would be ridiculous to legislate that people must physically say "Yes, I allow you to have sex with me". Perhaps a way around this, and also preventing governments from abusing the definition of consent, would be to actually define consent, perhaps including a clause on a non-discriminatory application of the ability to consent.

But that is what I am doing. I'm just not using the word "consent". Would it be any better to replace "willing individual" with "consenting individual"? The definition would stay the same. Also I am not trying to just prevent discrimination but to acknowledge certain human rights.

But your proposal doesn't prevent rape, it only prevents governments from preventing certain groups of people from having sex. It doesn't mention anywhere that it must be illegal for people to have sex with people "unwilling" to have sex; only that it must be legal for people who are willing to have sex.

I never said it should prevent rape (it's not the subject of this proposal). I am mainly dealing with the abuse of law here. I don't want to tell governments how much jail time a rapist should get, not even what a rape's definition should be. The whole point is to allow people to have sex without getting into trouble. Protecting them from government's bad judgement (such as discrimination) or arcane laws (such as not doing it anal because it's icky).

I realise there are difficulties with age. But I think it is an important issue to deal with and it is not adequate to simply ignore the issue. I think reference to age of consent is appropriate, and I think you can prevent abuse either by trying to define it (other than by a universal age limit); or alternatively, and perhaps more in keeping with the intentions of your proposal, by mandating that governments cannot discriminate with their age of consent, i.e. the age of consent must be the same for all citizens, regardless of gender, orientation, race, etc.

I feel that restricting sex to a certain age group is also discrimination.
I'll just provide some meaningful examples of the abuse:
1) Let's say the government would like to completely circumvent the law. The only thing they would need to do is set the AoC to, for example, 200 years. As it does not tell them what to do with people below the AoC, they could define their own laws.
2) Let's say I add the "No sex below the AoC". Then there is this dictatorship with a dictator that wants a young woman by the age of 23. The dictator would then adjust the AoC each year starting at 24 (one year above the girl's age) to prevent the girl to have sex with anybody else unless she gives herself to him.
3) If the AoC could somehow be defined as a set of possible ages (to, for example, address different aging processes of different individuals) controlled by the government, the dictator could easily define ages 23.2 (the girl's age) and 52.6 (his age) as the ONLY possible AoC. The girl would then have to give in or, most probably, be lynched by the people in order to alleviate the ridiculous law.
Those are just few extreme examples. I am sure some creative individuals would come out with better ones.
Besides, a child can say "no" too, you know.

I only have time to respond to your last point at the moment, but will respond to the rest later.

I'm afraid I think your dictator example is bordering on the absurd. If the dictator wants to rape her, or have sex with her against her will, then he is going to do it, and your proposal wouldn't even make that illegal. All your proposal does at the moment is allow people equal rights to sex.

My point about age is that your proposal would also allow a 50 year old man to have sex with 6 year old girls. I don't think there's anyway you can justify with that, in terms of normal human ages and excluding non-human sentients of the NS world.

I think it would be wise to include the word 'consent'. It's pretty much a buzz-word, and even if you include what the word means without using it - you'll end up having trouble you don't need to have.

I think we can also assume that the word 'human' would include sentient lizards, player character trolls, and the assorted intelligent dining room chairs some people choose to RP with. If they want to go off and insist they aren't covered by this proposal because of the word 'human' when the intention is pretty clear then that's their choice. To do otherwise would end up making things sound too complicated and surreal. Somewhere in the guidelines around proposals it talks about nations redefining words to get around the letter of the law in a proposal so I don't think we really need to go off in that direction.

And consider changing 'age' to something along the lines of 'the legal age of consent in that nation' and leave it up to that nation to decide just when someone is old enough to give legal consent for sex. Otherwise you risk this discussion being bogged down by back-and-forth about when and what kinds of sex is appropriate for what age difference, and having to defend yourself from attacks of "OMG YR N EV1L PEDO!!!!!SHIFT11111" unnecessarily.

Unless protections against pedophilia and bestiality are written into this resolution, I will never vote for it, period.

In the name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We are somewhat confused by the esteemed representative's use of the term "investigate" in this proposal. Why would a government choose to "investigate" ecchi activity like this? Isn't it fairly obvious to the casual observer?

Is the author suggesting the government has no interest in preventing the phenomenon known as "guro," something that may be familiar to the Kawaiians?

There are certain sexual practices that are morally reprehensible because they involved either bodily harm or lack of consent. The largest problem with this act is that it would essentially legalize rape. Hey- it's a sexual act between two people, ain't it? That means paws off, Big Brother!

Nemö Taranton
Ambassador

The largest problem with this act is that it would essentially legalize rape.

Well, I don't really think that rape is a term that can meaningfully apply to two individuals willingly engaging in sexual activity. The proposal does take care to define "willing individual" and limit its protections to sexual activities between willing individuals, so I don't really think your argument is valid.

The biggest problem I see is that this proposal would only limit "investigation"--and investigation seems necessary to determine whether two individuals are willing (such as in the example of a rape). But if the investigation reveals that the two under investigation were indeed willing, then the investigation was illegal by this proposal... it's a catch 22, and should probably be corrected before this proposal goes any further. The proposal ought to allow investigation when it is called for (if only to determine whether all individuals involved in a sexual activity were willing), and forbid sexual activity in which any individual is an unwilling participant.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield,
Twafflonia

What is this nonsens? A women can only be pentrated by a man if they have engaged in the holy marriage. There is no way the Theocracy of Al-Qahwa will accept this.

I think it would be wise to include the word 'consent'. It's pretty much a buzz-word, and even if you include what the word means without using it - you'll end up having trouble you don't need to have.

[...]

And consider changing 'age' to something along the lines of 'the legal age of consent in that nation' and leave it up to that nation to decide just when someone is old enough to give legal consent for sex. Otherwise you risk this discussion being bogged down by back-and-forth about when and what kinds of sex is appropriate for what age difference, and having to defend yourself from attacks of "OMG YR N EV1L PEDO!!!!!SHIFT11111" unnecessarily.

But that would allow nations to entirely ignore this law (by setting the AoC to something like 200) rendering it useless entirely.
Why have this law if it could be easily bypassed?

I think we can also assume that the word 'human' would include sentient lizards, player character trolls, and the assorted intelligent dining room chairs some people choose to RP with. If they want to go off and insist they aren't covered by this proposal because of the word 'human' when the intention is pretty clear then that's their choice. To do otherwise would end up making things sound too complicated and surreal. Somewhere in the guidelines around proposals it talks about nations redefining words to get around the letter of the law in a proposal so I don't think we really need to go off in that direction.

Actually, that's a good point. It would be better to include other intelligent races as well. The problem, however, would be that using the word "sentient" or "intelligent" would probably require a definition as well. Maybe I'll look into it later, when the "age" problem is resolved (as it seems to be the main problem of this proposal). Or maybe this would be better treated in a different proposal (granting said intelligent races the rights of human beings).

Unless protections against pedophilia and bestiality are written into this resolution, I will never vote for it, period.

This proposal doesn't ban anything. Besides, bestiality is not covered by it. The only problem seems to be with the "pedo" part, but that can't be resolved so easily. Would you have a suggestion perhaps?

In the name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We are somewhat confused by the esteemed representative's use of the term "investigate" in this proposal. Why would a government choose to "investigate" ecchi activity like this? Isn't it fairly obvious to the casual observer?

Tottemo kawaii to you as well, my friend!

This would refer to governments asking details about said sexual relationships. People wouldn't want the government to breach their sexual privacy when it's not necessary. But I am thinking about changing that part, see below.

The biggest problem I see is that this proposal would only limit "investigation"--and investigation seems necessary to determine whether two individuals are willing (such as in the example of a rape). But if the investigation reveals that the two under investigation were indeed willing, then the investigation was illegal by this proposal... it's a catch 22, and should probably be corrected before this proposal goes any further. The proposal ought to allow investigation when it is called for (if only to determine whether all individuals involved in a sexual activity were willing), and forbid sexual activity in which any individual is an unwilling participant.

That is a valid point. Would changing the line to
"PROHIBITS any governmental investigation of sexual behavior between a group of willing individuals, unless an investigation is called for by one of the individuals (or their legal representatives) in order to determine whether he/she was willing at the time."
solve this?
I also took some care to solve cases of rape-murder investigations here, hence the "legal representatives" part (this could open new ways to partially abuse the law, however - I hope legal representation is covered in another resolution), otherwise it would be illegal to investigate suspected rape-murderers, because the victims would (obviously) not call for the investigation.

Gosh, writing laws is pretty difficult!

But that would allow nations to entirely ignore this law (by setting the AoC to something like 200) rendering it useless entirely.
Why have this law if it could be easily bypassed?


Do you honestly believe that any nation is going to completely ban sex for all citizens by setting the age of consent so far?? That's why I said that you should mention that the age of consent must be equal for everyone, thus the age of consent could not be used to discriminate against minorities.

I'm afraid that I cannot support your proposal as it stands, unless some of my issues are addressed.

Do you honestly believe that any nation is going to completely ban sex for all citizens by setting the age of consent so far?? That's why I said that you should mention that the age of consent must be equal for everyone, thus the age of consent could not be used to discriminate against minorities.

I'm afraid that I cannot support your proposal as it stands, unless some of my issues are addressed.

Who is talking about a ban? Do you see the word "ban" anywhere in the proposal? This proposal ensures rights, not takes them away! :headbang:

Sorry... It's just a little frustrating to be forced to repeat myself so many times.
This legislation does not tell what to do with people that don't fulfill the definition. How do you ensure that a nation won't have two AoC's? One for this legislation and the other, internal, for their own legislations?
Lets say a government wants to prevent, for example, all Christians from having sex. What would it need to do? Simply set the official WA AoC to 200 to circumvent this legislation (effectively disqualifying anyone in their nation from it's protection, by marking them all "unwilling"), create an internal AoC (if they want it) and say that every citizen is protected by the (AoC adjusted) WA legislation (thus being protected after 200 years of age), whereas those that are not are free to have sex if they are above the internal AoC only if they are non-Christian.
There you have it! A discriminating system that is abiding the legislation to the letter!

If you want AoC so much what would you say to having it in there but limiting it's upper boundary to, say, 18 years of age (by which time it, undoubtedly, already may be unhealthy to not have any sexual experience)

Who is talking about a ban? Do you see the word "ban" anywhere in the proposal? This proposal ensures rights, not takes them away! :headbang:

Sorry... It's just a little frustrating to be forced to repeat myself so many times.

Yes it is frustrating: you're not listening to, or understanding, me. By making the age of consent 200 you are effectively making it illegal (ie banning) for ANYONE under 200 to have sex. I was referring to your example, not your proposal.


This legislation does not tell what to do with people that don't fulfill the definition. How do you ensure that a nation won't have two AoC's? One for this legislation and the other, internal, for their own legislations?

Easy. Include a clause saying that the age of consent must be equal for all citizens. That prevents multiple ages of consent. And the whole point of WA law is that it overrides national law so it is impossible to have two set of legislation that contradict each other. If you don't understand how the WA laws work, then perhaps you shoudln't be writing them.

And I'm not proposing that this proposal say what the age of consent is. It just needs to ensure that the AOC is applied equally and without prejudice.

Anyway, I'm out. You're clearly not taking any of this on board.

That is a valid point. Would changing the line to
"PROHIBITS any governmental investigation of sexual behavior between a group of willing individuals, unless an investigation is called for by one of the individuals (or their legal representatives) in order to determine whether he/she was willing at the time."
solve this?

I think that would cover it quite nicely. Keep up the good work!


Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield, Twafflonia

Yes it is frustrating: you're not listening to, or understanding, me. By making the age of consent 200 you are effectively making it illegal (ie banning) for ANYONE under 200 to have sex. I was referring to your example, not your proposal.

Once again, the legislation doesn't ban, it protects. So there would be no ban under 200, just protection above 200.

Easy. Include a clause saying that the age of consent must be equal for all citizens. That prevents multiple ages of consent. And the whole point of WA law is that it overrides national law so it is impossible to have two set of legislation that contradict each other. If you don't understand how the WA laws work, then perhaps you shoudln't be writing them.

And I'm not proposing that this proposal say what the age of consent is. It just needs to ensure that the AOC is applied equally and without prejudice.

Maybe I was just using the wrong words. If the nation would call their internal AoC, for example, "age of tolerance", then what would prevent them making this law:
"Anyone below the AoC, which is 200, may engage in sexual activities only if they are above the AoT (age of tolerance) and non-Christian."

I'll try to represent it graphically for better understanding:

1) This proposal protects anyone above the AoC:

+---------------------------------------- AoC --------+
| unprotected _________________________ | protected |
+------------------------------------------+----------+

2) Their legislation would extend the protection the any non-Christian above the AoT:

+----------- AoT ------------------------ AoC ---------+
| unprotected | protected (non-Christian) __ | protected |
+-------------+----------------------------+-----------+

So their legislation wouldn't override any part of the proposal, just extending the protection already provided by the proposal.

Anyway, what do you think about the upper-bounded AoC inclusion? I think that might solve the problem.

P.S.: Sorry for that previous outburst. I really welcome your suggestions for improving the proposal. It's the first one I'm writing and I would like to have all the rough edges sorted out before I post it.

Isn't this getting a bit complicated? Why not just make AoC a local issue and leave it at that? If some nation wants to go wacky on things to avoid the Resolution's effects in their RP they'll find a way. The easiest way would be to simply legally redefine what sex is. Or introduce to legal ages, where AoC age = birthdays times 5 or something like that.

Catering to the extremists is only going to be an exercise in whack-a-loophole.

So their legislation wouldn't override any part of the proposal, just extending the protection already provided by the proposal.


No, I think the situation you are describing would be a breach of your proposal, should your proposal cater for a singular and universal age of consent, which is defined in words, not numbers, in your proposal.

The situation you are describing would be similar to a nation getting around anti-slavery laws by saying "these people are not slaves, we have banned slaves. These people are oompah loompahs, not slaves." Which would not work, as it is the practice that has been banned, not the word.

No, I think the situation you are describing would be a breach of your proposal, should your proposal cater for a singular and universal age of consent, which is defined in words, not numbers, in your proposal.

The situation you are describing would be similar to a nation getting around anti-slavery laws by saying "these people are not slaves, we have banned slaves. These people are oompah loompahs, not slaves." Which would not work, as it is the practice that has been banned, not the word.

But the definition of "slave" is universal, whereas "age of consent" is not. The example with slaves would be otherwise valid (even more true if the said law explicitly stated that the definition should be specified by the local government).

As it is, the definition of "willing individual" in my proposal is (at least should be) universal. If I include anything that isn't universal (such as AoC), the definition itself becomes dependant on that and ceases to be universal (it would differ from nation to nation). As the proposal protects those who fulfill the definition but doesn't touch anyone else (leaving that to the local government), it could be entirely circumvented by adjusting the definition (via the non-universal part; which would be legal) to include noone, thus leaving everything to the local government.

There is not even any re-definition, because the original states it has to be specified by the AoC (which depends on the local government).

I think all this could be (more or less) solved by including an upper boundary to the AoC (preventing it to be the said 200 or similar nonsense), protecting at least those above it inexclusively (universally).
The only problem would then be the exact age of the upper boundary. Which, I think, could be 18, as there is no doubt people above this age are (at least physically) mature. What do you think?

But the definition of "slave" is universal, whereas "age of consent" is not. The example with slaves would be otherwise valid (even more true if the said law explicitly stated that the definition should be specified by the local government).

No, the definition of age of consent is also universal- the age at which people can legally have sex. The age in question is not universal, it could be 16, 18, 103 - but that doesn't matter so long as the age is the same for everyone of the same nation. No state is going to prevent its entire population from having sex and so will set it at an appropriate level. And even if it were to set it at an age which may seem high to us, e.g. 30, then that is for them to decide, so long as it applies equally to all citizens.

No, the definition of age of consent is also universal- the age at which people can legally have sex. The age in question is not universal, it could be 16, 18, 103 - but that doesn't matter so long as the age is the same for everyone of the same nation. No state is going to prevent its entire population from having sex and so will set it at an appropriate level. And even if it were to set it at an age which may seem high to us, e.g. 30, then that is for them to decide, so long as it applies equally to all citizens.

I think I am beginning to understand your logic here. The difference between our views is that I am perceiving "age of consent" merely as a legal term, a variable upon which the law's interpretation depends. Whereas you see it's meaning that is tied to the currently estabilished views and laws. Where I see the word as a representation of a variable, you see it's meaning as it is currently perceived by the majority of society.
The problem is that your view assumes that sex below the "age of consent" is illegal (probably because the laws of your country deem it illegal).
However, as you probably already noticed, my proposal is only meant to protect (and I do not intend to change that fact, hence the name: Sexual Freedom). So the meaning of the term "age of consent" would be a little different here.
Well, actually, it is nearly the same as you wrote ("the age at which (and above which) people can legally have sex"), however what you wrote and what you thought would differ (It is not the same as "the age below which people cannot legally have sex").
Do you see my point now?

I think I am beginning to understand your logic here. The difference between our views is that I am perceiving "age of consent" merely as a legal term, a variable upon which the law's interpretation depends. Whereas you see it's meaning that is tied to the currently estabilished views and laws. Where I see the word as a representation of a variable, you see it's meaning as it is currently perceived by the majority of society.

As a term, yes, not a number. You get to define what age of consent means in your proposal.


The problem is that your view assumes that sex below the "age of consent" is illegal (probably because the laws of your country deem it illegal).

If a country does not want to have an 'age of consent' then it can set it's 'age of consent' as defined by the proposal to zero.


However, as you probably already noticed, my proposal is only meant to protect (and I do not intend to change that fact, hence the name: Sexual Freedom). So the meaning of the term "age of consent" would be a little different here.

Which brings me back to my earlier point that your proposal would protect paedophilia, and make it illegal to legislate against that, something I would be unwilling to do. Age of consent prevents 'minors' from being able to be 'willing' by your definition.

The Free Lands of Amagina support this proposal.
So far I have not seen any valid argument against it.
For those concerned with pedophilia we can add the word "postpubescent".
Zoophilia and masturbation also deserve to be protected by the proposal. So the only change I would suggest is eliminating the reference to groups of individuals.

My suggestion:

Category: Human Rights
Resolution name: Sexual Freedom
Strength: Significant

Description:
DEFINES a willing individual as a post-pubescent human being that didn't object to the given form of sexual behavior, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of race, sexual orientation, social status, age or any other trait, chosen or not.

RECOGNISES that every individual has the right to express his/her sexuality.

PROHIBITS any governmental investigation of sexual behavior of willing individuals.

PROHIBITS any discrimination based on sexual orientation or preference or any previous sexual behavior.

Isn't this getting a bit complicated? Why not just make AoC a local issue and leave it at that?

Just because writing something properly is hard doesn't meant that you shouldn't put the effort in. As the Kattian and Gwenstefanian delegations are demonstrating, it's not even all that hard.

Laws will never be perfect, sure, and there will always be loopholes. That doesn't mean we should make it easy for the people that the proposal is targetted at, though.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Мы говорить тот никто в первом лице единственного и множественного числа обозначает будущее время голосование для этот! Единственный сильная форма,грамматически неопределенный член душевнобольной прямой только в выражениях крыло политик или высшая отметка за классную работу каприз воля голосование для этот!

As a term, yes, not a number. You get to define what age of consent means in your proposal.

Well, it would be defined implicitly as an age at (and above) which people are protected by it's legislation. I don't see any other possible definition, similar to yours, that wouldn't also include a ban (which I strongly oppose).

If a country does not want to have an 'age of consent' then it can set it's 'age of consent' as defined by the proposal to zero.

That is correct (although maybe somewhat disturbing).

Which brings me back to my earlier point that your proposal would protect paedophilia, and make it illegal to legislate against that, something I would be unwilling to do. Age of consent prevents 'minors' from being able to be 'willing' by your definition.

In my original proposal I assume that every willing individual has the right for sexual behavior, regardless of age. I do not make any distinction between the kinds of sexual behavior involved. Thus, setting a definite AoC for all behavior would prevent protection of, for example, a minor's masturbation, masturbating children to sleep (an effective practice used by some women in some countries), sex play between minors (thought by some to be an important part of sex life) or ultimately an introduction of a minor to sex life by an adult (also thought by some to be an important part of sex life). Instead, I use the definition of "willing" to prevent protection of child molesters, child rapists (and rapists overall), etc. So the person in question may simply say "No, I don't want to continue", effectively ending any further protection of said sexual behavior. I think this kind of distinction makes much more sense than age and prevents any (unforseen) problems that may occur due to the inclusion of AoC.

The Free Lands of Amagina support this proposal.
So far I have not seen any valid argument against it.
For those concerned with pedophilia we can add the word "postpubescent".
Zoophilia and masturbation also deserve to be protected by the proposal. So the only change I would suggest is eliminating the reference to groups of individuals.

Thank you.
As for the word "postpubescent", I thought about including "capable of engaging" which may be similar (see previous posts).
Zoophilia is something I wanted to avoid in this proposal (because it's rather controversial and not really that important to one's sex life). But I didn't ban it (hence my proposal only protects, not bans) to allow further proposals to introduce the protection.
Masturbation is already protected by the proposal (the group of one), though it's true it may not be evident enough. I will consider the re-wording for the compilation of another version, thank you.

snip

Sorry, I didn't get what that means, even with Google Translate. Could you, please, use English?

DEFINES a willing individual as a post-pubescent human being that...

To put my 2 jurai, using the word "human" null and void for any nation whose citizens are not, scientifically speaking, human beings (and as far as I know, many FT nations fall into that category). Therefore, I would suggest using term "sentient humanoid" instead of "human" (the defination of "humanoid" is avaliable at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid)).

So are you saying that your proposal would prevent nations from having an age of consent, below which people could not have sex?

the government of the emperor of urgench seeks clarification of a point raised above, is it to be understood that only verbal dissent to a sexual act can be counted, and that non-verbal means of expression are not considered dissent or for that matter consent? if so this might have unforeseen consequences for the deaf, the mute or children who cannot talk yet. indeed many disabled citizens of w.a. states who cannot talk for many reasons might find themselves unprotected.

our government is delighted at the oportunity to debate this proposed resolution, and we heartily look forward to voting yes to it at some point in the future.

yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench.

Easy. Include a clause saying that the age of consent must be equal for all citizens. That prevents multiple ages of consent.
St Edmund's population includes Humans, Ouphes (a type of Elf, with about three times the normal human lifespan, who typically don't reach sexual maturity until about twice the age for humans), and Talking Cats (life expectancy about half of that for Humans, and age of maturity proportionately even lower): How could we set a single 'age of consent' that would be appropriate for members of all three Peoples?

(Mind you, if the clause used actually says that it applies to "citizens" then we'd be okay... because we don't count minors as 'citizens', just as 'nationals'... ;))

The Holy Empire of New Illuve seeks clarity on the issue of age.

What is the latest status in this proposal regarding age? Specifically:

1. Is there an age of consent (however worded) included in the proposal?
2. Is this age of consent (however worded) expressed in any definite way, such as a specific age? Or is it up to each WA member to make this determination as to what the age of consent (however worded) is?
3. Is this a single age of consent (however worded) or multiple ages of consent (however worded)?

What about the issue of religion? Religious nations (Stevid and I myself being devoutly Catholic) would have certian issues with this proposal regarding homosexuality. Surely this issue should be addressed fully.

What about the issue of religion? Religious nations (Stevid and I myself being devoutly Catholic) would have certian issues with this proposal regarding homosexuality. Surely this issue should be addressed fully.

I think the whole point of this proposal is to protect people from religious discrimination and bigotry. Just because you, or your nation, is Catholic, does not mean that should be forced upon everyone. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion too, and homosexuals have a right to love/sex/relationnships.

And not all Catholics think homosexuality should be illegal.

So are you saying that your proposal would prevent nations from having an age of consent, below which people could not have sex?

Originally, I thought that the state of "willingness" would suffice. So yes, that would be correct (for some of the reasons behind this, see my previous post). However, after the dialogue with you, I am not so sure if that wouldn't cause the proposal to be rejected, as a lot of people might think children are, for whatever reason, not eligible for sexual behavior of any kind. As much as I would dislike to take away important parts of their sex life, I may not be able to force other nations to do the same. Therefore, an inclusion of a locally defined upper-bounded (to prevent the previously mentioned abuses) age of consent might be necessary.

the government of the emperor of urgench seeks clarification of a point raised above, is it to be understood that only verbal dissent to a sexual act can be counted, and that non-verbal means of expression are not considered dissent or for that matter consent? if so this might have unforeseen consequences for the deaf, the mute or children who cannot talk yet. indeed many disabled citizens of w.a. states who cannot talk for many reasons might find themselves unprotected.

Not at all. The objection may be in whatever form is required and understood by the other party. The "fight" part even takes care of those situations where there is no form that is understandable to the other party (different languages for example), as defence would have the same effect as an objection, invalidating "willingness".

St Edmund's population includes Humans, Ouphes (a type of Elf, with about three times the normal human lifespan, who typically don't reach sexual maturity until about twice the age for humans), and Talking Cats (life expectancy about half of that for Humans, and age of maturity proportionately even lower): How could we set a single 'age of consent' that would be appropriate for members of all three Peoples?

That's another problem that arises when using "age of consent". There is a lot of reasons why I wanted to avoid it.

(Mind you, if the clause used actually says that it applies to "citizens" then we'd be okay... because we don't count minors as 'citizens', just as 'nationals'... ;))

Citizenry cannot be a requirement for the protection. That would be discrimination and that is precisely what this proposal is trying to eliminate.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve seeks clarity on the issue of age.

What is the latest status in this proposal regarding age? Specifically:

1. Is there an age of consent (however worded) included in the proposal?
2. Is this age of consent (however worded) expressed in any definite way, such as a specific age? Or is it up to each WA member to make this determination as to what the age of consent (however worded) is?
3. Is this a single age of consent (however worded) or multiple ages of consent (however worded)?

Actually, that is exactly what is discussed right now.
The original proposal did not include the age of consent (only relying on "willingness", as defined).
However, since so many people would like me to introduce the AoC in the proposal, there are two possibilities I am considering the most right now:
1. There would be a single age of consent that would be locally defined but upper-bounded so that nations would not be able to set it too high (to circumvent the legislation, see previous posts for examples).
2. The proposal would include "capable of engaging in the behavior" in the definition of "willing individual", effectively making the age of consent a matter of medical readiness for sex.

If you have any other idea how to resolve the matter however, I would really like to hear it, of course.

What about the issue of religion? Religious nations (Stevid and I myself being devoutly Catholic) would have certian issues with this proposal regarding homosexuality. Surely this issue should be addressed fully.

It is addressed fully. This proposal protects homosexuality as much as heterosexuality. It does not (and will not) discriminate against any sexual orientation.

Citizenry cannot be a requirement for the protection. That would be discrimination and that is precisely what this proposal is trying to eliminate.If your document only offers protection to "citizens", then any nation could most certainly weasel its way out by altering citizenship (and eliminate said protections to foreigners).

I think the old UN had a Resolution that dealt with this sort of thing (a couple, actually). Those old documents might help you with phrasing.

Originally, I thought that the state of "willingness" would suffice. So yes, that would be correct (for some of the reasons behind this, see my previous post). However, after the dialogue with you, I am not so sure if that wouldn't cause the proposal to be rejected, as a lot of people might think children are, for whatever reason, not eligible for sexual behavior of any kind. As much as I would dislike to take away important parts of their sex life, I may not be able to force other nations to do the same. Therefore, an inclusion of a locally defined upper-bounded (to prevent the previously mentioned abuses) age of consent might be necessary.


I think the fog has lifted this morning and I totally understand where you're coming from, especially after your description of sexual behaviours in younger people. And I have to say for the most part I agree with you. Children engaging in sexual behaviours with other willing children is not so much of a problem.

However, my concerns about opening up the AOC laws entirely still concerns me in that as flawed as statutory rape laws might be in practice (e.g. a 16 year old having sex with a 15 yo should not be a crime in my eyes), they do serve an important purpose, which is to protect minors from abuse from adults. And while your willingness concept goes some way towards addressing that, I'm not sure it is enough. Children may not be able to refuse, may not fully understand what is happening, which is why a 'statutory unwillingness' may sometimes be required- and even if that is only necessary in a minority of cases, it is still necessary.

But I'm beginning to think that this is most certainly a surmountable problem.

And this has given me an idea of how to tackle AOC, even incorporating sentient non-humans.

Would some kind of clause allowing for an exemption from the statute for national laws allowing for 'statutory unwillingness' be acceptable? Obviously this would have to be refined a little more, with a few more conditions attached, but it avoids the obstacles of varying ages of maturity, etc, and can be limited to cases of abuse.

And while your willingness concept goes some way towards addressing that, I'm not sure it is enough. Children may not be able to refuse, may not fully understand what is happening, which is why a 'statutory unwillingness' may sometimes be required- and even if that is only necessary in a minority of cases, it is still necessary.

Well, you may be right in this. They really may not be able to refuse in some cases, especially when taught not to refuse (ie. by their parents) or when coerced by whatever means. Even worse, this can apply to some adults as well, especially those that are more susceptible for whatever reason (mental disability, poverty, religion, etc.). Frankly, I do not know how to better distinguish those. It is ultimately the question of "How do you know he doesn't want to do it when he doesn't say so?". As we (at least the majority of us) don't have telepathic powers, the only thing that I can imagine that could solve those cases to some degree would be "willingness" campaigns in school, workplaces, etc. to promote the possibility of rejection.
Introducing AoC or "statutory unwillingness" would, most certainly, introduce a lot of problems to those that would gladly engage in some form of sexual behavior but wouldn't be able to (not qualifying for "willingness").
I would not want to prevent people from having sex when they want to just to prevent some minority cases of abuse where the victim is simply afraid to say no, fight or otherwise express unwillingness. Besides, some of the cases might be better solved by other laws (ie. extortion laws).

Would some kind of clause allowing for an exemption from the statute for national laws allowing for 'statutory unwillingness' be acceptable? Obviously this would have to be refined a little more, with a few more conditions attached, but it avoids the obstacles of varying ages of maturity, etc, and can be limited to cases of abuse.

Well, "statutory unwillingness" would be essentially the same thing as AoC, just allowing more conditions, besides age, to be added, such as race, etc.
Personally, I don't have anything against a "statutory unwillingness" clause to prevent said abuses, unless it prevents willing people legally having sexual relationships (and here, by willing, I mean honestly desiring). The only question is how to define it to fulfill that purpose?
Essentially the same question as the one said earlier: "How do you know he doesn't want to do it when he doesn't say so?"

Well, "statutory unwillingness" would be essentially the same thing as AoC, just allowing more conditions, besides age, to be added, such as race, etc.
Personally, I don't have anything against a "statutory unwillingness" clause to prevent said abuses, unless it prevents willing people legally having sexual relationships (and here, by willing, I mean honestly desiring). The only question is how to define it to fulfill that purpose?
Essentially the same question as the one said earlier: "How do you know he doesn't want to do it when he doesn't say so?"

Well, perhaps it is necessary to describe the situations in which the 'statutory unwillingness' applies, if not in the legislation, then here so that perhaps we can identify a more general rule. I would envisage it applying to cases such as:

-one individual is pre-pubescent and the other is not

I was going to list more, such as certain incestuous relationships, but perhaps the above is enough.

If we are talking about sexual intercourse, then I would argue that pre-pubescents do not want this, their bodies are not yet prepared for it. And even if they explicitly said they wanted it, I think at some point you need to say that the 'older' person needs to take some responsibility and say no instead, in the best interests of the younger person.

There are some situations I am never going to condone whether the individuals are so-called willing by lack of refusal, such as a father having sex with a six year old daughter.

I realise it is difficult to define when someone doesn't want to do something but doesn't say so, and that is exactly what the AOC/statutory rape laws are designed to protect.

!! Oh dear... (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=privacy)

SchutteGod's proposal is nothing but a pro-sovereignty blocker, masquerading as a civil rights proposal.

I'd noticed; hence, 'oh dear'.

SchutteGod's proposal is nothing but a pro-sovereignty blocker, masquerading as a civil rights proposal.You can thank this ridiculous discussion for that. I really don't think it's the WA's place to be mulling over the sexual rights of talking cats.

Lucky you, I don't feel like telegramming for it.

You can thank this ridiculous discussion for that. I really don't think it's the WA's place to be mulling over the sexual rights of talking cats.

Lucky you, I don't feel like telegramming for it.

I don't have much patience for "non-human sentients" either but it does pose more of a challenge to find legislation that includes them

Not really. If someone decides to RP exotic situations, and decides not to use common sense with regards to the word 'person' and the like then that person needs to accept the consequences. Heck - even in Star Trek "human" included all the other sentient beings out there, and wasn't restricted to homo sepiens. If they could do it, why can't we?

I'm all for the spirit behind this proposal, but it's moving off in a direction that I doubt I could vote 'for' for.

Well, perhaps it is necessary to describe the situations in which the 'statutory unwillingness' applies, if not in the legislation, then here so that perhaps we can identify a more general rule. I would envisage it applying to cases such as:

-one individual is pre-pubescent and the other is not

I was going to list more, such as certain incestuous relationships, but perhaps the above is enough.

If we are talking about sexual intercourse, then I would argue that pre-pubescents do not want this, their bodies are not yet prepared for it. And even if they explicitly said they wanted it, I think at some point you need to say that the 'older' person needs to take some responsibility and say no instead, in the best interests of the younger person.

There are some situations I am never going to condone whether the individuals are so-called willing by lack of refusal, such as a father having sex with a six year old daughter.

Alright, I believe your suggestion to exempt some individuals from the protection may indeed be justified. And even though personally I think it may be better to grant minors the opportunity to try out any sexual practices if they feel so inclined (even the 6yo girl with her pedophilic father), the majority of people most probably have different opinions. Furthermore, as there is no ban included, I think it would not do any harm to include said exemption (implicitly allowing local governments to extend the protection provided if they desire or WA to eventually introduce bans on those unprotected - and if that happens, I hope they would be reasonable enough).

So my proposition for this remains the same: The inclusion of an upper-bounded locally defined age of consent that would warrant exemption (of those below it) from the protection provided by the legislation.

I think that would be reasonable enough. But if you have a different suggestion, please, tell me.

I realise it is difficult to define when someone doesn't want to do something but doesn't say so, and that is exactly what the AOC/statutory rape laws are designed to protect.

I would argue that the best practice to protect those unwilling is to ban the entire practice, but this is no place to discuss existing real-life laws. And as this proposal is different than said laws, their discussion wouldn't do any good.

P.S.: Sorry for the late reply (internet connection went down).

Any further suggestions? Should I make a poll to see which variant of the AoC people would like to include?

Any further suggestions?Yeah, produce a current draft. It's rather fruitless inviting suggestions for outdated versions of the bill.

Should I make a poll to see which variant of the AoC people would like to include?Since the WA cannot impose a universal age of consent, what's wrong with just going by existing consent laws in member states?

Yeah, produce a current draft. It's rather fruitless inviting suggestions for outdated versions of the bill.

Done. First post updated. Thanks for suggesting this.

Since the WA cannot impose a universal age of consent, what's wrong with just going by existing consent laws in member states?

The problem is that we need to define exactly who does receive the protection. The inclusion of a local age of consent is just one possibility how we can resolve this. And there may be problems with this (ie. masturbation of minors, sex play between minors, etc. - see previous posts). For another possiblities and short descriptions, see the first post. You are, of course, welcome to discuss them further or suggest another possibility.

If you include allowing the masturbation of minors (by adults) then you might as well give up on this proposal because it'll never go through. You're never going to be able to figure out a wording that'll separate out culturally acceptable practices from pedophilia - or the travel of pedophiles to those nations - and I doubt you'll get enough votes as opposed to the "this legalizes child sexual abuse" voices.

Sex play between minors isn't a problem. Make the AoC a barrier: if one party is above it and the other is below it (and age difference is less than two years, if you want) then it's a no-no. Ideal? No. But you'll either end up with a "pro child sexual abuse" proposal (or at least calls that this is), micro-manage local laws and customs (and run into sovereignty and cultural autonomy issues), or run into the +/-3500 word count limit trying to avoid stepping on anyone's toes.

Also - you REALLY need to include "consent". How you've defined "willing" allows someone to slip a person a date rape drug and do whatever he/she wants, and do it all legally - as long as the drugged person was still conscious. Didn't object? Check. Didn't fight the expression? Check. Knew it was happening? Check. Thus: the person was "willing". Consent given? Doesn't matter.... By WA Resolution the person was willing.

And another also: your last prohibition would not allow repeat offenders to have a longer/harsher sentence than for first time offenders. With the wording, that might be allowed if the actions are done repeatedly to the unwilling person, but certainly not if the convicted person has multiple victims.

RECOGNISES that every willing individual has the right to express his/her sexuality.Including in public? With blood relations?

PROHIBITS any governmental investigation of sexual behavior of willing individuals, unless an investigation is called for by one of the individuals (or his/her legal representative) in order to determine whether he/she was willing at the time.A bit thin, and leaves governments virtually powerless, except in cases of suspected rape or sexual assault. The previous Sexual Privacy Act also carried some important exemptions for government interference/surveillance you may want to consider:

5. EXEMPTS:

a. Obtaining evidence for determination of paternity,

b. Collecting information for epidemiological investigations,

c. Criminal or civil investigative activity where probable cause has been established requiring such information, and

d. Actions in situations where there is probable cause that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention.Obviously, these sorts of situations would warrant government involvement.

The problem is that we need to define exactly who does receive the protection. The inclusion of a local age of consent is just one possibility how we can resolve this. And there may be problems with this (ie. masturbation of minors, sex play between minors, etc. - see previous posts).All the more reason just to leave it up to individual nations to determine age of consent. You are not going to be able to define it universally in a way that will please everybody.

It is ultimately the question of "How do you know he doesn't want to do it when he doesn't say so?". As we (at least the majority of us) don't have telepathic powers, the only thing that I can imagine that could solve those cases to some degree would be "willingness" campaigns in school, workplaces, etc. to promote the possibility of rejection.

In our nation, we remove such uncertainty by outlawing fornication entirely. If two people wish to engage in sexual activity, they should be married. You'd be surprised how many difficult situations are avoided that way.

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to point out to the esteemed delegate for the Eternal kawaii that not all the nations of the w.a. even have such an institution as marriage, and that therefore "fornication" is the only method by which people may have sex in such nations.
this is certainly the case in urgench at least, we have no legally recognised marriages.

our government would also like to recomend the comments of the esteemed delegate for schuttegod on the matter of leaving decisions pertaining to age of consent to individual nations, to the authors of this proposal.

Mongkha, Khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for the empire of urgench.

If you include allowing the masturbation of minors (by adults) then you might as well give up on this proposal because it'll never go through. You're never going to be able to figure out a wording that'll separate out culturally acceptable practices from pedophilia - or the travel of pedophiles to those nations - and I doubt you'll get enough votes as opposed to the "this legalizes child sexual abuse" voices.

I was never planning to include allowing the masturbation of minors explicitly (I wanted to include that implicitly however). You're right that the inclusion would, most probably, make the proposal refused (whatever the chosen wording). I have realised that the protection of such practices would never be accepted by some nations. Now I think the best solution would be to simply let the local governments handle the problem by exempting minors from protection by the proposal.

Sex play between minors isn't a problem. Make the AoC a barrier: if one party is above it and the other is below it (and age difference is less than two years, if you want) then it's a no-no. Ideal? No. But you'll either end up with a "pro child sexual abuse" proposal (or at least calls that this is), micro-manage local laws and customs (and run into sovereignty and cultural autonomy issues), or run into the +/-3500 word count limit trying to avoid stepping on anyone's toes.

As I said above, I think that the best solution would simply be the inclusion of a locally defined age of consent, below which the practice is not protected. That way it would be the nation's government's decision. Example: The nation would set the AoC to, let's say, 15 years. That way sex with a 15yo or older would be legal and protected. Then the government would add a law, saying that sex with someone who is below the AoC (younger than 15yo), would be illegal only if the age difference is greater than 2 years and that the punishment would be, let's say, 15 years in a specialized prison.
That should take care of the problem, unless I'm missing something.

Also - you REALLY need to include "consent". How you've defined "willing" allows someone to slip a person a date rape drug and do whatever he/she wants, and do it all legally - as long as the drugged person was still conscious. Didn't object? Check. Didn't fight the expression? Check. Knew it was happening? Check. Thus: the person was "willing". Consent given? Doesn't matter.... By WA Resolution the person was willing.

I don't have any knowledge of date rape drugs, really. Is there really such a drug that would prevent you to decline? I can only think of paralytic medication. If that's what you're having in mind, maybe there's a clause needed for that. If there is any other drug, let me know. I would like to make sure everything is considered before revising.
Also, considering "consent", looks like a lot of people really like that word. Do you think that changing "willing" to "consenting" in the entire proposal would be a good idea? (More of a psychological effect there)

And another also: your last prohibition would not allow repeat offenders to have a longer/harsher sentence than for first time offenders. With the wording, that might be allowed if the actions are done repeatedly to the unwilling person, but certainly not if the convicted person has multiple victims.

I don't think so. It explicitly states "except in cases where a participant was not a willing individual". That would mean that any previous sexual behavior can be considered, provided that it included an individual that was not "willing" (in other words, a victim). It does not have to be the same individual.

Including in public? With blood relations?

Yes. Do you think that it is a bad idea?

A bit thin, and leaves governments virtually powerless, except in cases of suspected rape or sexual assault. The previous Sexual Privacy Act also carried some important exemptions for government interference/surveillance you may want to consider:

[...]

Obviously, these sorts of situations would warrant government involvement.

I believe that only rape or sexual assault should be investigated without permission from those involved.
As for the points of the Sexual Privacy Act:
a. That does not need an investigation of the sexual act itself. Biological relation can be determined much more efficiently by different means.
b. I don't think the government should have a say in that. The involved should have the right to choose whether they wish to provide such information or not.
c. I don't see any other criminal activity, besides rape, that would need this.
d. That does not involve the investigation by the government. It's about providing information to the doctor. And if someone does not wish to provide such information when their life is in danger (although I cannot imagine such a situation), they shouldn't be prosecuted. Besides, the doctors should presume (or check for, if necessary) a sexual act previous to an injury, if the patient does not wish to speak about it.

All the more reason just to leave it up to individual nations to determine age of consent. You are not going to be able to define it universally in a way that will please everybody.

It can also be defined medically, as a capability to engage in the act. I think that a lot of people wouldn't object to that. However, the AoC does indeed seem to have a higher probability of success.

In our nation, we remove such uncertainty by outlawing fornication entirely. If two people wish to engage in sexual activity, they should be married. You'd be surprised how many difficult situations are avoided that way.

And you would be surprised how many difficult situations can be created that way. I do not intend to make marriage a requirement for sex.

I don't have any knowledge of date rape drugs, really. Is there really such a drug that would prevent you to decline?You may wish to shower afterwards, but here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug).

Also, there is a difference in connotation between "willing" and "consent". Adding consent would be a very good idea.

OOC: Lol wut? Only TWO individuals!!? What if my country's people are feeling a bit "adventurous."

Sorry but I couldn't resist posting this. Your choice of words brought this upon yourself.

True lol :sniper:

DEFINES a willing individual as a human being that didn't object to the given form of sexual behaviour, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of race, sexual orientation, social status, age or any other trait, chosen or not.


What about cases of severely impaired judgment?
How do we protect people who fall victim to those who would use intimidation, coercion or chemicals to obtain “consent”?

What about cases of severely impaired judgment?
How do we protect people who fall victim to those who would use intimidation, coercion or chemicals to obtain “consent”?

And how would you define that in a way that cannot be abused (especially by governments)? Besides, threats are threats, they are made illegal in other legislations. As for the drugs, even if there exists a magical "sleep with the first person you see" drug, it should be made illegal to mix it in the food of an unsuspecting person in a different (more appropriate) legislation. Then the sex would be legal but the application of the drug would not.

And how would you define that in a way that cannot be abused (especially by governments)? Besides, threats are threats, they are made illegal in other legislations.

Ok point taken.
But what if the accused claims their threatening behaviour is part of S&M foreplay and they have a right to that as part of sexual expression?

As for the drugs, even if there exists a magical "sleep with the first person you see" drug, it should be made illegal to mix it in the food of an unsuspecting person in a different (more appropriate) legislation. Then the sex would be legal but the application of the drug would not.

So if a person commits rape with the aid of a drug they can only be prosecuted on drugs charges?
Anyway, the most commonly used date rape drug is alcohol and nobody wants to criminalize that.

Ok point taken.
But what if the accused claims their threatening behaviour is part of S&M foreplay and they have a right to that as part of sexual expression?

It may be a little complicated, but the victim can counter that by saying he was not aware that it was a part of the sexual expression, therefore "didn't know it was performed".

So if a person commits rape with the aid of a drug they can only be prosecuted on drugs charges?
Anyway, the most commonly used date rape drug is alcohol and nobody wants to criminalize that.

And you would like to criminalize getting someone drunk in order to have sex with him?

It may be a little complicated, but the victim can counter that by saying he was not aware that it was a part of the sexual expression, therefore "didn't know it was performed".



And you would like to criminalize getting someone drunk in order to have sex with him?


the government of the emperor of urgench, is concerned that the respected delegate for Kattia is unaware of the existence of date rape drugs,
and yes we would certainly advocate the prosecution of any person who used any intoxicant to have sex with anyone without there consent.
perhaps issues of consent are better left to a Rape Bill?


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

the government of the emperor of urgench, is concerned that the respected delegate for Kattia is unaware of the existence of date rape drugs,
and yes we would certainly advocate the prosecution of any person who used any intoxicant to have sex with anyone without there consent.
perhaps issues of consent are better left to a Rape Bill?

I was thinking about replacing "did know it was performed" with "was fully aware it was performed", but then realized there could be cases of "I just woke up and was still a bit sleepy. I wasn't fully aware of what was happening". Also, if I'd add something along the lines of "his/her decision wasn't influenced by any substance", I could get cases of "rapes" induced by chocolate, (the other person's) pheromones, etc.

As for the Rape Bill, I must properly define the "willing/consenting individual" here. I can't say that "consent" will be defined in another bill (especially if it doesn't exist yet).

All you need to do is add "fully informed and un-coerced given consent".

Informed consent: everyone knows what is going on, is capable of understanding what is going on, and actually does understand what is going on. Lies and drugs would count against the consent being 'informed'.

Fully informed consent: you got a disease you better tell your partner(s)! There is a reasonableness to this (did you ask your partner if s/he had one? did you set up safe-words to stop the SM/BD?) that would also include the entire situation around the sex (those chats and IMs you've been exchanging detailing your desire to be tied up and ravished with no escape, you know...). This also reminds all participants of their own responsibilities involved, and that you can't push it all off onto the other person(s).

Un-coerced consent: everyone has given, of his or her own free will, consent without the use of manipulation or force. This would cover power issues (boss telling his secretary to have sex or lose the job; child being put in the position of not being able to say "no" to a parent) as consent is not usually accepted to being given if made under duress, whether physical, emotional, spiritual, financial, or mental in nature. This would also cover rape.

Those two things should cover a lot of objections.

A consequence of giving consent is that it can always be taken away again - at any time. But that withdraw of consent also needs to be well done so that all parties (should/can) recognize it as such.

Ah, this Sexual Freedom Proposal will greatly increase freedom of choice and desires, reduce discrimination, and bring the things that which were hidden into the open.

*Remains rigid and narrows eyes*

Ambassadors of The World Assembly, I suggest we just drop a bombshell of plague, pestilence and self-inflicted laceration upon our societies instead.

RECOGNISES that every willing individual has the right to express his/her sexuality.

With this legislation enforced, you won't be able to take your kids shopping without tripping over a couple engaged in homosexual intercourse. Your frightened children will see with their very own eyes the behavior of a man and woman making love on every corner...even children their own age doing it in the phonebooths, on top of cars, in a garbage bin or who knows where else?? Cameras will become the new fad amongst pedophiles...

PROHIBITS any discrimination based on sexual orientation or any previous sexual behavior, except in cases where a participant was not a willing individual.

Public incest Shows would be legally held in your city square, group sex competitions will attract vast crowds of supporters, from the childrens' grade to the pensioners' division.

Oh but thats not all - although I'm sure you all have an good enough sense of 'creativity' - so I won't continue.

And after all that when everyone's had their fun, the coughing, itching and vomiting starts. Fatal sexually transmitted disease and affliction becomes the new common cold. Multitudes of ordinary citizens would join unending hospital queues with festering chancroid, stinging gonorrheae, Heptitis B, AIDS/HIV and the list goes on. Health systems around the world will collapse. Afflicted patients will sink into drug and alcohol abuse...insanity spreads...your police force will now need super extra funding.

Children and parents alike would needlessly die. Abortion becomes a casual thing. Born but unwanted children will overcrowd the orphanages, the addicts will be thrown to the streets...and a class of unsupported peasantry of unprecedented size will commit atrocities against your society's wellbeing and government's stability - that you never thought possible.

Let the new Black Plague enter.

Yes. Do you think that it is a bad idea?

*Glances at the other Narnian chancellors in disbelief, standing tall and stern-of-face behind him*

Ambassador of Kattia, to put it quite frankly, we think the whole proposal is a grossly heinous idea.

I have good faith that the people of Narnia are far too learned and civilized to sink into these grisly depths and ruin our own economy for the sake of this so-called 'sexual freedom', even if this proposal did pass....but we aren't the ordinary human beings. I despair when I see the well-respected ambassadors of this august body tag along with this outrageously dangerous 'idea'.

And when this is submitted and if it ever reaches quorum, it will still have our fullest of opposition, whether or not we're the only damn sensible representatives standing in the way.
__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to agree with the respected delegate for the narnian council, much of the wording of this proposed resolution is unsatisfactory, and we would only vote for a much edited version. we feel though that the respected delegate indulges in creative hyperbole in their description of life post this proposed resolution, and to what purpose we may only guess.


yours Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

The Narnian Council: drama queen much?

All that needs to be added to the proposal to prevent any of the ridiculous notions that you described is a clause that says that the proposal relates to sexual acts in private, and that a nation may reserve the right to make public sex illegal. A definition of private could prevent abuse of this rule.

snip

Do you actually believe that laws outlawing public sex are there to prevent what you said?
People are not rabbits! They know that if they engage in sex, they risk STDs. They know that abortion can damage their bodies.
Although point taken, public sex shouldn't be protected. I am now going to revise the proposal. Tell me what you think about the new version.

Any reading of this proposal as allowing public sex is misconstrued. For public sex to be public - the public needs to be one of the parties. Via government, the public can either declare itself an unwilling participant or not give consent to being a participant. In either case the proposal as written, with or without the suggestions added to it, allows for public sex to not be legal.

Furthermore, this proposal does not forbid the passing of laws that mandate full sexually transmitted disease infections disclosure to all parties involved, nor does it even forbid requiring regular check-ups should a nation deem that to be in its best interest. Finally, this proposal does not forbid passing laws making (the attempt of) transmission of said diseases illegal.

If the Council of Narnia would read the proposal, with proposed changes, again, a more careful examination would should that the fears of the Council are, in fact, unwarranted.

the government of the emperor of urgench is very pleased with the revisions of this resolution as proposed. we commend the highly esteemed and respected delegate for Kattia and their governments excellent work, such a cooperative and collegiate an approach as yours should be emulated by all nations who endeavour to legislate for this organisation.
the emperor of urgench himself, may his horde ride swift till the end of time, and his august mother, the dowager empress, Sorghakhtani have asked us to convey their felicitations to your people and their government. they are both anxious to reassure you of our continued support for this proposed resolution, and of our nations vote should it come before the assembly.

from the office of his excellency, Tamerlane, khan of samarkand and bhukhara, grand chancellor or the empire of urgench and chamberlain of the emperial household,
may your horde ride swift.

I have added a poll to solve the AoC problem once and for all. If option 1 or 2 wins, I will add another one for the upper boundary of the AoC.

What about the issue of religion? Religious nations (Stevid and I myself being devoutly Catholic) would have certian issues with this proposal regarding homosexuality. Surely this issue should be addressed fully.It has been as if your people believe it wrong for two males or two females or mixed races to have sex then they will follow their beliefs and not have such actions, nor give consent for them to take place in their house where they are present. However if others select to engage in this sort of thing in private out of the sight of your people then they may.

As a Catholic you may believe in a form of sexual pleasure that to others is repulsive and not proper, sodomy being one, oral being another, woman on top man on bottom, doggie style, this will allow you your pleasure while allowing others theirs as long as you do not do it in front of others who may oppose your actions. Or in front of others who may not have the mental ability to understand what is going on.. for whatever reason... like they are too young, a natural lacking the mental skills to grasp simple things yet fully developed to the physical level to perform sex.

I have added a poll to solve the AoC problem once and for all. If option 1 or 2 wins, I will add another one for the upper boundary of the AoC.We fill that even with an age in there it still leaves out the idea that even if a person is of age they may not have the mental abiltiy to understand what is being done to them. However they may be able to perform sexualy but not fully understand what is happening. Thus you need something to ensure that all parties are able minded enough to 'give consent' before they enter into sex with others.

Also the use of HUMAN limits this as far as we are concerned since we are not HUMAN. Even if a HUMAN is willing to have sex with one of our race it would not be possible nor proper and under our laws forbidden to protect the HUMAN or other race since many are not able to survice sex with one of us, let alone two of us. Then sould they become pregnant in the process it would mean their death in the birth process.

Thus to say we can't establish sex laws to protect individuals based on the nature of sex here and have to follow rules that would mean death to fools who might seek a pleasurable yet sure death for us is not protecting anyone.

OH and I selected OTHER in the poll but if Capacity means able to give consent as they understand what it means not just that they have all the right parts to perform sex, then would have said capacity.

We fear our vote may, as is always the risk with polls, be misleading. We strongly dislike the idea of placing an upper bound on ages of consent, since that reintroduces all the problems associated with giving a specific age in the first place. We also consider that variation should be permitted provided it can be justified -- we have in long-past debates suggested that only dispassionate biological or medical arguments should be considered relevant.

We fear our vote may, as is always the risk with polls, be misleading. We strongly dislike the idea of placing an upper bound on ages of consent, since that reintroduces all the problems associated with giving a specific age in the first place. We also consider that variation should be permitted provided it can be justified -- we have in long-past debates suggested that only dispassionate biological or medical arguments should be considered relevant.

Then, I think, the "Capability of engaging" would be a better option for you (seeing that it has 0 votes, I presume you did not pick that one). It means that those that are biologically capable of engaging in the act should be permitted to. It's basically a "determined only by medical status" option.

As for the upper bound, there is a reason behind that. Nations would be able to exploit the AoC to remove protection of this legislation from all it's citizens (and apply their own laws). For examples, see previous posts. I think that's better than giving a specific Age of Consent, as it gives at least some say to local governments.

We fill that even with an age in there it still leaves out the idea that even if a person is of age they may not have the mental abiltiy to understand what is being done to them. However they may be able to perform sexualy but not fully understand what is happening. Thus you need something to ensure that all parties are able minded enough to 'give consent' before they enter into sex with others.

Also the use of HUMAN limits this as far as we are concerned since we are not HUMAN. Even if a HUMAN is willing to have sex with one of our race it would not be possible nor proper and under our laws forbidden to protect the HUMAN or other race since many are not able to survice sex with one of us, let alone two of us. Then sould they become pregnant in the process it would mean their death in the birth process.

Thus to say we can't establish sex laws to protect individuals based on the nature of sex here and have to follow rules that would mean death to fools who might seek a pleasurable yet sure death for us is not protecting anyone.

OH and I selected OTHER in the poll but if Capacity means able to give consent as they understand what it means not just that they have all the right parts to perform sex, then would have said capacity.

As was said earlier, this proposal is not supposed to resolve non-human vs. human rights. That can be handled in a different legislation. As it is now, protection of sexual behavior of other species (sentient or not) is entirely up to local governments.

Then, I think, the "Capability of engaging" would be a better option for you (seeing that it has 0 votes, I presume you did not pick that one). It means that those that are biologically capable of engaging in the act should be permitted to. It's basically a "determined only by medical status" option.

Which is again not quite our position. We are fully happy for nations to set their national overall Age of Consent to whatever level they see fit. It is the variations therefrom that need justification in our eyes.

The Grand Duchy of Lost Cove objects to the proposed definition of "consent," on the grounds that said definition does not provide an exception for the unfortunate members of our society who are not (or are no longer) of sound mind, including the senile and certain categories of the mentally ill.

It is a minor error of language, which we hope will be easy to correct. Yet, as written, this proposal would allow the rape of demented old ladies in nursing homes and prohibit the lawfully-appointed guardians of those suffering from hypersexuality (ICD-9 302.89) from preventing sexual activity between their respective wards. This would, ironically, undermine personal autonomy while promoting the spread of disease.

The Duchy has certain other objections to the proposal, but, as a non-member state, we do not feel compelled to list any but this most important of objections.

Thank you for your time.

Ambassador Doraan T. Dhakaar
Delegate Observer to the W.A.
Grand Duchy of Lost Cove

Which is again not quite our position. We are fully happy for nations to set their national overall Age of Consent to whatever level they see fit. It is the variations therefrom that need justification in our eyes.

In that case the second option is probably the best for you. You can set the AoC to whatever age depending on whatever circumstances as long as it is below the upper bound.

The Grand Duchy of Lost Cove objects to the proposed definition of "consent," on the grounds that said definition does not provide an exception for the unfortunate members of our society who are not (or are no longer) of sound mind, including the senile and certain categories of the mentally ill.

It is a minor error of language, which we hope will be easy to correct. Yet, as written, this proposal would allow the rape of demented old ladies in nursing homes and prohibit the lawfully-appointed guardians of those suffering from hypersexuality (ICD-9 302.89) from preventing sexual activity between their respective wards. This would, ironically, undermine personal autonomy while promoting the spread of disease.

I don't see why old people or the mentally ill should not have the right to freely engage in sexual activities. The rape of demented old ladies is still a rape. And why would you want to deny sex to hypersexual individuals? If they want to do it, they should be able to. If they want someone to prevent them doing it, they are able to. But if only the government (or the society) thinks it's for their best interest, I will never support that.

By the proposal's definition, if a person is aware of an activity at the time it is undertaken and does not object at the time, that person has given consent. Now, I think we all know some elderly people who suffer from... spells. In the case of my deputy ambassador and I, it's our respective grandmothers, both of whom have recently been diagnosed with dementia. There are certain times when these dear old women believe that certain things that aren't true are, and that are true aren't. They have become confused as to the identities of family members, including their husbands, and, on at least one occasion, one of them made mistaken advances on an orderly. Had the orderly been a lesser man--or, for that matter, my grandmother a more attractive woman--my grandmother could have participated in a sexual activity that meets the proposal's standard for consent, yet which would have clearly been rape, by any rational definition of the word. Similar scenarios for those suffering from a spectrum of mental disorders, across all ages, are easy to conceive.

It is plain that, at this point in their lives, it is the sacred duty of society to protect these persons and others like them from decisions they are no longer competent to make, and which violate their personal autonomy and human dignity. Because it underminines those efforts at basic protection of society's most vulnerable, the proposal is flawed.

Thank you for your time.

Ambassador Doraan T. Dhakaar
Delegate Observer to the W.A.
Grand Duchy of Lost Cove

By the proposal's definition, if a person is aware of an activity at the time it is undertaken and does not object at the time, that person has given consent. Now, I think we all know some elderly people who suffer from... spells. In the case of my deputy ambassador and I, it's our respective grandmothers, both of whom have recently been diagnosed with dementia. There are certain times when these dear old women believe that certain things that aren't true are, and that are true aren't. They have become confused as to the identities of family members, including their husbands, and, on at least one occasion, one of them made mistaken advances on an orderly. Had the orderly been a lesser man--or, for that matter, my grandmother a more attractive woman--my grandmother could have participated in a sexual activity that meets the proposal's standard for consent, yet which would have clearly been rape, by any rational definition of the word. Similar scenarios for those suffering from a spectrum of mental disorders, across all ages, are easy to conceive.

It is plain that, at this point in their lives, it is the sacred duty of society to protect these persons and others like them from decisions they are no longer competent to make, and which violate their personal autonomy and human dignity. Because it underminines those efforts at basic protection of society's most vulnerable, the proposal is flawed.

Thank you for your time.

Ambassador Doraan T. Dhakaar
Delegate Observer to the W.A.
Grand Duchy of Lost Cove


the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out to the highly respected delegate of the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove that part of the definition of rape must be that the person accused of such an act must have understood that no consent was given and that they continued to force sex upon the victim inspite of this. in the case of the esteemed delegates august grandmother as put, there would be good grounds for charges against the orderly who might be reasonably expected to know that the great lady was not in full possesion of her faculties, but if that orderly was new to their job, uninformed of the patients condition, or in any other way led to believe that consent was given then no charge of rape could fairly be brought against him.
the same must be the case in cases of so called statutory rape, in so far as the accused must reasonably be expected to have known that the victim was under age. this principle also applies to cases of drunkeness or intoxication too, otherwise many individuals who's intentions were entirely honourable would find themselves guilty of rape.

her imperial highness, Sorghakhtani,the dowager empress of urgench and the government of the emperor of urgench wish to extend their fondest concern for the good health of the most honoured grandmother of the esteemed delegate of the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove, may she find the greatest ease of heart and contentment of soul.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is still gravely troubled by how the notion of 'consent' is written in this proposal. It is defined in terms of negatives, rather than positives. In other words - consent is given unless taken away.

She would much rather see 'consent' given in terms of positives, as is usually the case. That would clear up much potential confusion in those engaging in any sexual activity. Unless and until the partner states "yes, let's do that" there is no consent given.

Furthermore, this would also cover those cases in which a person is mentally not capable of giving consent, such as those drunk or under the influence of drugs or medication, mentally (determined) not to be sufficiently aware or capable of making decisions (such as those suffering from Down's Syndrome may be).

As this Proposal is written there are still too many possibilities available for sexual activities to be done that could and should reasonably fall under the category "rape" yet be perfectly legal under this Proposal.

Even leaving aside the question of whether this topic is trans-national enough in nature to be a rightful topic for WA legislation, there's one very important reason why my nation's government would NEVER vote in favour of this proposal as it is currently worded: Nations must be allowed to retain any existing laws that they have against incest...
I suspect that many of the other national governments that are represented here would share this view.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

Even leaving aside the question of whether this topic is trans-national enough in nature to be a rightful topic for WA legislation, there's one very important reason why my nation's government would NEVER vote in favour of this proposal as it is currently worded: Nations must be allowed to retain any existing laws that they have against incest...
I suspect that many of the other national governments that are represented here would share this view.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.


the government of the emperor of urgench cannot think of a subject more universal than sexuallity, all creatures have an urge to procreate or to congruate for the purposes of emotional and psychological gratification, protection of the rights of individuals to choose how and with whom they do this is of paramount importance in that it is a human/sentient right.
as to the national predjudices of the individual w.a. mamber nations, well that is exactly the point of this resolution. we may not like what persons do with each other, we may even find it disgusting, but we have no right to force our likes and dislikes upon them.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Im sorry to the one who proposed this bill. But in the interest of the Christian community of the Country of Fire and its leader the Holy Republic of RyanBrum, I shall fight this resolution until the end regardless of comments that may be made about my position. The only kind of sexual behavior I endorse is between a man and a woman as God intended and as the only type that makes any sense at all.:rolleyes:

Im sorry to the one who proposed this bill. But in the interest of the Christian community of the Country of Fire and its leader the Holy Republic of RyanBrum, I shall fight this resolution until the end regardless of comments that may be made about my position. The only kind of sexual behavior I endorse is between a man and a woman as God intended and as the only type that makes any sense at all.:rolleyes:

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out to the respected ambassador for RyanBrum that not all the nations of the w.a. are peopled with humans and that therefore to discriminate against them for not being men or women would be highly distructive to the cohesion of the w.a.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Nations must be allowed to retain any existing laws that they have against incest...

Seems like a good topic for a WA proposal on its own merits, to be honest. The two key elements would necessarily be "abuse of power" and "genetic risk". Why have incest rules that prohibit a widower from marrying his widowed sister-in-law, or prevent an adult adopted child from marrying a 'cousin'? Incest rules could use some rational language that recognize the true risks and denies the silly ones.


The only kind of sexual behavior I endorse is between a man and a woman as God intended and as the only type that makes any sense at all.:rolleyes:

I'm always amused that people know what "God intended". I think God intended for us to not be able to breathe underwater, so He made us drown when we tried it unassisted. I think God intended for the birds to own the skies, and he killed most of those who tried to fly.

God is pretty good at killing us (or failing to provide us with the necessary tools) when there's something He doesn't want us to do. As far as I can tell, He gave us the free will to try things out. If they don't kill us, hey, s'ok by me.

Of course, you've got the free will to oppose me if you want, as do jealous husbands and a moralistic society. I'm willing to risk those odds, thanks just the same.

To those who do not have a human population I apologize. God will protect your sexual rights because you are not human, but to those who are human I stand by my God.

To those who do not have a human population I apologize. God will protect your sexual rights because you are not human, but to those who are human I stand by my God.

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to ask the honoured ambassador for RyanBrum if his gods rules should apply to for instance our humble people? we have no gods or religions and do not consider ourselves bound by the beliefs of other nations, though we respect their right to hold them.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

In my view, His law already does regardless of your religious beliefs. However you have your view and I have mine. Let us not fight but become allies for the good of everyone.

In my view, His law already does regardless of your religious beliefs. However you have your view and I have mine. Let us not fight but become allies for the good of everyone.


the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to assure the esteemed ambassador for RyanBrum that we do not wish to fight with you. we are intrigued by the notion of an alliance but this is not the place to talk of such things.
all we ask is that what is ceasers be rendered up to ceaser.

may your horde ride swift,

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Unless protections against pedophilia and bestiality are written into this resolution, I will never vote for it, period.



I agree with free bikers. My nation turns it down without more specififc plans. :)

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out to the highly respected delegate of the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove that part of the definition of rape must be that the person accused of such an act must have understood that no consent was given and that they continued to force sex upon the victim inspite of this. in the case of the esteemed delegates august grandmother as put, there would be good grounds for charges against the orderly who might be reasonably expected to know that the great lady was not in full possesion of her faculties, but if that orderly was new to there job, uninformed of the patients condition, or in any other way led to believe that consent was given then no charge of rape could fairly be brought against him.

the same must be the case in cases of so called statutory rape, in so far as the accused must reasonably be expected to have known that the victim was under age. this principle also applies to cases of drunkeness or intoxication too, otherwise many individuals who's intentions were entirely honourable would find themselves guilty of rape.

her imperial highness, Sorghakhtani, the dowager empress of urgench and the government of the emperor of urgench wish to extend their fondest concern for the good health of the most honoured grandmother of the esteemed delegate of the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove, may she find the greatest ease of heart and contentment of soul.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

I must say, Ambassador Mongkha, your words are both well-chosen and pleasant to the ear. You do honor not just to my own but to all the grandmothers of my nation, and, for this, the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove thanks the great and hardy people of the Urgench Empire.

I do believe that you and I agree on the matter at hand here: any definition of rape must include consent, and any definition of consent must account for those members of society who are no longer capable of giving it. This delegation's objection to the proposed Resolution is that the Resolution does not contain any such exception, and, thus, a mentally ill person would be defined as giving consent when, properly understood, no consent has been given. We have argued thus. This delegation finds the omission gravely troubling, and so we speak for heavy revision or outright scrapping of the Resolution from the esteemed Queendom of Kattia.

We thank the assembled delegates for hearing out our concerns, despite the Grand Duke's decision to refrain from entering Lost Cove as a full member of the W.A. at this time. Furthermore, we hope that our objections will be used to create a better, stronger Resolution on the important and worthwhile topic of sexual rights.

Ambassador Doraan T. Dhakaar
Delegate Observer to the W.A.
Grand Duchy of Lost Cove

I must say, Ambassador Mongkha, your words are both well-chosen and pleasant to the ear. You do honor not just to my own but to all the grandmothers of my nation, and, for this, the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove thanks the great and hardy people of the Urgench Empire.

I do believe that you and I agree on the matter at hand here: any definition of rape must include consent, and any definition of consent must account for those members of society who are no longer capable of giving it. This delegation's objection to the proposed Resolution is that the Resolution does not contain any such exception, and, thus, a mentally ill person would be defined as giving consent when, properly understood, no consent has been given. We have argued thus. This delegation finds the omission gravely troubling, and so we speak for heavy revision or outright scrapping of the Resolution from the esteemed Queendom of Kattia.

We thank the assembled delegates for hearing out our concerns, despite the Grand Duke's decision to refrain from entering Lost Cove as a full member of the W.A. at this time. Furthermore, we hope that our objections will be used to create a better, stronger Resolution on the important and worthwhile topic of sexual rights.

Ambassador Doraan T. Dhakaar
Delegate Observer to the W.A.
Grand Duchy of Lost Cove


the government of the emperor of urgench would like to thank the esteemed delegate for their kind words, you honour us.
however we feel that perhaps we should make ourselves very clear on the matter of consent. however consent is defined and however it may be defined as having been given, we are concerned that the issue of rape is more specific than the honoured delegate allows for.
consent may be given either verbally or non verbally by accident or in error,
rape cannot be committed by accident or in error.
a person accused of rape must reasonably be considered to have understood that no consent was given to be found guilty of rape.
a person who can reasonably be seen to have thought that consent was given either verbally or not cannot be guilty of rape.
this applies to people who have had sex with minors whom they did not know to be minors, persons who's mental state was not apparent to them, the same applies to issues of intoxication and drunkeness.

the matter of consent is vital in protecting people from unwanted and emotionaly scaring sexual assaults, but it should not be used to criminalise people who have engaged in what they thought to be consensual acts with persons they reasonably thought capable of consent.

this resolution is a very important one, one we are anxious to see at vote. the great work of the esteemed Kattian embassy in bringing this proposal to debate must be recognised, as must their willingness to take the good advice of others in it's developement. it would be a terrible injustice were this proposed resolution to be scrapped at this stage.


the cultural attache to our embassy, princess Ryabat Goizam has asked us to inform you that should the honoured delegate wish to accept the gift, she has some honey and saffron cakes (a delicacy of our people) for the honoured delegates grandmother and that should she find them pleasing the princess will provide for a regular supply to be delivered to the honoured lady in question.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

I thank the ambassadors of Urgench and Lost Cove for the enlightening discussion about the issue of consent. I would like to assure them that I am trying to come up with a reasonable resolution. However, the problem of the blurry line between an informed and an uninformed consent is very complex. On one hand there are problems with consent influenced by alcohol, a specific medical state (dementia, mental illnes), etc. On the other hand, I don't want to prevent otherwise perfectly consenting people from having sex simply because they had a glass of wine, are too old or suffer from a mental illness. Furthermore, as the ambassador of Urgench pointed out, these conditions may not be easily recognizable. Locking up people (in the worst case) because they did not perform a full background check on the person before they slept with him/her seems to me as a really bad idea.
Therefore, I look forward to the continuation of the discussion (as an invaluable source of insight) and hope it will help us reach a good consensus in this matter.

I would also like to ask those that oppose this proposal on religious grounds to not post in this thread as it is intended for constructive criticism. Thank you

I thank the ambassadors of Urgench and Lost Cove for the enlightening discussion about the issue of consent. I would like to assure them that I am trying to come up with a reasonable resolution. However, the problem of the blurry line between an informed and an uninformed consent is very complex. On one hand there are problems with consent influenced by alcohol, a specific medical state (dementia, mental illnes), etc. On the other hand, I don't want to prevent otherwise perfectly consenting people from having sex simply because they had a glass of wine, are too old or suffer from a mental illness. Furthermore, as the ambassador of Urgench pointed out, these conditions may not be easily recognizable. Locking up people (in the worst case) because they did not perform a full background check on the person before they slept with him/her seems to me as a really bad idea.
Therefore, I look forward to the continuation of the discussion (as an invaluable source of insight) and hope it will help us reach a good consensus in this matter.

I would also like to ask those that oppose this proposal on religious grounds to not post in this thread as it is intended for constructive criticism. Thank you


the government of the emperor of urgench is honoured to have contributed in any way to this vital debate. might we suggest that instead of defining what is consent, you might define what constitutes non-consent? this may prove easier and more succint
something like;
" acts which a person has not given consent to or cannot be considered to have given consent to, where the other person knew that no consent was given or could reasonably (or actually, if you wish the law to be more stringent) be expected to know that no consent was possible" or words to this effect?


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Its a good proposal. It covers most of the issues on this topic. One suggestion: I think each nation should decide their age of consent independently; if you want a universal AOC, I'd say 18 y.o.a.

Socialist New America

the government of the emperor of urgench is honoured to have contributed in any way to this vital debate. might we suggest that instead of defining what is consent, you might define what constitutes non-consent? this may prove easier and more succint

Actually, I am already taking the approach of non-consent in the definition of a consenting individual in my original proposal.

" acts which a person has not given consent to or cannot be considered to have given consent to, where the other person knew that no consent was given or could reasonably (or actually, if you wish the law to be more stringent) be expected to know that no consent was possible" or words to this effect?

I would like to avoid definitions like that in my proposal. Words like "cannot be considered" or "could be expected" are not exact enough to not allow a possibility of abuse. It is my understanding that resolutions of the WA are directed towards governments, not people (as legislation templates customizable by local governments). Therefore, these resolutions need to take special care to eliminate any loopholes that the (more oppressive) governments could use to circumvent them.
For example: Your wording could be misused by a racist government to deem all people of a specific race unable to give consent ("They cannot be considered to give consent" and "Everybody can reasonably be expected to know that no consent was possible").

[QUOTE=Kattia;13778741]Actually, I am already taking the approach of non-consent in the definition of a consenting individual in my original proposal.



I would like to avoid definitions like that in my proposal. Words like "cannot be considered" or "could be expected" are not exact enough to not allow a possibility of abuse. It is my understanding that resolutions of the WA are directed towards governments, not people (as legislation templates customizable by local governments). Therefore, these resolutions need to take special care to eliminate any loopholes that the (more oppressive) governments could use to circumvent them.
For example: Your wording could be misused by a racist government to deem all people of a specific race unable to give consent ("They cannot be considered to give consent" and "Everybody can reasonably be expected to know that no consent was possible").[/QUOT

the government of the emperor bows to your wisdom in this since you are most engaged in this subject, we are sure you have considered this very carefully. we do sugest that the oportunities for abuse you speak of could well be covered by other resolutions though, ones which deal with other forms of discrimination perhaps? sometimes it is tempting to write the most comprehensive piece of legislation possible, but in doing so loose sight of the heart of what you are legislating for.
perhaps though the wording could be;
"this resolution does not afford any protection to acts committed without the consent of it's participents, and were one or more of it's participents cannot actually have given consent, or were it's participents cannot have in good concience and without unfair bias have expected consent to have been given by the other participent/s" is that still too loose for what you are trying to acheive?

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

I would also like to ask those that oppose this proposal on religious grounds to not post in this thread as it is intended for constructive criticism. Thank you

We are dismayed by the close-minded attitude displayed by the esteemed representative from Kattia. Why should objections based on religious/moral principles be dismissed out of hand as "non-constructive"?

We are dismayed by the close-minded attitude displayed by the esteemed representative from Kattia. Why should objections based on religious/moral principles be dismissed out of hand as "non-constructive"?


the government of the emperor of urgench understands the objection of the respected ambassador for Eternal Kawaii, but we presume what the honoured ambassador for Kattia does not wish to deal with religious objections because they are essentially un-answerable. "god doesn't like gays" is, as you can imagine, hardly a constructive starting point from which to build good legislation. those who deal with divine absolutes, are rarely interested in rational discussion of the finer points of legislation in the field of "sexual freedom" after all. religion discriminates against sexuality, so it hardly seems un-fair that a legislator trying to un do that discrimination does not want to be needleesly burdened with the weight of dealing with religious objections to sexual emancipation.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench.

*snip*Because "objection by definition is an unconstructive form of criticism? Pointing out flaws is constructive. Saying "I disagree with you because my religion says I have to" doesn't add anything useful to a conversation at all, and doesn't help anyone improve anything.

I looked back over RyanBum's comments on the last page that stated his position in opposition to this concept because of his religion. That's unconstructive, and does nothing to further the discussion on improving this proposal.

This needs alot of work, but it's on it's way to being a smart resolution. I'd suggest off the top of my head you work seriously on making the first clause less clumsy. It's pretty hard to get your head around. Also, don't capitalize every letter of the first word in each clause either(I know other resolutions have, but we shouldn't).


Just use the age of consent as your guideline. "individuals above the age of consent" instead of "consenting individuals". Leave it to each nation to make a decision on that.

Just use the age of consent as your guideline. "individuals above the age of consent" instead of "consenting individuals". Leave it to each nation to make a decision on that.

We really cannot overstress just how much of a loophole "leaving it to each nation" creates.

We really cannot overstress just how much of a loophole "leaving it to each nation" creates.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to associate itself with the comments of the respected ambassador for Gobbannium, and we are entirely comforted by the very great diligence of the esteemed ambassador for Kattia on this very subject that no such loophole will exist in the final draft of this resolution.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

the government of the emperor bows to your wisdom in this since you are most engaged in this subject, we are sure you have considered this very carefully. we do sugest that the oportunities for abuse you speak of could well be covered by other resolutions though, ones which deal with other forms of discrimination perhaps? sometimes it is tempting to write the most comprehensive piece of legislation possible, but in doing so loose sight of the heart of what you are legislating for.

The racial discrimination in my example is just one of the many problems that wording would create. I would gladly delegate the problem to another resolution, however:
1) No such resolution exists yet - Without it this proposal would be incomplete
2) I am more concerned with the question of how should the other party be aware that their selected mate is not able to consent

"this resolution does not afford any protection to acts committed without the consent of it's participents, and were one or more of it's participents cannot actually have given consent, or were it's participents cannot have in good concience and without unfair bias have expected consent to have been given by the other participent/s" is that still too loose for what you are trying to acheive?

It is nearly impossible to determine what a person was thinking at the time.
Imagine someone having sex and then being accused of rape (because the other person was not able to consent). The prosecutor would, naturally, come up with a list of behavioral disorders that would prove the inability of the other person to consent (in case of mental illness). Even though that would make perfect sense for the accused at the time of the trail, he might have not noticed the disorders sooner.
In the case of being influenced by drugs, it is even more difficult. Some people might be shy while not influenced by alcohol and lose all their shyness when moderately drunk, while still retaining the ability to speak properly, walk normally, etc. Although the change of behavior may be otherwise apparent, the accused may have met the victim while she was drunk, not knowing how she behaves normally.

And once again, I do not want to prevent anyone from having sex if there is no good reason. The mentally ill might want to engage in sexual activities as well as normal people. The same goes for enhancing (or enabling) sexual activities through the use of medicaments or drugs (like alcohol).

There may be some solutions to these problems, such as enabling the appointed guardian to give consent instead of the mentally ill and invalidating consent if a person is under the influence of a drug of which presence he/she is not aware (though that could be difficult to advocate in court). However, both may be misused (the guardian may not be acting in the person's best interests; chocolate or pheronomes are libido-inducing drugs)

The racial discrimination in my example is just one of the many problems that wording would create. I would gladly delegate the problem to another resolution, however:
1) No such resolution exists yet - Without it this proposal would be incomplete
2) I am more concerned with the question of how should the other party be aware that their selected mate is not able to consent



It is nearly impossible to determine what a person was thinking at the time.
Imagine someone having sex and then being accused of rape (because the other person was not able to consent). The prosecutor would, naturally, come up with a list of behavioral disorders that would prove the inability of the other person to consent (in case of mental illness). Even though that would make perfect sense for the accused at the time of the trail, he might have not noticed the disorders sooner. URGENCHtherefore this individual cannot be guilty of rape, since they were not aware at the time the sex act was commited
In the case of being influenced by drugs, it is even more difficult. Some people might be shy while not influenced by alcohol and lose all their shyness when moderately drunk, while still retaining the ability to speak properly, walk normally, etc. Although the change of behavior may be otherwise apparent, the accused may have met the victim while she was drunk, not knowing how she behaves normally.URGENCHthe part about not knowing is crucial as this means that the accused is not guilty of rape, unless the other partner actually said no at any point during the process

And once again, I do not want to prevent anyone from having sex if there is no good reason. The mentally ill might want to engage in sexual activities as well as normal people. The same goes for enhancing (or enabling) sexual activities through the use of medicaments or drugs (like alcohol).

There may be some solutions to these problems, such as enabling the appointed guardian to give consent instead of the mentally ill and invalidating consent if a person is under the influence of a drug of which presence he/she is not aware (though that could be difficult to advocate in court). However, both may be misused (the guardian may not be acting in the person's best interests; chocolate or pheronomes are libido-inducing drugs)


the government of the emperor of urgench, thinks that the wise ambassador for Kattia misunderstands the wording we have proposed, it does not prevent anyone from consenting to sex no matter what their condition, it only specifies that consent must be given or be understood to have been given.
in the case you sight where a person was under the impression that consent was given and they had no reason to think it had not been,then they are NOT guilty of rape regardless of the actual ability to give consent.

rape cannot be commited accidently so there is no need to provide for "accidental rape" in the resolution,
however if an acused person knew that the victim could not consent ,whether they said yes or not is immaterial, then they are guilty of rape. rape is an act which is knowingly engaged in "with intent to rape" so a person who had sex with a person who was drunk at the time, but the person who is accused did not know that their partner might have said no if they were sober IS NOT GUILTY OF RAPE EITHER
it would seem to us to be very unwise indeed to allow any guardian no matter how well intentioned to give consent, to give consent by proxy, this would technicaly make them an accomplice to a rape.
the mentally ill in most cases would not need such strict control over their right to consent as most mentally ill people are more than able to give consent. it would only be persons with very severe physical or developemental handicaps who would need protection and deciding if they were ever able to consent would be impossible. the numbers of cases that would bring this into debate would be very small indeed at any rate and deciding on them really would be better left to national court systems, who would have the facts of the case before them. we feel that our wording (or words which might mean the same thing) affords the maximum number of persons the ability to consent to sex while protecting those who cannot consent.

the honoured ambassadors point about their resolution being left incomplete without provision for discrimination is incorrect though, in effect all laws are incomplete, since none can ever completely and for ever and in every case
deal with all eventualities, they must always be added to at latter points or be augmented by new statutes. the fear you have that you will create a new set of problems is also needless, since if your resolution is the first to even try to do what you are attempting then all these problems must already exist and this resolution will be dealing with them for the first time as comprehensively as possible.
we really do fear that you are burdening yourself with too great a task, the best laws are the simplest and least misunderstood ones.

once again we commend the honoured ambassador for their labours and can only hope we have been of ant help at all.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Current issues:

Human vs. sentient being - Resolved! WA is not expected to make such distinctions in every proposal. It is assumed sentient non-humans get the same rights as humans.

OOC: The WA operates under the same rules that the NSUN did, and under those rules it is a well-established principle that The law means what the law says". Therefore if a resolution refers specificallyto 'Humans' then any governments that don't want to extend its provisions to sapient non-humans as well would be perfectly within their rights to refrain from doing so.

Age of consent - Currently discussed! Poll added (7 days)
Possibilities:
1) Not include - protection would only be governed by "willingness"
2) Locally defined upper-bounded age of consent - those below it would not be protected (not explicitly banned - that would be up to the local government to decide), upper bound to be specified (needed to prevent abuse, see posts)
3) Capability of engaging - more medical, can be different for each individual (depends on medical status)

Current rules within St Edmund: the basic AoC for Humans is 16 years; the basic AoC for Ouphes -- who live a lot longer than humans and mature more slowly -- is 30 years; the basic AoC for Talking Cats -- who live for shorter spans than humans, but mature more rapidly -- is 6 years... in each case with some (reasonable) variation allowed for individual circumstances. There is no way in which setting a single AoC for the members of all three species would be reasonable.

OOC: The WA operates under the same rules that the NSUN did, and under those rules it is a well-established principle that The law means what the law says". Therefore if a resolution refers specificallyto 'Humans' then any governments that don't want to extend its provisions to sapient non-humans as well would be perfectly within their rights to refrain from doing so.



Current rules within St Edmund: the basic AoC for Humans is 16 years; the basic AoC for Ouphes -- who live a lot longer than humans and mature more slowly -- is 30 years; the basic AoC for Talking Cats -- who live for shorter spans than humans, but mature more rapidly -- is 6 years... in each case with some (reasonable) variation allowed for individual circumstances. There is no way in which setting a single AoC for the members of all three species would be reasonable.



the government of the emperor of urgench must absolutely agree with the honoured ambassador for St Edmund. it would be foolish to set a universal age of consent in this resolution. our people live to be two sometimes three hundred years our children do not reach pubescents till well into their late twenties sometimes their thirties. this aspect of the resolution must be responsive to this kind of disparity between nations.

yours e.t.c.

We really cannot overstress just how much of a loophole "leaving it to each nation" creates.

But you can explain to me a method to fix that loophole and not restrict consent to humans or others with similar lifespans. If you can't give me a way to fix it, I'd suggest that the loophole is a necessity, even if unwanted.

But you can explain to me a method to fix that loophole and not restrict consent to humans or others with similar lifespans. If you can't give me a way to fix it, I'd suggest that the loophole is a necessity, even if unwanted.

We have several times now suggested that variations between ages of consent much be justified on biological or physiological grounds. Thus differences in age between species is easily justifiable, while differences for sex acts would be very hard to justify.

We have several times now suggested that variations between ages of consent much be justified on biological or physiological grounds. Thus differences in age between species is easily justifiable, while differences for sex acts would be very hard to justify.

The failure here is mine, because I'm not understanding your point.

Is there a specific clause, say, added to this resolution that you imagine could address your concerns?

The failure here is mine, because I'm not understanding your point.

Is there a specific clause, say, added to this resolution that you imagine could address your concerns?

Try this. The first clause is the definition from the current draft with our emendations underlined.

DEFINES a consenting individual as one that is over the relevant age of consent, didn't object to the given form of sexual behavior, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of race, sexual orientation, social status, age or any other trait, chosen or not.

REQUIRES that national ages of consent may only vary from one another for reasons of the physiological or biological maturity required of a species or for an action differing; in particular, moral discriminants are forbidden.
This isn't quite right, but we have not yet received back-up copies of our notes from when we were considering this subject for a resolution in its own right some considerable time ago. [OOC: In other words I'm at work and my files are at home.] It might well also be wise to establish a committee to adjudicate the validity of variations in Age of Consent.

Later: Ah, we have found those notes. It seems that our proffered phrase was more along the lines of:

REQUIRES that national ages of consent shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to apologise to the highly respected ambassador for kattia since it has been pointed out to us that we have used capitalisation in some of our submissions in this debate and that most people read this as shouting, the only reason we used this form was to place emphasis on the most salient points of what we were saying, it was and never would be our intention to shout at anyone under any circumstances, again we apologise as profusely as we can.

yours in embarrassment:(

The forum crashed just when I was posting this (a few days ago), so I will repost now:

snip

My apologies. I misunderstood your suggestion. Particularly the word "cannot". I now see, if I am not mistaken, that you did actually mean the inability to decline, not the inability to consent (for whatever reason).

If that is the case then I think it is reasonable enough to be included.

What do you think about the following wording?

DEFINES a consenting individual as any human being physically and mentally able to object to the given form of sexual behavior that did not object to the given form of sexual behavior.

Try this. The first clause is the definition from the current draft with our emendations underlined.


This isn't quite right, but we have not yet received back-up copies of our notes from when we were considering this subject for a resolution in its own right some considerable time ago. [OOC: In other words I'm at work and my files are at home.] It might well also be wise to establish a committee to adjudicate the validity of variations in Age of Consent.

Later: Ah, we have found those notes. It seems that our proffered phrase was more along the lines of:

Those are some excellent suggestions! I must say I like them very much. However, I would rather also have the upper boundary in there. It's much easier than estabilishing a committee. Also I think there isn't any general consensus on biological maturity.

So I would use the first part (with the most recent alterations) and change the second part. Like so:

DEFINES a consenting individual as anyone above the relevant age of consent who is physically and mentally able to object to the given form of sexual behavior and who did not object to the given form of sexual behavior.

REQUIRES that national ages of consent shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity and to no more than 2/11 of the average lifespan.

That strange number (2/11) should be reasonable for the most common ages:
80 -> 14.5
100 -> 18.1
120 -> 21.8
200 -> 36.3
300 -> 54.5 (quite high for Urgench standards but it can be lowered by the government)

We can make a more complex (non-linear) formula later, if you find the wording reasonable though.

The forum crashed just when I was posting this (a few days ago), so I will repost now:



My apologies. I misunderstood your suggestion. Particularly the word "cannot". I now see, if I am not mistaken, that you did actually mean the inability to decline, not the inability to consent (for whatever reason).

If that is the case then I think it is reasonable enough to be included.

What do you think about the following wording?

DEFINES a consenting individual as any human being physically and mentally able to object to the given form of sexual behavior that did not object to the given form of sexual behavior.


the government of the emperor of urgench believes that this is as close to perfect as this kind of definition could be, we cannot express enough how impressed we are with the most highly esteemed ambassador for Kattia's skill and perceptiveness in the drafting of what is a vital but extremely complex resolution, please be rest assured that we will bend our every sinew in the effort to assist the passing of it.

yours sincerely,

Hell fucking no! Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion fully, but the way I read your definition of consent it requires explicit denial of consent. Someone shouldn't have to scream "NO", much less be required to do so by mandate of international law.

It shouldn't be 'did not object', but 'did consent'.

Incidentally, my most profound compliments to the representative of Kattia for sticking with this proposal for so long. It is a great testament to your willingness to get a workable draft, and it's incredibly rare to see such determination. I really hope a good proposal is the end result.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Hell fucking no! Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion fully, but the way I read your definition of consent it requires explicit denial of consent. Someone shouldn't have to scream "NO", much less be required to do so by mandate of international law.

It shouldn't be 'did not object', but 'did consent'.

I don't think that the requirement of explicit agreement with the act is reasonable. I wouldn't like to keep in mind that every time I want to have sex with somebody I need to explicitly ask them, otherwise it would be illegal (or at least could later be used against me). Frankly, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't be 'did not object'. Almost everybody can object in one way or another and even those that, for any reason, cannot are mentioned. Why do you think it is not enough?

Incidentally, my most profound compliments to the representative of Kattia for sticking with this proposal for so long. It is a great testament to your willingness to get a workable draft, and it's incredibly rare to see such determination. I really hope a good proposal is the end result.

Thank you very much. I intend to continue to discuss and revise this draft until it is as ready as possible for the critical eye of the WA.

The only reason I'm giving this small part of a broader issue alot of attention is because by defining the age of consent, you'll be making a nation define a term used in Restriction on Child Labor that I left undefined for a reason(rightfully or not).

REQUIRES that national ages of consent shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity.

So you're disregarding nations with different moral standards(and perhaps because of those standards different parenting traditions with regards to sexual maturity) to account for nations with different biological maturity? Is there a difference? You're still not covering everyone properly as far as I see it.

Perhaps:
REQUIRES that a nations age of consent be set with regards to biological maturity or moral standards, whichever age is higher.

Since we're only trying to affect the sexual freedom of adults, the worst that can happen is a nation defining the age of consent at a prohibitively high age, in which case I'd advice residents to, uh, leave.

OOC: I'm pretty tired right now, but I think you see what I'm getting at?

The only reason I'm giving this small part of a broader issue alot of attention is because by defining the age of consent, you'll be making a nation define a term used in Restriction on Child Labor that I left undefined for a reason(rightfully or not).

Your resolution uses the term "age of consent" only in part D, that says:
Bans anyone under the age of consent from engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment.
In this proposal the term is a vital part. We discussed reasons why it should be restricted and I cannot imagine a legislation that would be better suited for the inclusion of those restrictions.
I don't see why this should conflict with your resolution. The terms are used in essentially the same way.

So you're disregarding nations with different moral standards(and perhaps because of those standards different parenting traditions with regards to sexual maturity) to account for nations with different biological maturity? Is there a difference? You're still not covering everyone properly as far as I see it.

I think you might be misunderstanding the wording. The requirement suggested by Gobbanium merely prevents discrimination. It says that the ages of consent can be set by the nation in such a way that the difference between them must be explainable by biological maturity.
So if your nation has only one age of consent it can be set to whatever age you want.

Since we're only trying to affect the sexual freedom of adults, the worst that can happen is a nation defining the age of consent at a prohibitively high age, in which case I'd advice residents to, uh, leave.

I don't think that suggesting residents to leave if the laws of their nation are inappropriate is the right solution. The purpose of the Human Rights resolutions is to protect the rights of the residents of member nations (even if their government might think otherwise).
If we would use your solution on every problem we wouldn't need the WA as everyone could just leave if their nation's regime was unreasonable.

No I think you miss the point, it's going to say that Biological Maturity is the ONLY definition of "Age of Consent". That means that a society cannot use it's own moral standards to define the age of consent.

After some thought though, "Biological Maturity" is almost as bad as undefined. It can be monkeyed around with just as easily as leaving it undefined. An 8 year old, after all, is more biologically mature than a 7 year old. That's the only leap of logic required to define it at 6, or 7 or 8. Or however low you want. Or however high you want.

And Kattia I wasn't saying you shouldn't use the term just because it's in my own resolution, just that I take a special interest in the definition because it will affect how nations enforce mine.

No I think you miss the point, it's going to say that Biological Maturity is the ONLY definition of "Age of Consent". That means that a society cannot use it's own moral standards to define the age of consent.

There is a difference between
REQUIRES that national ages of consent shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity.
and
REQUIRES that national ages of consent shall be set according to the biological maturity.

Note that the first only says that the ages have to be the same for all people of equal biological maturity within a single nation.
In other words that national ages of consent can be correlated only with biological maturity.
Moral standards can influence the ages of consent but only if there is no discrimination (within the nation). In other words, there may not exist a correlation between ages of consent and moral standards applying to different groups of people within a single nation.

No I think you miss the point, it's going to say that Biological Maturity is the ONLY definition of "Age of Consent". That means that a society cannot use it's own moral standards to define the age of consent.

After some thought though, "Biological Maturity" is almost as bad as undefined. It can be monkeyed around with just as easily as leaving it undefined. An 8 year old, after all, is more biologically mature than a 7 year old. That's the only leap of logic required to define it at 6, or 7 or 8. Or however low you want. Or however high you want.

And Kattia I wasn't saying you shouldn't use the term just because it's in my own resolution, just that I take a special interest in the definition because it will affect how nations enforce mine.


the government of the emperor of urgench thinks that the highly respected ambassador for Douria really does seem to be counting how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, so to speak.

biological maturity is after all only one of the reasons by which any nation may define a consenting adult, and this resolution accepts that .

besides the institution of any age of consent will always purport to be an objective standard which is nearly always set for subjective reasons, it's protection will always be of a blanket nature since it amounts to the state deciding that certain persons, regardless of their actual state of physical developement or psychological maturity, are incapable of consenting. the reverse of your example is also true i.e that a person twenty minutes before their age of consent is not likely to be physicaly very different to twenty minutes after, and they may or may not be more psychologicaly fit to cope with sex than their friend who is ten years above the age of consent.

physical maturity is only one criteria which may be used to decide the age of consent and it will allways be up to individual member nations to decide their own legal framework to judge whether consent has been given to some extent or other. regardless of how dilligent the esteemed ambassador for Kattia is in trying to pin down what constitutes consent and how it may be given (or not) the honoured ambassador for Douria may have to rely if only very slightly on the good sense of the vast and overwhelming majority of the nations of this organisation in deciding for themselves how and why such criteria are set.


yours sincerely,

I don't think that the requirement of explicit agreement with the act is reasonable. I wouldn't like to keep in mind that every time I want to have sex with somebody I need to explicitly ask them, otherwise it would be illegal (or at least could later be used against me). Frankly, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't be 'did not object'. Almost everybody can object in one way or another and even those that, for any reason, cannot are mentioned. Why do you think it is not enough.
My main issue is spousal abuse. Without requiring explicit consent, you open the door to laws that allow husbands to rape their wives and then claim it's not illegal, because their wives gave wedding vows eight years prior.

It has to be 'did consent' or else such laws (that doubtless exist in many nations already) will be given legitimacy.

*snip*

Even with all the attempts to pin down a definition though, the age can still be set as low as one wants. Are you attempting to ensure it isn't set arbitrarily high then, rather than low?

The only reason I'm giving this small part of a broader issue alot of attention is because by defining the age of consent, you'll be making a nation define a term used in Restriction on Child Labor that I left undefined for a reason(rightfully or not).
Oh yes, that reminds me, I ought to look at turning His Nibs' original fix-it resolution into something that fixes yours. Preferably something that can be understood by normal people too, unlike most of what he came up with.

So you're disregarding nations with different moral standards
Absolutely and with malice aforethought. The particular different moral standard you're trying to protect is called "discrimination", or "unfair discrimination" if you're going to be picky. The Kattian ambassador's got the right of it; the wording is supposed to stop nations having different ages of consent just because it makes them feel all warm and cozy to be free to ban half the Cama Swtra. Since the wording is Prince Rhodri's, it could probably be more obvious what the hell it was talking about, but there you go.

Since we're only trying to affect the sexual freedom of adults, the worst that can happen is a nation defining the age of consent at a prohibitively high age, in which case I'd advice residents to, uh, leave.
You're still falling for the old fallacy. Except in a very few unusual nations there isn't one age of consent, there's a whole bunch of them. If your advice to people facing a discriminatory regime is really "leave" rather than, say, "beat people about the head with a blunt instrument until they stop discriminatory practices", that says a lot about how seriously your nation takes the subject.

Even with all the attempts to pin down a definition though, the age can still be set as low as one wants. Are you attempting to ensure it isn't set arbitrarily high then, rather than low?
I thought the whole idea you were trying for was to ensure that AoC could be set arbitrarily to anything a nation feels like. As long as it's set to the same arbitrary level for everyone (modulo species or particular biological weirdnesses), I don't see why a nation shouldn't be able to use its own moral standards here. The important thing is that it should be fair.

My main issue is spousal abuse. Without requiring explicit consent, you open the door to laws that allow husbands to rape their wives and then claim it's not illegal, because their wives gave wedding vows eight years prior.

It has to be 'did consent' or else such laws (that doubtless exist in many nations already) will be given legitimacy.

The mere fact that the wife was fighting or saying 'no' during or prior to the actual rape is enough evidence that she did not want that act to happen (objected).
Personally, I see more sense in claiming that with the wedding vow she 'gave consent' rather than the idea that by giving a wedding vow her future objections should be invalidated.
I think my version is actually safer in this regard.

Even with all the attempts to pin down a definition though, the age can still be set as low as one wants. Are you attempting to ensure it isn't set arbitrarily high then, rather than low?

By the upper bound to the age of consent, yes. It is much more difficult to set a lower bound than the upper bound. We all know above which age it should be completely safe to have sex (of any kind). However, it is difficult to say below which age sexual behavior is harmful. And I am not talking purely about penetrative sexual acts. There would have to be distinctions such as fondling, masturbation, all kinds of non-penetrative sex play, etc. Each of which would have to have a different age limit. Even with a biologically perfect scheme lots of people would certainly not like it. Therefore, I delegate these problems upon the nations' governments and only set the upper bound (which we will have to agree on later, to make it universally safe).

Oh yes, that reminds me, I ought to look at turning His Nibs' original fix-it resolution into something that fixes yours. Preferably something that can be understood by normal people too, unlike most of what he came up with.

Mine isn't broken, the intent is to leave it undefined.


Absolutely and with malice aforethought. The particular different moral standard you're trying to protect is called "discrimination", or "unfair discrimination" if you're going to be picky. The Kattian ambassador's got the right of it; the wording is supposed to stop nations having different ages of consent just because it makes them feel all warm and cozy to be free to ban half the Cama Swtra. Since the wording is Prince Rhodri's, it could probably be more obvious what the hell it was talking about, but there you go.

I think I understand your meaning here, but forgive me if I do not. You're saying that it's possible for a regime to actually set an age of consent of 120 years old for a species with an average age of 75 and top age of 120, and still last? That's the kind of thing that could still be done of course, but the point I tried to make earlier is that it's unreasonable to expect that.


You're still falling for the old fallacy. Except in a very few unusual nations there isn't one age of consent, there's a whole bunch of them. If your advice to people facing a discriminatory regime is really "leave" rather than, say, "beat people about the head with a blunt instrument until they stop discriminatory practices", that says a lot about how seriously your nation takes the subject.

Yeah, you missed my point, I wasn't pointing at a discriminatory regime, I was pointing at a stupid one. One that sets it's age of consent so high that no one can consent. You can see the difference, I hope? I would advise people in the latter to uh... leave.


I thought the whole idea you were trying for was to ensure that AoC could be set arbitrarily to anything a nation feels like. As long as it's set to the same arbitrary level for everyone (modulo species or particular biological weirdnesses), I don't see why a nation shouldn't be able to use its own moral standards here. The important thing is that it should be fair.

I made an assumption of reasonable regimes in leaving it undefined, and assumed any unreasonable ones wouldn't last in that form. Then again, they can still set an age of consent for a minority species past the fertility period of that species to ensure it's destruction(which THIS resolution is supposed to stop). Even with your definition. One can argue reasonably, after all, that any higher age is more "mature" biologically than a younger age.

The point is I'm not attacking you, and the point isn't you answering my post tit for tat, or me the same.

The point is, lets tighten down the definition.

The mere fact that the wife was fighting or saying 'no' during or prior to the actual rape is enough evidence that she did not want that act to happen (objected).
Personally, I see more sense in claiming that with the wedding vow she 'gave consent' rather than the idea that by giving a wedding vow her future objections should be invalidated.
I think my version is actually safer in this regard.Again, to clarify: you really think it should be the law that, as it's a bit of an inconvenience to obtain consent, people should simply be allowed to assume it? It would even legalise rape in cases where someone is able to object, but doesn't out of fear.

Again, to clarify: you really think it should be the law that, as it's a bit of an inconvenience to obtain consent, people should simply be allowed to assume it? It would even legalise rape in cases where someone is able to object, but doesn't out of fear.

the government of the emperor of urgench thinks that fear of the kind the honoured ambassador for Quintessence of Dust is refering to would be the kind of state specified as a state in which the individual could not have been expected to consent.

yours e.t.c.

Again, to clarify: you really think it should be the law that, as it's a bit of an inconvenience to obtain consent, people should simply be allowed to assume it? It would even legalise rape in cases where someone is able to object, but doesn't out of fear.
I can hardly imagine a victim of a rape that submits without any hint of resistance. So yes.
Oh, and Urgench is right. If the victim cannot be expected to object, it is not a consenting individual.

I think I understand your meaning here, but forgive me if I do not. You're saying that it's possible for a regime to actually set an age of consent of 120 years old for a species with an average age of 75 and top age of 120, and still last? That's the kind of thing that could still be done of course, but the point I tried to make earlier is that it's unreasonable to expect that.
You don't understand my meaning, at least partly because you're still thinking in terms of a single age. What you describe is unreasonable. It's also not what I'm worried about.

There is nothing (currently) to stop a nation setting multiple ages of consent for any kind of subdivision they feel like. They can, for example, set an age of consent for male/female sex of 16, and at the same time have an age of consent for male/male sex of 120 and utterly fail to have an age of consent for female/female sex at all. That would be discrimination, and unless we allow for it they could invoke our WA resolution to enforce their prejudices.

You invoke reasonable nation theory to say that nations won't do this. That sounds reasonable, but it falls to pieces when you check what supposedly reasonable nations actually do. It turns out that most nations have multiple ages of consent, and a lot of them divide the world up on much stranger lines than sexuality. Even if you make allowances for multiple species, it turns out that nations with a single age of consent are few and far between.

(OOC: if you can invoke reasonable nation theory, I can invoke the real world to counter it. A quick visit to Google suggests that a hefty percentage of nations have consistent ages of consent these days, but ten years ago none of them did. I really mean "none" there. Much though it should be, I don't think that's a safe, "reasonable" assumption.)

So that's why I think the definition needs to be tighter than you were saying.

might the government of the emperor of urgench point out to the revered and respected ambassador for the Gobbannaen WA mission that this resolution does seek to circumvent such discrimination but stressing biological imperatives being the only test for the upper bounding of the age of consent.
what other protections might the esteemed ambassador suggest?

yours e.t.c.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We would like to thank the esteemed Gobbannaen representative for pointing out the most obvious defect in this proposal--its insistence on a "one size fits all" approach to the subject of Age of Consent:

You invoke reasonable nation theory to say that nations won't do this. That sounds reasonable, but it falls to pieces when you check what supposedly reasonable nations actually do. It turns out that most nations have multiple ages of consent, and a lot of them divide the world up on much stranger lines than sexuality. Even if you make allowances for multiple species, it turns out that nations with a single age of consent are few and far between.

In our nation, there is no such thing as a fixed "age of consent". Consent can only be given by those who have passed their age of majority, which is not fixed, but varies from individual to individual.

Our people do not believe that adulthood is a right somehow magically granted at some arbitrary age. Rather, it is a privilege to be earned by proof of one's responsibility. The right to consent to adult matters can only be exercised by those Kawaiians who have faced a panel of their elders and have demonstrated they are fit to assume the role of adults in Kawaiian society.

We therefore oppose this proposal, as it would run roughshod over our society's long-established laws and customs.

In our nation, there is no such thing as a fixed "age of consent". Consent can only be given by those who have passed their age of majority, which is not fixed, but varies from individual to individual.

Our people do not believe that adulthood is a right somehow magically granted at some arbitrary age. Rather, it is a privilege to be earned by proof of one's responsibility. The right to consent to adult matters can only be exercised by those Kawaiians who have faced a panel of their elders and have demonstrated they are fit to assume the role of adults in Kawaiian society.

We therefore oppose this proposal, as it would run roughshod over our society's long-established laws and customs.

I would like to point out that preserving your customs may not be entirely impossible under the proposal's legislation.
The only difference would be that those that do not prove themselves would have to be allowed to have sex after they reach the upper bound of the AoC (which is still to be discussed).
In other words, it's "prove yourself or wait until the upper bound of the AoC".

I can hardly imagine a victim of a rape that submits without any hint of resistance. So yes.

Have you never heard of a "Date Rape Drug?"

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Have you never heard of a "Date Rape Drug?"

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to direct the honoured ambassador for the Flibbleites to earlier sections of this debate in which "date rape" drugs were in fact covered in some detail.
a person induced by these drugs in to having sex would be provided with redress for rape, by not having been able to dissent or consent to that sex in such a state, by this resolution.

yours e.t.c.

You don't understand my meaning, at least partly because you're still thinking in terms of a single age. What you describe is unreasonable. It's also not what I'm worried about.

*snip*

So that's why I think the definition needs to be tighter than you were saying.

No, I'm saying yours isn't tight enough. Remember that earlier I asked you for something that would accomplish what needs done, and you offered your version.

I'm trying to communicate that it's not restrictive enough to be a real definition, it does not take a huge leap of logic nor unreasonable standards to circumvent your intention with that wording.

I do understand we're talking about multiple ages of consent here, I understood it when I wrote "age of consent" instead of "age of 18" in my resolution. If you're including a definition of that here, I'd like to see it be a good one that does what's needed, yours doesn't.

No, I'm saying yours isn't tight enough. Remember that earlier I asked you for something that would accomplish what needs done, and you offered your version.

Actually it was Prince Rhodri, and I'd never claim any he ever says is clear :-) Sorry, I didn't get where you were coming from. I think the problem is that what His Nibs didn't say clearly enough is that it's the variation in ages of consent that need to be justified. If that's not where we're disagreeing, then I'm sorry but I've completely failed to understand your argument.

I would like to point out that preserving your customs may not be entirely impossible under the proposal's legislation.
The only difference would be that those that do not prove themselves would have to be allowed to have sex after they reach the upper bound of the AoC (which is still to be discussed).
In other words, it's "prove yourself or wait until the upper bound of the AoC".

Is the esteemed representative from Kattia seriously suggesting that Kawaiians who have not been judged to be adults by permitted to have sexual relations? Just because they've passed some arbitrary age limit does not mean they are physically, mentally, or spiritually mature enough to take on such a responsibility!

As I see it, the only practical way not to have this legislation conflict with our nation's longstanding customs is to raise its so-called "AoC" to such a point that it defeats the purpose of the legislation for nations that do set an arbitrary age of majority. As I doubt this will happen, we will simply have to oppose this legislation.

Is the esteemed representative from Kattia seriously suggesting that Kawaiians who have not been judged to be adults by permitted to have sexual relations? Just because they've passed some arbitrary age limit does not mean they are physically, mentally, or spiritually mature enough to take on such a responsibility!

As I see it, the only practical way not to have this legislation conflict with our nation's longstanding customs is to raise its so-called "AoC" to such a point that it defeats the purpose of the legislation for nations that do set an arbitrary age of majority. As I doubt this will happen, we will simply have to oppose this legislation.


the government of the emperor respectfully suggests that the highly esteemed ambassador for The Eternal Kawaii read more carefully the debate on the matter of the upper bounded age of consent. we only say this because the honoured ambassador might see that subject to certain conditions, included to prevent specious forms of discrimination, the membership will probably still get to set the actual ages they wish, for the protection of those of their citizenry who they deem unable to give informed consent to sex.
in short the very time consuming labour of the most highly esteemed ambassador for Kattia has been to prevent governments from using the age of consent to unfairly deny it's citizens the right to consent, whilst allowing those governments to protect their citizens from exploitation or rape.

we are sure that if the respected ambassador for The Eternal Kawaii took the time to closely read the debate they would see that many if not all of their concerns have been addressed, and if not maybe they could offer their assistance to what is in fact a vital endeavour.

yours in ernest,

Ernest;

pLeaSe LEarn to USe the ShIFT KeY.

N.T.

I was thinking a little about the upper bounds to the age of consent and I came up with these ideas:

1. I observed that the dependence of the age of consent on the average lifespan tends to be logarithmic.
2. I wanted to get the age of consent for humans to around 18 years as that seems to be perceived as the universal age of maturity in most countries.
3. I wanted to fit in the various ages of consent that I heard around here.
4. I tried to make it customizable in such a way that if we wanted to set it higher, we could do so while retaining the properties above.

I came up with this function: coefficient * log(lifespan/10 + constant)
Where lifespan is the average lifespan for the given being and coefficient and constant are positive numbers.
Coefficient controls the age of consent without regard to the logarithmic nature of the dependance. I recommend this to be 8.
Constant controls the age of consent with regard to the logarithmic nature of the dependance. I recommend this to be 1.

Example (Coefficient=8):
Age - Constant=1, Constant=2, Constant=5, Constant=10
20 - 8.79, 11.09, 15.57, 19.88 (seems a bit off for the latter two)
80 - 17.58, 18.42, 20.52, 23.12
100 - 19.18, 19.88, 21.66, 23.97
120 - 20.52, 21.11, 22.67, 24.73
200 - 24.36, 24.73, 25.75, 27.21
300 - 27.47, 27.73, 28.44, 29.51

A graph for the recommended values:
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3272/nseq3.th.png (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nseq3.png)

Ernest;

pLeaSe LEarn to USe the ShIFT KeY.

N.T.


the government of the emperor of Urgench would like to ask the respected ambassador for Snefaldia who Ernest is exactly? and why is their nation so keen on caroligian majiscule?

I was thinking a little about the upper bounds to the age of consent and I came up with these ideas:

1. I observed that the dependence of the age of consent on the average lifespan tends to be logarithmic.
2. I wanted to get the age of consent for humans to around 18 years as that seems to be perceived as the universal age of maturity in most countries.
3. I wanted to fit in the various ages of consent that I heard around here.
4. I tried to make it customizable in such a way that if we wanted to set it higher, we could do so while retaining the properties above.

I came up with this function: coefficient * log(lifespan/10 + constant)
Where lifespan is the average lifespan for the given being and coefficient and constant are positive numbers.
Coefficient controls the age of consent without regard to the logarithmic nature of the dependance. I recommend this to be 8.
Constant controls the age of consent with regard to the logarithmic nature of the dependance. I recommend this to be 1.

Example (Coefficient=8):
Age - Constant=1, Constant=2, Constant=5, Constant=10
20 - 8.79, 11.09, 15.57, 19.88 (seems a bit off for the latter two)
80 - 17.58, 18.42, 20.52, 23.12
100 - 19.18, 19.88, 21.66, 23.97
120 - 20.52, 21.11, 22.67, 24.73
200 - 24.36, 24.73, 25.75, 27.21
300 - 27.47, 27.73, 28.44, 29.51

A graph for the recommended values:
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3272/nseq3.th.png (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nseq3.png)


the government of the emperor of Urgench congratulates the honoured ambassador for Kattia for finding so neat a use of logorythmics, but we confess to finding such things very difficult to comprehend, we are sure that the solution come by through this method is excellent and fair, but wonder if for nations like ours who do not completely understand the language of logorythmics it will be difficult to clearly explain?
of course nations like the Eternal Kawaii which use a more subjective approach will find this most unsatisfactory and will also find it difficult to have explained to them.

having said that we have no objection to the use of this method of calculation of the upper bounded age of consent, and we confess it partakes of the nature of absolute fairness.

yours e.t.c.,

having said that we have no objection to the use of this method of calculation of the upper bounded age of consent, and we confess it partakes of the nature of absolute fairness.

I do like mathematics but I doubt that this calculation method will be fair.
I think that it is possible to have a short period to come around the age of consent, and live compared to humans, very long after that. Or the other way round. I think the FT races can be mix of life and robot. So they can enhance their body so they will all live much longer. But still can have the age of consent earlier than races that live relatively short.

After coming to this belief, I think it is best to leave the age of consent to the nation itself.

But that is just my idea.

I hope I can give my support for this proposal. A better society can be in our hands.

Cocoamok,
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

the government of the emperor of Urgench congratulates the honoured ambassador for Kattia for finding so neat a use of logorythmics, but we confess to finding such things very difficult to comprehend, we are sure that the solution come by through this method is excellent and fair, but wonder if for nations like ours who do not completely understand the language of logorythmics it will be difficult to clearly explain?
of course nations like the Eternal Kawaii which use a more subjective approach will find this most unsatisfactory and will also find it difficult to have explained to them.

To compute the value in the Windows Calculator (scientific mode):
[average lifespan], /, 10, +, [constant], =, ln, *, [coefficient], =

I think that it is possible to have a short period to come around the age of consent, and live compared to humans, very long after that. Or the other way round. I think the FT races can be mix of life and robot. So they can enhance their body so they will all live much longer. But still can have the age of consent earlier than races that live relatively short.

After coming to this belief, I think it is best to leave the age of consent to the nation itself.

Your example with cybernetic lifeforms is, in fact, no problem at all. The calculation is only for the upper bound for the age of consent that is actually set by the local government. The actual age of consent must only be less or equal.

Maybe there's another way to limit the age of consent. How about making it dependant on fertility? Something like:
REQUIRES that national ages of consent shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity and in such a way that it doesn't reduce the average fertile period of the individual's relevant physical trait combination by no more than 20%.
According to Wikipedia the average age of menarche is 12.5 years for women in the USA. We'll take this as the beginning age of fertility in women. According to the same source the chance of miscarriage in the age of 42 is more than 50%. We'll take this as the ending age of fertility in women. To reduce their time of fertility by 20%, we'll need to set the age of consent to 18.4 years. I think this should be high enough for anyone.
Just for reference, if the reduction had been only 15%, the age of consent would have been 16.925 years.

Maybe there's another way to limit the age of consent. How about making it dependant on fertility? Something like:

According to Wikipedia the average age of menarche is 12.5 years for women in the USA. We'll take this as the beginning age of fertility in women. According to the same source the chance of miscarriage in the age of 42 is more than 50%. We'll take this as the ending age of fertility in women. To reduce their time of fertility by 20%, we'll need to set the age of consent to 18.4 years. I think this should be high enough for anyone.
Just for reference, if the reduction had been only 15%, the age of consent would have been 16.925 years.

the government of the emperor of urgench wonders if this might mean setting different ages for different sexes within the same species? we don't think this will necessarily be a bad thing but were just wondering.

yours e.t.c.

I do not belive that sexual expression is limited to or by the age of fertility. The limit should be based more on the degree of vulnerability and the ability to give informed consent.

The government of Jujuburghia has reservations about an age of consent based on assumed age of fertility rather than on recognising when a person can be assumed to be mature. An age of consent must be generalised and will not take into account particular vulnerabilities, so each nation would need to create further legislation to protect individuals who are vulnerable, but the generalistion should be based, we believe, on psychological rather than physical maturity.

Secondly, the government of Jujuburghia would like to seek clarification on what constitutes a public or non-public space. For example, would the back seat of a car constitute public or non-public? Would an empty field constitute public or non-public?

To compute the value in the Windows Calculator (scientific mode):
[average lifespan], /, 10, +, [constant], =, ln, *, [coefficient], =





the government of the emperor of urgench has checked the calculations as specified by the honoured ambassador for Kattia and achieved the same figures as they did. we are satisfied that the logorythm does indeed seem to work quite well.

we still wonder if such an empirical approach will satisfy those nations who's criteria are less concrete, criteria such as psychological maturity for instance?

but we are satisfied with the fairness of a mathematical approach at least as far as our own nation is concerned. naturally we cannot make such an assertion for any other nation.

yours e.t.c.

Hmm, this is interesting. Is there a specific age where a certain citizen may conduct sex? Specific places where they are allowed to do it? I wouldn't want to promote two 10 year olds having sex on a mall bench. I think people having sex should be above age 18, and in the privates of their own home.

the government of the emperor of urgench wonders if this might mean setting different ages for different sexes within the same species? we don't think this will necessarily be a bad thing but were just wondering.

Well, the upper bound would be dependent on gender, but that was also true before (as biological maturity is dependent on gender). Nations will, however, be able to set a gender-independent age of consent that is lower or equal to the minimum of the two (or potentially more) upper bounds.

The government of Jujuburghia has reservations about an age of consent based on assumed age of fertility rather than on recognising when a person can be assumed to be mature. An age of consent must be generalised and will not take into account particular vulnerabilities, so each nation would need to create further legislation to protect individuals who are vulnerable, but the generalistion should be based, we believe, on psychological rather than physical maturity.

The actual ages of consent are to be set by the nations' governments. What we're talking about is the upper bounds for those ages of consent. These should ensure that the governments don't "take away" (by the means of the age of consent) more than 20% of the time it's citizens are fertile.

Secondly, the government of Jujuburghia would like to seek clarification on what constitutes a public or non-public space. For example, would the back seat of a car constitute public or non-public? Would an empty field constitute public or non-public?

As an encyclopedia entry says:
A public space or a public place is a place where anyone has a right to be without being excluded because of economic or social conditions, although this may not always be the case in practice.

I think that it's reasonable to assume that public places are all places where access is not restricted.
Having sex in a private place (where access is restricted) without being allowed access by the owner would then be trespassing.
So the back seat of a car would be allowed if you're the owner, as would an empty field.
That got me thinking, however. What about places that are private but visible from a public place? I should probably put that in. Thanks

Ages of consent that I have been asked to suggest from the leader of my country Porkscratching.

Age of consent for participating in sexual activities would be 18.

On public transport I propose that participating in sexual activities are banned

To vote through a resolution that states that consenting adults can do what they please in terms of sexual activity within the confines of their own private sphere is to The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina a prime example of unwarranted legislation. We can not see any aspect of this proposal which is not already covered in existing legislation concerning personal freedoms. Therefore, although we are not arguing against the point, we are not prepared to help pass superflous legislation into the most private aspects of the lives of our citizens.

Claudine Gonzales
Minister of Public Heath
The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina

Andreas Richter
Minister of Justice
The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina

the United States believes that the age of consent should be 17. The President of the United States had already done many fun things since even before 17 and knew what he was doing, making it a reasonable age of consent.

So which version of the upper bound would you like to see? The fixed one? The "computation" one? Or the "fertility limitation" one? Please, tell me your opinions. After we agree on this and the exact boundary/function/percentage I am prepared to present this proposal at the WA. (Unless there are any more suggestions)

the government of the emperor of Urgench is satisfied with the computed upper bounded age of consent.

yours e.t.c.

After clarification, Jujuburghia is happy with the computed version.

We would seek one further clarification on public spaces. As an example, consider a bathroom stall. The door is locked. There is therefore some restricted access. Does this constitute public or private?

A ground floor flat with bare windows. Everyone can see in, but physical access is limited. Does this constitute public or private?

Resolution name: Sexual Freedom
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:
DEFINES a willing individual as a human being that didn't object to the given form of sexual behavior, didn't fight it's expression and did know it was performed, regardless of race, sexual orientation, social status, age or any other trait, chosen or not.

RECOGNISES that every group of willing individuals have the right to express their sexuality.

PROHIBITS any governmental investigation of sexual behavior between a group of willing individuals.

PROHIBITS any discrimination based on sexual orientation or any previous sexual behavior, except in cases where a participant was not a willing individual.



A good proposal, however, unfortunatly, The Kazekage no Gaara must go against this proposal for reasons of morality and religion. Once again, the Kazekage no Gaara sends his regards to all.



~Wurmald, Secretary for Kazekage no Gaara, WA Delegate of Konoha~

We would seek one further clarification on public spaces. As an example, consider a bathroom stall. The door is locked. There is therefore some restricted access. Does this constitute public or private?

A ground floor flat with bare windows. Everyone can see in, but physical access is limited. Does this constitute public or private?

According to the modified definition
DEFINES a private sexual act as a sexual behavior between consenting individuals in a non-public place that is not directly visible from any public place.
the proposal would protect sex in the bathroom stall (if the owner of such stall was not against it) but would not protect sex in the ground floor flat with bare windows (as anybody would be able to see in). However, any extension of the protection (to cover the ground floor flat case, for example) by the nation's government is possible.

the proposal would protect sex in the bathroom stall (if the owner of such stall was not against it)[snip]

Interesting interpretation. Under Gobbannaen law, there's plenty of precedent that toilet stalls are public spaces even when the door is closed, so sex there wouldn't be protected. Which is reasonable, actually, so I'm not going to complain.

The DUD (Division of Universal Decency) of the Commonwealth of Scottorium agree with with proposal as long as the age of consent range from 16-18(human years or any split of that nature in non human years). This Delegation will accept this proposal.



Paul Ferrara
Secretary
DUD of the Commonwealth of Scottorium

This doesnt make much sense i know what you are trying to say but the WA doesnt need to have to passs this

The government of the emperor of Urgench was wondering if the most highly esteemed ambassador had considered whether some nations might be able to use the private sexual acts definition to prevent certain persons from showing affection i.e. kissing and embracing in public? Since in some very conservative nations affection of this kind might well be considered sexual.

yours sincerely,

what about the freaky people

Yeah, I suppose the freaky people might consider PDAs sexual too.

This doesnt make much sense i know what you are trying to say but the WA doesnt need to have to passs this

Well, yeah. I mean technically we don't need to pass anything.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

The Wal-Mart Republic of Mandrivia and their delegate would support this proposal as long as the age of consent was set to 16-18 years of age. This proposal should also emphasize if one of the partners of a private sexual act objects then it would be constituted as rape.

The government of the emperor of Urgench was wondering if the most highly esteemed ambassador had considered whether some nations might be able to use the private sexual acts definition to prevent certain persons from showing affection i.e. kissing and embracing in public? Since in some very conservative nations affection of this kind might well be considered sexual.

If the government would wish to do so it would certainly be possible. It might be too complicated to define exceptions like that, especially if some nations' citizens are not even human. I would rather leave those decisions to the local government to maximize the proposal's potential of passing and avoid more controversial problems that might occur as a result.

After reading a few pages and then skipping to page 177, the Enlightened People of The Grand Duchy of Kryptika (GDK) wishes you good luck on this endeavour. We will support your proposal 100%.

A small portion of existing laws in The Grand Duchy of Kryptika

The people of GDK have had sexual freedom for many years and all forms of sexual acts within your own species have been allowed. We do not believe in institutionalising sexual acts as in the form of a 1 and 1 marriage/commitment and promote polygamy within our society.

The Age of Consent has always been an issue in many parts of the world, but in GDK we do not have an age of consent but rather believe that any person regardless of age has the right to his/her body and can do with it as they please regardless of their biological age. We allow people from GDK to set their own moral values with regards to what is right and wrong when it comes to sexual expression.

It must be noted that we do not use the "terminology consenting adults" but rather "willing partner".

We do not judge people on any sexual activities as long as it remains within their private space. Public affection is limited to kissing, hugging, holding hands, touching discreetly and includes breast feeding.

Prostitution is legal but the word does not exist in our Constitution and we refer to people who sell their sexual service as Sex Educators.

A small portion of existing laws in The Grand Duchy of Kryptika

Very nice! I like the way your government thinks. It would be nice if we could pass a proposal that would be in the same spirit. But I fear many nations would not agree. I hope my proposal would at least ensure the basic sexual rights of every human (or non-human) being.

If the government would wish to do so it would certainly be possible. It might be too complicated to define exceptions like that, especially if some nations' citizens are not even human. I would rather leave those decisions to the local government to maximize the proposal's potential of passing and avoid more controversial problems that might occur as a result.

The government of the emperor of Urgench should clarify it's position, we would never restrict the public desplays of affection of our citizens. We simply wondered if the definition of such acts in your resolution would allow conservative nations to discriminate against certain persons, which we thought might be contrary to the spirit of the resolutions intent?

sincerely,

Good proposal, but I need to mention something. No sexual acts that results in the participants death or in a permanent injury of any of the participants should be allowed.There should also be some kinda mention about sexual diseases or something

If people wish to consent to their own deaths or injury during a sex act why ban them from doing so? surely it is their own body to do with as they wish no?


yours e.t.c. ,

If people wish to consent to their own deaths or injury during a sex act why ban them from doing so? surely it is their own body to with as they wish no?


yours e.t.c. ,

You don't honestly think that murder should have a "Get out of jail free card" so long as it's done during sex do you?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

In our opinion if two persons consent to an act which will lead to one of their deaths then it isn't murder, manslaughter maybe, but under our law assisted suicide is legal so we could hardly apply a different standard to this situation could we?
Of course a range of possible problems do arrise from this position, genuine murderers falsely claiming they had engaged in a consenting act not least among them. And of course some might argue that a person who consents to their own death must be mentally incapable of doing so because no sane person would consent to such a thing.

We accept that the circumstances pertaining to such a sex act might always prove impossible for others to understand or more importantly to establish beyond doubt for the purposes of a court case so perhaps the relentless logic of personal coporeal freedom does need one check for the purposes of practicality.

The situation is dramatically different however for the matter of persons being bodily injured during consensual sex acts. Many people consent to and enjoy varying levels of bodily injury in some cases quite severe injury during sex. No one should be prevented from consenting to such things if that is their desire. In any event persons are all too frequently injured accidentally during perfectly ordinary sex, any provision seeking to restrain persons from injuring themselves would run the risk of banning sex all together.

yours e.t.c. ,

No government investegation? hat about police investigation? i think that should be allowed

No government investegation? hat about police investigation? i think that should be allowed

Why? What police investigation should be allowed (there are many possibilities, be specific) that isn't already?

Sorry for the long pause. Now that I'm online again, I'll update the proposal and finally post it! Thanks for your input, everyone!

The government of the emperor of Urgench wishes the Kattian mission luck with their proposal.

We will support them in any way we can.


yours e.t.c. ,