[DEFEATED] Regulating the Sex Industry

[Wrapper]

Do they give out sex worker licenses in the real world?

I can tell you they do in some counties in Florida for strippers. It's called an AEID (Adult Entertainment Identification) card.

[The New Nordic Union]

Do they give out sex worker licenses in the real world?

In Germany, they do (for prostitutes, at least). You have to register and carry your prostitute ID with you.

[Thousand Branches]

With this draft, I’ll probably submit sooner rather than later since it’s about 80% already existing draft. Probably within the next two weeks

[Maowi]

"This proposal seems to comprehensively address its very worthy goal - we are in support! I simply wish to suggest that the honourable ambassador may consider, if they have not done so already, implementing a provision to ensure that the STI testing and vaccination mandated in clause 4 is provided a reasonable cost - I believe the possibility of member states having sex workers pay extortionate prices for STI screening was brought up as an argument for the repeal of GA #179: "Clean Prostitute Act" and seems worth considering here."

[Thousand Branches]

"This proposal seems to comprehensively address its very worthy goal - we are in support! I simply wish to suggest that the honourable ambassador may consider, if they have not done so already, implementing a provision to ensure that the STI testing and vaccination mandated in clause 4 is provided a reasonable cost - I believe the possibility of member states having sex workers pay extortionate prices for STI screening was brought up as an argument for the repeal of GA #179: "Clean Prostitute Act" and seems worth considering here."

That will hopefully be alleviated whenever I get back to my gratis STI treatment proposal, but as for now, I’ll add something

[Thousand Branches]

I think I’ll submit this around Friday if no further comments are made

[Tinhampton]

Support, despite my aforementioned iffiness about "abuse" and the general concept of sex worker licensing.

Would it be appropriate to encourage national bodies to provide free testing and vaccination pursuant to Article 4a, in addition to its requirement that they charge "a reasonable price" for those services?

[Thousand Branches]

Support, despite my aforementioned iffiness about "abuse" and the general concept of sex worker licensing.

Would it be appropriate to encourage national bodies to provide free testing and vaccination pursuant to Article 4a, in addition to its requirement that they charge "a reasonable price" for those services?

Sure, done.

[Thousand Branches]

As threatened, this has been submitted!

[Uan aa Boa]

So if, one drunken evening, my friend says to me "I'll give you £100 for a shag" and I agree, this proposal will define me to be a sex worker. My government will then be in breach of international law for failing in its obligation to have a national body register me, ensure I am of age, protect me from harm and ensure the use of barrier contraception. It seems unfair, and rather intrusive, to expect the government to be so all seeing.

[Thousand Branches]

So if, one drunken evening, my friend says to me "I'll give you £100 for a shag" and I agree, this proposal will define me to be a sex worker. My government will then be in breach of international law for failing in its obligation to have a national body register me, ensure I am of age, protect me from harm and ensure the use of barrier contraception. It seems unfair, and rather intrusive, to expect the government to be so all seeing.

And do you think there is any instance where that would ever get caught? Proposals with wide sweeping laws such as these are not uncommon, and this sort of instance would never actually be found out by government law. Like do you expect the government to just be watching every home for every time people have sex? The definition is intended for people who perform such acts as a profession, not as casual joking sex bets. If it were a part of some couple’s kinks, it would similarly never get caught, especially given the WA’s sexual privacy laws already in existence.

[Uan aa Boa]

The definition is intended for people who perform such acts as a profession, not as casual joking sex bets. If it were a part of some couple’s kinks, it would similarly never get caught, especially given the WA’s sexual privacy laws already in existence.

If that's what the definition is supposed to cover then it should say so. As written it includes anyone who receives payment for any sexual act, and apparently requires the government to regulate all such situations. If that contradicts existing privacy laws then the proposal is illegal. Do you seriously expect the assembly to pass an unenforceable law on the basis that it's OK because nobody will get caught?

[Thousand Branches]

The definition is intended for people who perform such acts as a profession, not as casual joking sex bets. If it were a part of some couple’s kinks, it would similarly never get caught, especially given the WA’s sexual privacy laws already in existence.

If that's what the definition is supposed to cover then it should say so. As written it includes anyone who receives payment for any sexual act, and apparently requires the government to regulate all such situations. If that contradicts existing privacy laws then the proposal is illegal. Do you seriously expect the assembly to pass an unenforceable law on the basis that it's OK because nobody will get caught?

You are absolutely correct and I have not convinced myself with my own counter-arguments. One of these days people will have these concerns before I submit, but for now I suppose the proposal is once again retracted. It will not stay that way for long.

[WayNeacTia]

So if, one drunken evening, my friend says to me "I'll give you £100 for a shag" and I agree, this proposal will define me to be a sex worker. My government will then be in breach of international law for failing in its obligation to have a national body register me, ensure I am of age, protect me from harm and ensure the use of barrier contraception. It seems unfair, and rather intrusive, to expect the government to be so all seeing.

This was brought up already. Section 1(a) states "a “sex worker” is any consenting adult who receives pecuniary payment in return for sexual services, performances, or any other consensual sexual act;" as that was a way to fix that particular situation. I see it has caused this problem now.

]And do you think there is any instance where that would ever get caught? Proposals with wide sweeping laws such as these are not uncommon, and this sort of instance would never actually be found out by government law. Like do you expect the government to just be watching every home for every time people have sex? The definition is intended for people who perform such acts as a profession, not as casual joking sex bets. If it were a part of some couple’s kinks, it would similarly never get caught, especially given the WA’s sexual privacy laws already in existence.

It doesn't work that way. International law is automatically enforced and apparently, citizens are just brainwashed into compliance. Otherwise what is the point to all of this? Do I agree it should be that way? No, but it is what it is.

[Uan aa Boa]

You are absolutely correct and I have not convinced myself with my own counter-arguments. One of these days people will have these concerns before I submit, but for now I suppose the proposal is once again retracted. It will not stay that way for long.

Yes, sorry about the timing. I haven't been active on the forum for a while. I was simply scanning the queue when the problem jumped out at me. For what it's worth I admire your integrity in withdrawing the proposal for what seems to be a second time rather than doubling down as many authors do.

I like much of what you're trying to do with this but I think actual licencing is going to be hard without intrusive surveillance. Effective legislation is probably going to have to look at effective strategies for harm reduction rather than the blunt instrument of total regulation. Accepting that there will never be a government official scrutinising every instance of sex work, what measures will make violence less likely, barrier contraception more widely used, participants more likely to get tests for infection etc etc. Placing national governments in contravention of international law every time something slips through the net is overkill.

If unlicensed sex work is to be forbidden (something the draft doesn't actually say) and sex workers face criminal action for not following the rules you also risk the regressive step of going back to sanctioning the seller but not the buyer. 2 b iii seems to imply the same. In a similar way, it would be worth clarifying which party is breaking the law when barrier contraception isn't used.

[Thousand Branches]

You are absolutely correct and I have not convinced myself with my own counter-arguments. One of these days people will have these concerns before I submit, but for now I suppose the proposal is once again retracted. It will not stay that way for long.

Yes, sorry about the timing. I haven't been active on the forum for a while. I was simply scanning the queue when the problem jumped out at me. For what it's worth I admire your integrity in withdrawing the proposal for what seems to be a second time rather than doubling down as many authors do.

I like much of what you're trying to do with this but I think actual licencing is going to be hard without intrusive surveillance. Effective legislation is probably going to have to look at effective strategies for harm reduction rather than the blunt instrument of total regulation. Accepting that there will never be a government official scrutinising every instance of sex work, what measures will make violence less likely, barrier contraception more widely used, participants more likely to get tests for infection etc etc. Placing national governments in contravention of international law every time something slips through the net is overkill.

If unlicensed sex work is to be forbidden (something the draft doesn't actually say) and sex workers face criminal action for not following the rules you also risk the regressive step of going back to sanctioning the seller but not the buyer. 2 b iii seems to imply the same. In a similar way, it would be worth clarifying which party is breaking the law when barrier contraception isn't used.

As to some of these concerns, I think the definition will change closer to somebody who earns income as a sex worker, rather than just anyone who receives payment. I think that will shore up a lot of the problems both with your original concerns and with the government having to be too vigilant. Additionally, in some ways, yes there’s little defined punishments for people who don’t get licensed, but theoretically the punishment therein would be that you receive none of the protections inherent in the resolution, and you couldn’t, for instance, report your income for taxes without noting you were a sex worker, at least without it being tax fraud. I don’t want to define specific criminal justice for people who don’t follow the resolution because that feels both very not-an-international-issue and also just yeah, that would end up on the receiver of the money, and there are a lot of icky instances where that would be wildly unfair.

As another note, none of this law really applies internationally. Since every part of it goes through the national government body, a lot of the punishments and other odd laws and such are on that body and not international law. Additionally, that body missing an instance of sex work would be on that person or that body, but certainly wouldn’t mean the WA gets them in trouble or anything, at least I wouldn’t think so.

[Thousand Branches]

With earlier comments in mind, the definition of sex worker has been changed to:

“a “sex worker” is any consenting adult who receives a source of income from sexual services, performances, or any other consensual sexual act;”

[Uan aa Boa]

My interpretation is that where you say nations must mandate the use of barrier contraception you're fine, because government mandates aren't always followed. But when you say nations must create a public body that must register all sex workers then strictly speaking when one slips through the net the government is non-compliant with international law. It's a question of wording the requirements so that they're achievable.

[Thousand Branches]

My interpretation is that where you say nations must mandate the use of barrier contraception you're fine, because government mandates aren't always followed. But when you say nations must create a public body that must register all sex workers then strictly speaking when one slips through the net the government is non-compliant with international law. It's a question of wording the requirements so that they're achievable.

Fair, I can use some “reasonable” language and such to give governments some leeway on that

[Thousand Branches]

2b is updated:

“License and register all identifiable current or prospective sex workers prior to legal ability to perform sex work or be employed at a sex work institution. Before licensing any new workers, that body must:”

[Thousand Branches]

Looking to once again submit this on Saturday!

[Fortress World of Cadia]

"Why should any of this be encouraged? Sex work should be discouraged as it does not benefit society, People should be taught real jobs so they can benefit their homeland and society."

[Thousand Branches]

"Why should any of this be encouraged? Sex work should be discouraged as it does not benefit society, People should be taught real jobs so they can benefit their homeland and society."

Sorry, I don’t respect this opinion. Moving on.

[WayNeacTia]

"Why should any of this be encouraged? Sex work should be discouraged as it does not benefit society, People should be taught real jobs so they can benefit their homeland and society."

Sex work is a real job, and in my opinion should be covered under national healthcare. Studies have shown that men who have more sex live longer. Now let's say you have a committed business professional who simply does not have time for a relationship. Seeing as how they do not have time for a relationship, they obviously are not getting laid very often, and therefore is going to develop many more health and mental problems. This could be averted by the government paying for them to get laid every now and then, thus saving the healthcare system thousands in future costs.

[Thousand Branches]

One last bump, submitting tomorrow. Istg if ya’ll start having issues after I submit again, I might actually cry. Please speak up if you’ve got suggestions