[DRAFT] Sexual Freedoms

[Separatist Peoples]

The Presbyterians of Hofle STRONGLY oppose this bill. It is our nation's right to ban sexually immoral acts, as they are against God, and, frankly, we don't want to be judged by God too hard.

"Except there are hundreds of religions with at least as many gods out there. Some are real, some are just imaginary bearded men in the sky waving around uneven plus signs. The WA isn't especially interested in tiptoeing around them all. If you don't like it, joining up probably isn't for you, as this tends to be a relatively secular place."

[Abazhaka]

The Presbyterians of Hofle STRONGLY oppose this bill. It is our nation's right to ban sexually immoral acts, as they are against God, and, frankly, we don't want to be judged by God too hard.

I have my own theocracy (an social experiment) and I kept it out of the WA for that reason.

[Lumeau]

This bill BADLY needs a close-in-age exception to its age of consent clause. If a nation defines its age of consent at, for example, 16, this would make a 16 year old a criminal for having sex with a 15 year old, and that kind of thing is quite normal and goes on all the time.

Amend this so that it allows nations to incorporate reasonable close-in-age exceptions into their laws. I cannot believe no one has noticed this. And what's really stupefying is that there was a "child protection resolution" or some such that passed a while back (since repealed) that also did not have this exception.

[Lumeau]

The Presbyterians of Hofle STRONGLY oppose this bill. It is our nation's right to ban sexually immoral acts, as they are against God, and, frankly, we don't want to be judged by God too hard.

If you don't want your nation to have civil rights, don't join the WA. It's that simple.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I cannot believe no one has noticed this.

"Calm down. We already pointed out exactly that objection - that The Dark Star Republic has historically had Romeo & Ethel the Pirate's Daughter Laws that mitigate prosecution for statutory rape in such exceptions - and Lord Raekevik assured us he was giving the matter some thought."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Heh. More Shakespeare in Love. Is one of the cable stations on one of their binges where they play the same movie umpteen times this week?

Anyway, the exceptions clause looks a little hefty, and might cost you some support. (I recall the same problem with the UN Free Expression Act - and as sexual freedom is a much more important right to the many, many teenagers and college students who frequent this site...) I sorted the problem in FoE by hiding some of the bulk in definitions clauses, so that the actual exceptions language appeared less substantial. Let me know if you need help understanding my meaning - but you're smart, so I doubt it.

[Federative Austrian Realms]

This bill BADLY needs a close-in-age exception to its age of consent clause. If a nation defines its age of consent at, for example, 16, this would make a 16 year old a criminal for having sex with a 15 year old, and that kind of thing is quite normal and goes on all the time.

The Ambassador strongly supports this concern. This is something that isn't covered by the current resolution and would to be handled by the states on their own, but can be used by governments to suppress and persecute teenage couples (OOC: and has been used to especially persecute homosexual relationships IRL).

b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR

Maybe you should simply change the wording to "sexually transmitted diseases"? That's the WHO's term for infections which lead to impairment.

d) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

We feel that this clause is formulated too squishy. Besides, we already have the "Prevention of Child Abuse" resolution for this cause.

Also, we wonder whether "consent" should be defined in the resolution (like it currently is). We think that this is important so that states can't twist the meaning of it.

[Knootoss]

"Oh, sweet Lord... Raekevik. Know that this has our full support. This'll appease the people who voted for the repeal whilst not conceding too many freedoms. Good job! Have a sweet sugar cookie."

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Alqania]

"So, after a fortnight of reflection and while the repeal is at vote, we have published a second draft", announced Lord Raekevik.

Format

Anyway, the exceptions clause looks a little hefty, and might cost you some support. (I recall the same problem with the UN Free Expression Act - and as sexual freedom is a much more important right to the many, many teenagers and college students who frequent this site...) I sorted the problem in FoE by hiding some of the bulk in definitions clauses, so that the actual exceptions language appeared less substantial. Let me know if you need help understanding my meaning - but you're smart, so I doubt it.

OOC: Makes sense. I have scrapped the exceptions for STI/STD and for public exposure; for the latter, I've added "in private" to the first clause. For the former, I've added an intentional loophole to the same clause, effectively allowing member states to except cases where consent was not given "in good faith". Alqanian lawyers would argue that consent isn't given in good faith if the individual refuses or neglects to disclose information as important and relevant as an HIV+ status to the sexual partner.

Sexual Transmissions

Unfortunately we could not agree with this due to the Allows clause part b. Pozes are entitled to get their rocks off too without being criminalised. We would support only such a clause if it were qualified by non-disclosure, IE the actual sex act by such a person should not be criminalised, rather non-disclosure by an infected person to a sexual partner of the fact of their being infected should be the only crime.

b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR

"This is too much. If such acts can be restricted, that should only be done in a case where the individual knows they have the infection and the other does not know. As written, states could pass laws punishing people who didn't know they had STIs.

The allowance to ban sex where one party has an STD can be dangerous. First off, as stated, a cold can be transmitted during a sex act and second, in the case of semi-permanent diseases like HIV the risk of transmission can be greatly limited by proper education and medication. If we turn people with those sorts of STDs into lepers, though, you risk people lying about their status and creating a greater risk to everyone and neglecting treatment to hold off stigma.

OOC: Please see above under "Format".

"I am very curious to hear what my esteemed colleagues have to say about how this is handled in the new draft", said Lord Raekevik with a devilish smile.

Legal Competence

Instead of tripping over the determination of who is able to give consent, why not just use "legally competent". Every member nation is required to have a definition of that due to GAR299, a resolution whose express purpose was to get us to stop having to wrestle over the concept with every resolution.

"Because that resolution separates age of consent from legal competence...?" replied Lord Raekevik.

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

"In fact, upon further reflection, the Alqanian delegation has decided to do the opposite and remove the legal competence language from this proposal. As it was first drafted, our clause could have completely invalidated age of consent, as it would have required that anyone deemed legally incompetent be considered non-consenting. Perhaps it could have been considered illegal Contradiction of Resolution #299. In any case, the clause looks much better without it."

Undue Influence

d) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

We feel that this clause is formulated too squishy. Besides, we already have the "Prevention of Child Abuse" resolution for this cause.

"Too squishy? It is intended to cover such different scenarios as guardian/ward, teacher/student, guard/inmate, doctor/patient and other relations where one person is under the control of another and sexual relations would be deemed improper. It is not exclusively related to children. Perhaps there are suggestions on how to improve the language beyond just 'less squishy'?"

Defining Consent

Also, we wonder whether "consent" should be defined in the resolution (like it currently is). We think that this is important so that states can't twist the meaning of it.

"The Alqanian delegation is of the considered opinion that common words do not need to be defined in proposals. If we start adding definitions, where do we stop? If we need to define 'consent', do we not need to also define 'sexual'? And if so, what about 'individual' - perhaps some member state decides to interpret that as inclusive of certain inanimate objects imitating the appearance and function of real people?"

Close-in-Age Exceptions

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

"This would seem to invalidate Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter laws.

This bill BADLY needs a close-in-age exception to its age of consent clause. If a nation defines its age of consent at, for example, 16, this would make a 16 year old a criminal for having sex with a 15 year old, and that kind of thing is quite normal and goes on all the time.

Amend this so that it allows nations to incorporate reasonable close-in-age exceptions into their laws. I cannot believe no one has noticed this. And what's really stupefying is that there was a "child protection resolution" or some such that passed a while back (since repealed) that also did not have this exception.

This bill BADLY needs a close-in-age exception to its age of consent clause. If a nation defines its age of consent at, for example, 16, this would make a 16 year old a criminal for having sex with a 15 year old, and that kind of thing is quite normal and goes on all the time.

The Ambassador strongly supports this concern. This is something that isn't covered by the current resolution and would to be handled by the states on their own, but can be used by governments to suppress and persecute teenage couples (OOC: and has been used to especially persecute homosexual relationships IRL).

"Right..." began Lord Raekevik with some hesitation. "We have indeed given this matter some thought. And we find ourselves forced to ask: WHY?"

"When examining some such provisions, it seems to the Alqanian delegation that they are based on a bias against inter-generational relationships. For some reason, if the age of consent is 16, it may be considered acceptable for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old, but statutory rape for a 26 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. We do not really find this discrimination justifiable; perhaps some of my esteemed colleagues could explain why they do?"

"Furthermore, we have a hard time reconciling a consent-based sexual law with allowing sex without valid consent. Perhaps some of my esteemed colleagues could explain that logical trampoline act?"

"Let us take an example: a member state has an age of consent set at 14. A 13 year old accuses a 14 year old of rape. How is it determined whether it was rape?"

"A. Any sex with a 13 year old is statutory rape, no exceptions. This is simple, but apparently not preferable to everyone present.
B. All sex between a 14 year old and a 13 year old is legal, no exceptions. This is simple, but completely fails to protect the 13 year old from being raped by a 14 year old.
C. Whether it was rape is determined by whether the act was committed with force or the threat of force. If so, why do we not determine rape accusations between adults by the same standard? Because it is an outdated and insufficient legal standard. Why does the 13 year old deserve less protection from rape than an adult would have?
D. Whether it was rape is determined by the nature of the relationship between the parties involved. For adults, rape is still rape even if the parties are married to each other. Why should children have less protection from rape?
E. Whether it was rape is determined by the circumstances surrounding the act. For adults, we find it unacceptable to take into account circumstances like how the victim was dressed, what kind of sexual reputation they had and so on. Why should it be acceptable to consider such things for children?
F. Other? Please explain."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We agree with the changes regarding STIs.

"In the final clause (as always we feel numbering would make the proposal easier to reference, but that's a personal stylistic choice) we wonder whether designating sterilisation &c. as "medical procedures" would work, given it would automatically invoke the protections of the Patient's Rights Act.

"We don't like "etcetera" in the prior clause. It's much too vague to allow nations to decide what does, and doesn't belong in that convenient etc. We would suggest something more explicit such as "or any other arbitrary class".

"In general, we would suggest the use of the word "person" instead of "individual", although it probably doesn't make much difference given the lack of proper WA on the subject.

"Right..." began Lord Raekevik with some hesitation. "We have indeed given this matter some thought. And we find ourselves forced to ask: WHY?"

"One argument for close in age exceptions (or as they used to be called in DSR, Romeo & Ethel The Pirate's Daughter Laws) is that they take account of couples who come together before the age of consent. In our nation, the age of consent is 16. Let's say two 15 year olds get into a relationship, and start having sex. They are both under the age of consent. Some jurisdictions would automatically prosecute the male; others might allow both parties discretion. But unless that couple happen to have been born on the exact same day, one of them will turn 16 before the other. At that point, the older party will suddenly be considered to be committing statutory rape. This is only the case for such close in age couples, however: if a 15 year old starts dating a 37 year old, there was no point at which it was not already statutory rape.

"We are not insisting that you include such an exception: we simply noted that many nations do employ such accommodations and hence it might be politically beneficial to offer a little legislative "wiggle room".

"Good luck, this seems to a very fine draft."

The 22 year old intern then resumes texting her 43 year old boyfriend without a trace of irony.

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"The UNE's support for this act depends on a few things. Under the guidelines of this act, can we forbid the following:
-All forms of incest, specifically close relations such as between siblings or children and parents, regardless of situation
-Forms of sex that include consensual abuse or mutilation
-Sex between individuals below the age of majority, with each other or people over the age of majority

If we do not have all of he above freedoms, we must decline to support this draft."

[The Candy Of Bottles]

as a criminal punishment

"We cannot support this draft while this phrase remains in place, and will ignore it if it is still in place when this draft becomes law. The Candy Of Bottles uses, and will continue to use, sterilization- or, as a lesser form, the removal of one gonad- as punishment for rapists, child molesters, and, in some cases, child pornographers. After all, if your body knows it can no longer reproduce, sex becomes significantly less attractive. Reproduction is the whole point of the act evolutionary speaking." Tislam smiles. "Other then that however, this draft looks good."

[Federative Austrian Realms]

Undue Influence

We feel that this clause is formulated too squishy. Besides, we already have the "Prevention of Child Abuse" resolution for this cause.

"Too squishy? It is intended to cover such different scenarios as guardian/ward, teacher/student, guard/inmate, doctor/patient and other relations where one person is under the control of another and sexual relations would be deemed improper. It is not exclusively related to children. Perhaps there are suggestions on how to improve the language beyond just 'less squishy'?"

Okay, now I understand what you mean. English isn't my native language, so "undue influence" was a little hard for me to get. Would this also include employee/employer or similar financial dependancies?
Also, the term "minor" may not be applicable here because according to Resolution #4, it means "a person below the legal age of majority". You're kinda contradicting the "age of consent" clause with this one in its current form. I'd just shorten it to "dependant or other....", that will include minors and adults.

Defining Consent

Also, we wonder whether "consent" should be defined in the resolution (like it currently is). We think that this is important so that states can't twist the meaning of it.

"The Alqanian delegation is of the considered opinion that common words do not need to be defined in proposals. If we start adding definitions, where do we stop? If we need to define 'consent', do we not need to also define 'sexual'? And if so, what about 'individual' - perhaps some member state decides to interpret that as inclusive of certain inanimate objects imitating the appearance and function of real people?"

The reason I was thinking about this is that currently, the definition includes "while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness." I'd interpret that in the way that consent can't be given if under the influence of certain drugs or too much alcohol (i.e. not having a clear head) – in my opinion, such a short sentence should still be in there somewhere to prevent that getting somebody drunk/high in order to get into bed is legal.

Close-in-Age Exceptions

"This would seem to invalidate Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter laws.

This bill BADLY needs a close-in-age exception to its age of consent clause. If a nation defines its age of consent at, for example, 16, this would make a 16 year old a criminal for having sex with a 15 year old, and that kind of thing is quite normal and goes on all the time.

Amend this so that it allows nations to incorporate reasonable close-in-age exceptions into their laws. I cannot believe no one has noticed this. And what's really stupefying is that there was a "child protection resolution" or some such that passed a while back (since repealed) that also did not have this exception.

The Ambassador strongly supports this concern. This is something that isn't covered by the current resolution and would to be handled by the states on their own, but can be used by governments to suppress and persecute teenage couples (OOC: and has been used to especially persecute homosexual relationships IRL).

"Right..." began Lord Raekevik with some hesitation. "We have indeed given this matter some thought. And we find ourselves forced to ask: WHY?"

"Furthermore, we have a hard time reconciling a consent-based sexual law with allowing sex without valid consent. Perhaps some of my esteemed colleagues could explain that logical trampoline act?"

This "trampoline act" is in fact really simple: We assume that while the average 13yo might not be mature enough to give consent, some few might be. If the age of consent is only about 1-2 years above the age of said person, it might happen that (s)he is simply more developed than others. So if this draft enables WA member states to legalize such an exception, courts can acknowledge that consent was given (which would be based on the statement of the person who is below age of consent of course). This way, there also wouldn't be a need to define the age of the older partner – I'd call it an "individually flexible age of consent".

"Let us take an example: a member state has an age of consent set at 14. A 13 year old accuses a 14 year old of rape. How is it determined whether it was rape?"

"A. Any sex with a 13 year old is statutory rape, no exceptions. This is simple, but apparently not preferable to everyone present.
B. All sex between a 14 year old and a 13 year old is legal, no exceptions. This is simple, but completely fails to protect the 13 year old from being raped by a 14 year old.
C. Whether it was rape is determined by whether the act was committed with force or the threat of force. If so, why do we not determine rape accusations between adults by the same standard? Because it is an outdated and insufficient legal standard. Why does the 13 year old deserve less protection from rape than an adult would have?
D. Whether it was rape is determined by the nature of the relationship between the parties involved. For adults, rape is still rape even if the parties are married to each other. Why should children have less protection from rape?
E. Whether it was rape is determined by the circumstances surrounding the act. For adults, we find it unacceptable to take into account circumstances like how the victim was dressed, what kind of sexual reputation they had and so on. Why should it be acceptable to consider such things for children?
F. Other? Please explain."

Rape and all nonconsensual sexual activity is illegal according to Sexual Autonomy Guarantee, also more specifically all nonconsensual sexual behaviour upon a minor is illegal according to Prevention of Child Abuse. So your options B, C, D and E can't happen because these norms apply. You can't go lower than these intact resolutions. How to determine whether something is consensual or not is a matter of the courts that can't be dictated by a WA resolution word by word; but as I noted above: Such an individual exception would have to be based on the statement of the younger person. How to handle rape accusation is currently not covered by any resolution and I doubt that it will ever be.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

NO! The only resolutions we will support on this matter, or abortion and sex are clear blockers designed to keep these matters out of the international scope. Change this to a clearly worded blocker and I will gladly support it.

[Kaboomlandia]

NO! The only resolutions we will support on this matter, or abortion and sex are clear blockers designed to keep these matters out of the international scope. Change this to a clearly worded blocker and I will gladly support it.

OOC: And would that not make it illegal as a blocker, then?

[The Dark Star Republic]

NO! The only resolutions we will support on this matter, or abortion and sex are clear blockers designed to keep these matters out of the international scope. Change this to a clearly worded blocker and I will gladly support it.

OOC: And would that not make it illegal as a blocker, then?

OOC: Correct, it would not.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

NO! The only resolutions we will support on this matter, or abortion and sex are clear blockers designed to keep these matters out of the international scope. Change this to a clearly worded blocker and I will gladly support it.

OOC: And would that not make it illegal as a blocker, then?

Since you seem to be a rules expert these days, would you care to point out to me where blockers are illegal?

[Alqania]

"We agree with the changes regarding STIs."

"Glad to hear it", commented Lord Raekevik jovially.

(as always we feel numbering would make the proposal easier to reference, but that's a personal stylistic choice)

"Hmm, that is true. We might add numbers for that reason - it will be duly considered."

"In the final clause [...] we wonder whether designating sterilisation &c. as "medical procedures" would work, given it would automatically invoke the protections of the Patient's Rights Act.

"The Queendom is not too keen on relying too heavily on any existing resolution, especially not on one that, having before ventured into the minefield of avoiding Duplication/Contradiction with the PRA, we would not be opposed to seeing replaced by less ambiguously worded legislation. In any case, we find your suggestion slightly counter-intuitive, as removing reproductive/sexual function has and can be done through means we would very much hesitate to designate as 'medical'. Also, we are concerned about the potential for abuse of Clause IV of the PRA:"

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

"The Queendom is concerned that (1) the exception for cases where refusal of treatment would 'endanger the health of others' could be used as justification for mandating sterilisation, (chemical) castration or something similar on individuals deemed at risk of repeating sexual offences and (2) that individuals suffering from mental illness could be forced to undergo such procedures through being declared incompetent."

"We don't like "etcetera" in the prior clause. It's much too vague to allow nations to decide what does, and doesn't belong in that convenient etc. We would suggest something more explicit such as "or any other arbitrary class".

"Good point! That definitely goes on the list of things to look over."

"In general, we would suggest the use of the word "person" instead of "individual", although it probably doesn't make much difference given the lack of proper WA on the subject.

"Hmm, we will consider it, though I fear our preferences might differ."

"Right..." began Lord Raekevik with some hesitation. "We have indeed given this matter some thought. And we find ourselves forced to ask: WHY?"

"One argument for close in age exceptions (or as they used to be called in DSR, Romeo & Ethel The Pirate's Daughter Laws) is that they take account of couples who come together before the age of consent. In our nation, the age of consent is 16. Let's say two 15 year olds get into a relationship, and start having sex. They are both under the age of consent. Some jurisdictions would automatically prosecute the male; others might allow both parties discretion. But unless that couple happen to have been born on the exact same day, one of them will turn 16 before the other. At that point, the older party will suddenly be considered to be committing statutory rape. This is only the case for such close in age couples, however: if a 15 year old starts dating a 37 year old, there was no point at which it was not already statutory rape.

"We are not insisting that you include such an exception: we simply noted that many nations do employ such accommodations and hence it might be politically beneficial to offer a little legislative "wiggle room".

"I see... Hmm, having another look at the SPA, it could be that we have missed a potential, at least partial, solution to this problem:"

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce legislation deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

"We had assumed that many member states may have an age of criminal responsibility. Indeed, in the Queendom, that age is equal to the age of consent, meaning that people below that age having sex may be breaking the law but cannot be held criminally liable for it. We had not intended for this proposal to invalidate such legal practices, so perhaps it would be prudent to amend the relevant clause here?"

REQUIRES member states to criminalise and duly punish all sexual acts performed against a non-consenting individual, subject to any immunities applicable to individuals without criminal responsibility,

"Of course, this would not negate the 'problem' that one person could attain criminal responsibility before another and be held liable for statutory rape as described in your scenario, unless of course the member state could build such a mechanism into its immunities for criminal responsibility. Thoughts?"

"The UNE's support for this act depends on a few things. Under the guidelines of this act, can we forbid the following:
-All forms of incest, specifically close relations such as between siblings or children and parents, regardless of situation

"No, the UNE could forbid the forms of incest specified by this proposal. Other forms would need to be legal."

-Forms of sex that include consensual abuse or mutilation

"This proposal does not define sex. If it is indeed a 'form of sex', then no, it could not be forbidden. I am unsure whether the things you speak of would be considered 'sex' within Alqanian jurisprudence."

-Sex between individuals below the age of majority, with each other or people over the age of majority

"If the UNE sets the age of consent to be equal to the age of majority, then yes, this proposal would not prevent that from being forbidden by the UNE."

If we do not have all of he above freedoms, we must decline to support this draft."

"I am afraid that at least the incest issue will see us having to do without your support."

as a criminal punishment

"We cannot support this draft while this phrase remains in place, and will ignore it if it is still in place when this draft becomes law. The Candy Of Bottles uses, and will continue to use, sterilization- or, as a lesser form, the removal of one gonad- as punishment for rapists, child molesters, and, in some cases, child pornographers."

"I suppose we will have to do without your support then", concluded Lord Raekevik matter-of-factly.

"After all, if your body knows it can no longer reproduce, sex becomes significantly less attractive. Reproduction is the whole point of the act evolutionary speaking."

"...which is why nobody has sex after menopause", added Lord Raekevik as he rolled his eyes. "Perhaps the reason this august assembly has failed to pass a resolution on sex education is because too many of its members have received none."

Okay, now I understand what you mean. English isn't my native language, so "undue influence" was a little hard for me to get. Would this also include employee/employer or similar financial dependancies?

"Potentially, yes. We would like to leave member states with some discretion in exactly what kind of sexual relationships they find improper for this reason. I imagine that there is a great deal of diversity throughout the multiverse on what constitutes appropriate employee/employer relationships."

Also, the term "minor" may not be applicable here because according to Resolution #4, it means "a person below the legal age of majority". You're kinda contradicting the "age of consent" clause with this one in its current form. I'd just shorten it to "dependant or other....", that will include minors and adults.

"The difference between age of majority and age of consent is intentional, where those are not equal. A person below the age of majority, a minor, typically has fewer rights than an adult and therefore more often finds themselves in the kind of unequal relationship targeted by the clause. A minor above the age of consent is generally allowed to have sex, but member states may adopt exceptions for these kinds of unequal relationships, for example with a teacher or legal guardian."

The reason I was thinking about this is that currently, the definition includes "while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness." I'd interpret that in the way that consent can't be given if under the influence of certain drugs or too much alcohol (i.e. not having a clear head) – in my opinion, such a short sentence should still be in there somewhere to prevent that getting somebody drunk/high in order to get into bed is legal.

"In the second draft, we have added 'free of duress' as a qualifier to consent, which would cover some of this. However, the Queendom finds it unreasonable to outlaw sex while under the influence of drugs or alcohol."

"It should also be considered to what extent the sexual partner can be expected to determine the validity of consent. For example, the Queendom finds it unreasonable to expect the average sexually active individual to evaluate the mental health and soundness of judgement in any random potential partner. After all, the vast majority of sexual relations do not include a qualified psychiatrist."

This "trampoline act" is in fact really simple: We assume that while the average 13yo might not be mature enough to give consent, some few might be. If the age of consent is only about 1-2 years above the age of said person, it might happen that (s)he is simply more developed than others. So if this draft enables WA member states to legalize such an exception, courts can acknowledge that consent was given (which would be based on the statement of the person who is below age of consent of course). This way, there also wouldn't be a need to define the age of the older partner – I'd call it an "individually flexible age of consent".

"This proposal would not force any member state to have an age of consent. On the contrary, it recognises three different scenarios:"

CLARIFIES that any individual below a (1) national or sub-national age of consent or (2) equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or (3) in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

"Each member state can choose whether it sets an (arbitrary) age of consent, whether it has a threshold based on something other than age or whether it has no such thing at all. In the last case, this proposal treats any prepubescent individual as too young/immature to have sex."

"The flexibility you are describing sounds to me like a threshold based on something other than age, which is already accommodated for by the proposal. So then we do not need to make any close-in-age exception to handle it."

Rape and all nonconsensual sexual activity is illegal according to Sexual Autonomy Guarantee

"Not exactly", disputed Lord Raekevik.

DEFINING "the right to sexual autonomy" as "the right to be free from unwanted sexual activity, to never be obliged to engage in sexual activity and to participate in sexual activity only with the free and informed consent of all parties to that activity",

CONVINCED that everyone has the right to sexual autonomy,

SEEKING to guarantee this right to every citizen of every member-state,

[...]

GUARANTEES every citizen of every member-state the right to sexual autonomy without exception,

"So, the SAG 'guarantees', whatever actual action that is intended to signify, that every citizen of every member state has the right not to be raped. It does not really, however, mandate that every member state criminalises rape. That criminalisation is mandated by the SPA, and would be mandated by this proposal."

also more specifically all nonconsensual sexual behaviour upon a minor is illegal according to Prevention of Child Abuse. So your options B, C, D and E can't happen because these norms apply. You can't go lower than these intact resolutions. How to determine whether something is consensual or not is a matter of the courts that can't be dictated by a WA resolution word by word; but as I noted above: Such an individual exception would have to be based on the statement of the younger person. How to handle rape accusation is currently not covered by any resolution and I doubt that it will ever be.

"Well, but... ausgezeichnet! If the PoCA already mandates the criminalisation of all nonconsensual sex with minors and minors below the age of consent, or equivalent non-age based threshold, cannot legally consent, then sex with them is already criminal no matter what the SPA or this proposal says. This proposal would only change something in this regard in those member states that have no threshold at all, where this proposal would establish that prepubescent minors cannot consent. Are we thus in agreement that any so-called close-in-age exception would be in contradiction of the PoCA and that this point of discussion is moot?"

NO! The only resolutions we will support on this matter, or abortion and sex are clear blockers designed to keep these matters out of the international scope. Change this to a clearly worded blocker and I will gladly support it.

"YES!" exclaimed Lord Raekevik enthusiastically in response. "If one is ever in doubt about whether something is the right thing to do, surely the opposition of the distinguished Monsieur Trudeau is all one needs to be convinced of the righteousness of one's cause."

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"The UNE's support for this act depends on a few things. Under the guidelines of this act, can we forbid the following:
-All forms of incest, specifically close relations such as between siblings or children and parents, regardless of situation

"No, the UNE could forbid the forms of incest specified by this proposal. Other forms would need to be legal."

-Forms of sex that include consensual abuse or mutilation

"This proposal does not define sex. If it is indeed a 'form of sex', then no, it could not be forbidden. I am unsure whether the things you speak of would be considered 'sex' within Alqanian jurisprudence."

-Sex between individuals below the age of majority, with each other or people over the age of majority

"If the UNE sets the age of consent to be equal to the age of majority, then yes, this proposal would not prevent that from being forbidden by the UNE."

If we do not have all of he above freedoms, we must decline to support this draft."

"I am afraid that at least the incest issue will see us having to do without your support."

"Then I'm afraid we cannot support this proposal. There will be no brothers lying with their sisters in our nation, regardless of any legislation from this body. Degenerates will be rehabilitated, with or without the support of the WA."

[Separatist Peoples]

"No, the UNE could forbid the forms of incest specified by this proposal. Other forms would need to be legal."



"This proposal does not define sex. If it is indeed a 'form of sex', then no, it could not be forbidden. I am unsure whether the things you speak of would be considered 'sex' within Alqanian jurisprudence."



"If the UNE sets the age of consent to be equal to the age of majority, then yes, this proposal would not prevent that from being forbidden by the UNE."



"I am afraid that at least the incest issue will see us having to do without your support."

"Then I'm afraid we cannot support this proposal. There will be no brothers lying with their sisters in our nation, regardless of any legislation from this body. Degenerates will be rehabilitated, with or without the support of the WA."

"I find it astonishing that any nation who is so willfully and flagrantly dismissive of WA legislation expects that those nations that do respect WA law will give even an iota of consideration to their objections. If you won't obey anyway, why bother objecting at all?"

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: And would that not make it illegal as a blocker, then?

Since you seem to be a rules expert these days, would you care to point out to me where blockers are illegal?

Actually, I can do that.
(Should be a bullet in there, but I don't see how to do that.)

Blockers

Resolutions cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

To summarize regarding blockers: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation -- say, "RESERVES to nations the power to make all decisions on all matters concerning the human rights of their citizens and residents" -- or trying to write the "unrepealable" resolution: "RESOLVES that the WA shall never speak of this again".

---

"We cannot support this draft while this phrase remains in place, and will ignore it if it is still in place when this draft becomes law. The Candy Of Bottles uses, and will continue to use, sterilization- or, as a lesser form, the removal of one gonad- as punishment for rapists, child molesters, and, in some cases, child pornographers."

"I suppose we will have to do without your support then", concluded Lord Raekevik matter-of-factly.

"Unfortunately, the loss of one nations support probably won't do much, but I suspect Mr. Trudeau will send out more then a few telegrams to whip up the NatSov crowd."

"After all, if your body knows it can no longer reproduce, sex becomes significantly less attractive. Reproduction is the whole point of the act evolutionary speaking."

"...which is why nobody has sex after menopause", added Lord Raekevik as he rolled his eyes. "Perhaps the reason this august assembly has failed to pass a resolution on sex education is because too many of its members have received none."

Tislam rolls his eyes. "Just one problem there- men don't undergo menopause. Plus, most female rapists- and they do exist- have not undergone menopause. Think of this as forcing menopause to happen early in women and, well, at all in men."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Since you seem to be a rules expert these days, would you care to point out to me where blockers are illegal?

Actually, I can do that.
(Should be a bullet in there, but I don't see how to do that.)

Blockers

Resolutions cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

To summarize regarding blockers: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation -- say, "RESERVES to nations the power to make all decisions on all matters concerning the human rights of their citizens and residents" -- or trying to write the "unrepealable" resolution: "RESOLVES that the WA shall never speak of this again".

---

Perhaps you will read the two points I emphasized there? Blockers are not illegal. What is illegal is being nothing more than a blocker which I did not ask for. Perhaps you will read my post next time before you run your lips in a feeble attempt to make someone else look bad?

[Alqania]

"Unfortunately, the loss of one nations support probably won't do much, but I suspect Mr. Trudeau will send out more then a few telegrams to whip up the NatSov crowd."

"Ooh, the NatSov crowd, scary... We have not really 'lost' Monsieur Trudeau's support, as we never had it in the first place. He wants a blocker and we do not want to write a blocker. Simple, really."

"...which is why nobody has sex after menopause", added Lord Raekevik as he rolled his eyes. "Perhaps the reason this august assembly has failed to pass a resolution on sex education is because too many of its members have received none."

Tislam rolls his eyes. "Just one problem there- men don't undergo menopause. Plus, most female rapists- and they do exist- have not undergone menopause. Think of this as forcing menopause to happen early in women and, well, at all in men."

"Poe's law strikes again! Sorry, darling, I was being sarcastic. You see, when you get older, you'll start having these feelings, like you really like someone and would like to be very close to them, both physically and emotionally. Now, that is completely natural - everyone has such feelings. Girls too. Well, girls of all ages. Yes, even your grandma. You see, old people have sex too. In fact, sometimes old people are foolish enough to think that they have no use of condoms, as they can no longer get pregnant, forgetting other consequences of having an active sex life. Did you know that sexually transmitted infections are quite common among senior citizens for this reason? Did you know that enough people are so determined to have sex even after their body no longer makes it easy that a whole new segment has opened up in the way of pharmaceuticals to help them do what their body no longer can? You see, sex is not as simple as a merely physical urge; wanting to be intimate with someone, whether it is a long-term partner or a passing acquaintance, is to a large degree a psychological need that stays with you for the rest of your life."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"the NatSov crowd."

"The "NatSov crowd" forced all nations to legalise abortion at all stages of the pregnancy. They are not going to have a problem with a resolution on sexual freedom."

Daisy turns back to the Alqanian Lordliness.

"Thank you for that beautiful display of ping-pong: it brings a tear to my eye to see that lost art returning to the WA. Thank you also for addressing our concerns with such thoroughness. I'd never really noticed that problem with the Patient's Rights Act before, but if your reading is correct, it wouldn't be limited to sexual procedures: it could conceivably be used to legitimise, for example, quack psychosurgery. That resolution should be reviewed - though this discussion is obviously not the right place.

"We will now be supporting your proposal, subject to the proposed change in the language of the anti-discrimination clause and the statutory rape clause."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Imperium Anglorum]

"the NatSov crowd."

"The "NatSov crowd" forced all nations to legalise abortion at all stages of the pregnancy. They are not going to have a problem with a resolution on sexual freedom."

They did that?