[draft] Sexual Privacy Act( please point out errors)

by **Abazhaka** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:14 am

This is in case of Sexual Privacy Act repeal

first draft

Second Draft

third draft

New draft coming

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:20 am

A) the setting of an age of consent no less than 12 years of age, but no greater than 18.

“And what if the age of majority is 10? Or 25? What about those species for which 18 is yet infancy? Hard numbers are bad.”

B) the prevention of production and distribution of pornography to the public.

“A ban on pornography is going to go very badly. If nations wish to allow pornographic material to be distributed publically, its really not an issue of the World Assembly if they do.

C) a ban on incest.

“Consenting adults and all that.”

D) a ban on rape.

“ Its been covered already.”

E) a ban on soliciting sex from someone under 18 who is under their supervision and/or authority.

“Already mentioned why ages are a bad thing.”

F) definition of consent as an affirmative verbal response and/or gesture by a qualified individual.

“The definition of consent is not an international concern.”

“This is terrible, though not nearly as bad as the Old Hopian version.”

by **Abazhaka** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:33 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
A) the setting of an age of consent no less than 12 years of age, but no greater than 18.

“And what if the age of majority is 10? Or 25? What about those species for which 18 is yet infancy? Hard numbers are bad.”

B) the prevention of production and distribution of pornography to the public.

“A ban on pornography is going to go very badly. If nations wish to allow pornographic material to be distributed publically, its really not an issue of the World Assembly if they do.

C) a ban on incest.

“Consenting adults and all that.”

D) a ban on rape.
“ Its been covered already.”
E) a ban on soliciting sex from someone under 18 who is under their supervision and/or authority.

“Already mentioned why ages are a bad thing.”
F) definition of consent as an affirmative verbal response and/or gesture by a qualified individual.

“The definition of consent is not an international concern.”

“This is terrible, though not nearly as bad as the Old Hopian version.”

thank you for your feedback.

by **Old Hope** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:39 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
A) the setting of an age of consent no less than 12 years of age, but no greater than 18.

“And what if the age of majority is 10? Or 25? What about those species for which 18 is yet infancy? Hard numbers are bad.”

This.

B) the prevention of production and distribution of pornography to the public.

“A ban on pornography is going to go very badly. If nations wish to allow pornographic material to be distributed publically, its really not an issue of the World Assembly if they do.

This won't pass then. Drop it.

C) a ban on incest.

“Consenting adults and all that.”

This is too broad, and an international ban is not good.

D) a ban on rape.
“ Its been covered already.”
E) a ban on soliciting sex from someone under 18 who is under their supervision and/or authority.

“Already mentioned why ages are a bad thing.”
F) definition of consent as an affirmative verbal response and/or gesture by a qualified individual.

“The definition of consent is not an international concern.”

“This is terrible, though not nearly as bad as the Old Hopian version.”

[/quote]I don't agree to the second part of the last sentence. Unfortunately, in the present form, I agree to the first.

Furthermore, your resolution has no category assigned to it.

by **Elke and Elba** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:43 am

Old Hope wrote:
Furthermore, your resolution has no category assigned to it.

It has. Read carefully.

Human rights/Mild is pretty much the first thing I see.

This entire "write the new Sexual Privacy Act" thing is becoming an entire mudslinging competition, with you coming into here, and I expect Abzahaka to do the same to your draft. It's is - with the lack of a better word - a race to the bottom.

It's annoying, and let's face it - neither draft is good enough to actually be submitted in reality.

by **Old Hope** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:48 am

Elke and Elba wrote:
Old Hope wrote:
Furthermore, your resolution has no category assigned to it.

It has. Read carefully.

Human rights/Mild is pretty much the first thing I see.

This entire "write the new Sexual Privacy Act" thing is becoming an entire mudslinging competition, with you coming into here, and I expect Abzahaka to do the same to your draft. It's is - with the lack of a better word - a race to the bottom.

It's annoying, and let's face it - neither draft is good enough to actually be submitted in reality.

Oh, what a fail. :palm:

Sorry.
But Human rights, mild is simply wrong.
This looks more like... a Moral Decency+Human rights mess.

by **Elke and Elba** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:49 am

Old Hope wrote:
Elke and Elba wrote:
It has. Read carefully.

Human rights/Mild is pretty much the first thing I see.

This entire "write the new Sexual Privacy Act" thing is becoming an entire mudslinging competition, with you coming into here, and I expect Abzahaka to do the same to your draft. It's is - with the lack of a better word - a race to the bottom.

It's annoying, and let's face it - neither draft is good enough to actually be submitted in reality.

Oh, what a fail. Sorry.
But Human rights, mild is simply wrong.
This looks more like... Moral Decency.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Sexual Privacy Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Mendosia

Who failed?

by **Old Hope** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:54 am

Elke and Elba wrote:
Old Hope wrote:Oh, what a fail. Sorry.
But Human rights, mild is simply wrong.
This looks more like... Moral Decency.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Sexual Privacy Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Mendosia

Who failed?

The present resolution is not the same as this version, which bans incest.
And now we have...

E) a ban on interference, unsolicited regulations that do not fall under the provisions of this resolution, surveillance, and prevention of consensual sex between two or more persons that does not break one of this resolutions provisions.

a problem with the Clean Prostitute Act? Plus, this allows public sexual acts.

Elke and Elba wrote:[...]

It's annoying, and let's face it - neither draft is good enough to actually be submitted in reality.

Is this a baseless assumption, or did you read my draft? I don't see any comments there.

by **Abazhaka** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:51 am

new draft guys, and old hope, if you are just here to convince people to back your proposal, STICK TO YOUR OWN THREAD. Unless you have helpful advice.

by **Old Hope** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:00 pm

ACKNOWLEDGING the need for sexual privacy;

Ok.

RECOGNIZING the need for some regulation of sexual behavior;

Why?

MANDATES a ban on incest, however the state chooses to define it;

Ok. I define incest as any sexual acts between individuals I don't like.(or in other words, terrible idea)

REQUIRES the setting of an age of consent, as well as defining 'consent';

Yay. Ok. Consent is now, for example, wearing certain clothes.(see above)

MANDATES a ban on public sex acts;

Why?

MANDATES neither private nor government prosecution, surveillance of, and interference in a consensual private sex act between two or more consenting individuals.

Like incest? Contadicts itself. Also, transmitting deadly sexual diseases cannot be stopped now?

TASKS member nations with implementing and abiding by these policies, as well as prosecuting offenders of these policies

Currently, against.

by **Abazhaka** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:10 pm

Old Hope wrote:
ACKNOWLEDGING the need for sexual privacy;
Ok.
RECOGNIZING the need for some regulation of sexual behavior;
Why?
MANDATES a ban on incest, however the state chooses to define it;
Ok. I define incest as any sexual acts between individuals I don't like.(or in other words, terrible idea)
REQUIRES the setting of an age of consent, as well as defining 'consent';
Yay. Ok. Consent is now, for example, wearing certain clothes.(see above)
MANDATES a ban on public sex acts;
Why?
MANDATES neither private nor government prosecution, surveillance of, and interference in a consensual private sex act between two or more consenting individuals.
Like incest? Contadicts itself. Also, transmitting deadly sexual diseases cannot be stopped now?
TASKS member nations with implementing and abiding by these policies, as well as prosecuting offenders of these policies

Currently, against.

listen in this proposal my goal

1)protecting sex acts, excluding:

a)Incest, if the state desires.
b)public sex acts.
c)rape (already covered)
d)pedophile sex acts.

2)replacing 'Sexual Privacy Act' if repealed
3)health based issues, not included due to not part of this category.
4)banning Old Hope (unfortunately not possible) from this thread because your proposal is not in anyway, better if not worst.

by **Kaboomlandia** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:31 pm

Kind of funny how everybody's rushing to draft replacements

It might be worth keeping the SPA just to see all these drafts go down the drain...

by **Abazhaka** » Wed May 06, 2015 9:21 am

Kaboomlandia wrote:Kind of funny how everybody's rushing to draft replacements
It might be worth keeping the SPA just to see all these drafts go down the drain...

at this, point i would rather have the current resolution, for all it's flaws, then anything I or anyone else has drafted.

[draft] Sexual Privacy Act( please point out errors)

[draft] Sexual Privacy Act( please point out errors)

Who is online