[DEFEATED] Regulating the Sex Industry

[Goobergunchia]

Now a standalone idea!! Feedback would be greatly appreciated of course

Regulating the Sex Industry
---------
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Labor Rights
---------

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that regulations must be put in place to protect the rights and freedoms of sex workers and to prevent potential injustices in the sex industry; hereby enacts as follows:

1. In this resolution,
   
   
   1. a “sex worker” is any consenting adult who receives a source of income from sexual services, performances, or any other consensual sexual act;
      
      
   2. a “sex work institution” is any club, brothel, network, or other organization that provides an avenue for legal sex work or employs legal sex workers.
   
   
2. Member nations that legalize any form of sex work must establish a national body for the regulation of the sex industry in their nation. That body must:
   
   
   1. Establish and upkeep a private and impartial channel for reporting and addressing abuse, unfair treatment, discrimination, or subversion of individual rights in any sex work context; Any valid reported complaints must be investigated thoroughly by said body.
      
      
   2. 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:
      
      
      1. Confirm those workers are of legal age of consent in their nation and do not have a history of sex offences or abuses towards sex workers;
         
         
      2. Inform workers of their individual rights during sex work, including their rights to consent and protection;
         
         
      3. Clarify that any violation or transgression of the mandates in this resolution may result in criminal justice or the loss or suspension of their sex work license, and that any abuse or violence inflicted non-consensually as a part of sex work will result in permanent revocation of sex work license;
      
      
   3. Put protections in place to prevent sex workers from facing physical, sexual, or psychological abuse/violence during sex work or as a part of any employment at a sex work institution;
      
      
   4. Provide and mandate the usage of barrier contraception during any form of sex work involving penetration;
   
   
3. Sex work institutions must:
   
   
   1. Not participate in sex trafficking, blackballing, or any other form of physical, sexual, or psychological harm to their employees in an effort to subvert those workers' right to consent;
      
      
   2. Abide by the same laws, regulations, and responsibilities as in any other industry, including health, safety, and compensation regulations;
   
   
4. 1. Any participants in sex work must receive complete STI testing – or vaccination when it is available – prior to skin-on-skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids, and must continue to receive testing on all STIs (that are not covered by prior vaccination) on a regular and frequent basis while they continue to participate in said sexual contact.
      
      
      1. All such testing and vaccination is provided to sex workers by this national body free of charge or at as low a price as possible
      
      
   2. Any participant in sex work who has contracted an STI may not participate in skin-on-skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids as a part of any kind of sex work until the time in which that STI is fully and verifiably cured or treated to the point where it is no longer sexually transmittable.
      
      
   3. Participants in skin-on-skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids as a part of sex work must inform all other participants prior to said contact if they carry any incurable STIs that have been treated to a point of non-transmissibility. Parties privy to STI-related medical information due to this provision are not permitted to share that information with any other individuals except:
      
      
      1. Upon receipt of a positive test for that STI, in which case they may only share said information with the medical professional testing or treating them.
         
         
      2. To the minimum extent necessary for the reporting and subsequent official investigation/enforcement of any violations of this resolution.
         
         
      3. Upon consent of the sex worker or participant whose medical information is being shared.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that regulations must be put in place to protect the rights and freedoms of sex workers and to prevent potential injustices in the sex industry; hereby enacts as follows:

1. In this resolution,
   
   
   1. a “sex worker” is any consenting adult who receives pecuniary payment in return for sexual services, performances, or any other consensual sexual act;
      
      
   2. a “sex work institution” is any club, brothel, network, or other organization that provides an avenue for legal sex work or employs legal sex workers.
2. Member nations that legalize any form of sex work must establish a national body for the regulation of the sex industry in their nation. All such bodies must establish an impartial channel for reporting and addressing abuse, unfair treatment, or subversion of individual rights in any sex work institution; Any valid reported complaints must be investigated thoroughly by said body.
   
   
3. Every sex worker must be employed at a sex work institution and those sex work institutions must be licensed, registered, and regularly inspected by this national body to ensure that:
   
   
   1. Protections are put in place to prevent sex workers from facing physical, sexual, or psychological abuse/violence during sex work or as a part of any employment at a sex work institution;
      
      
   2. Sex workers are allowed to form labor unions (and meet regularly) to advocate for fair pay, fair working conditions, or to protest infringements of their rights;
      
      
   3. Prior to employment at any sex work institution, future workers are informed of their individual rights during sex work, including their rights to consent and protection;
      
      
   4. No sex work institution participates in sex trafficking, blackballing, or any other form of physical, sexual, or psychological harm to their employees in an effort to subvert those workers' right to consent;
      
      
   5. All sex workers, employers, employer agents, and clients confirm through this national body, prior to employment or participation in sex work, that they are of legal age of consent in their nation and do not have a history of abuse, sex offenses, or any other action that might lead to the harm of others involved;
      
      
   6. All sex work institutions abide by the same laws, regulations, and responsibilities as in any other industry, including health, safety, and compensation regulations;
      
      
   7. Sex work institutions provide and mandate the usage of barrier contraception during any form of sex work involving penetration; and
      
      
   8. Sex work institutions and employers are made aware that any violation or transgression of the aforementioned mandates may result in criminal justice or the loss or suspension of a sex work license.
4. 1. Any participants in sex work must receive complete STI testing – or vaccination when it is available – prior to skin-on-skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids, and must continue to receive testing on all STIs (that are not covered by prior vaccination) on a regular and frequent basis while they continue to participate in said sexual contact. All such testing and vaccination for sex workers is provided by the employer of those workers.
      
      
   2. Any client or sex worker who has contracted an STI may not participate in skin-on-skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids as a part of any kind of sex work until the time in which that STI is fully and verifiably cured or treated to the point where it is no longer sexually transmittable.
      
      
   3. Participants in skin-on-skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids as a part of sex work must inform all other participants if they carry any incurable STIs that have been treated to a point of non-transmissibility.

Acknowledging that regulations must be put in place to protect the rights and freedoms of sex workers and to prevent potential injustices in the sex industry;

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   1. a “sex worker” as any consenting adult who receives pecuniary payment in return for sexual services, performances, or any other consensual sexual act;
      
   2. a “sex work institution” as any club, brothel, network, or other organization that provides an avenue for legal sex work or employs legal sex workers;
2. Requires any member nation that legalizes any form of sex work to establish a national body for the regulation of the sex industry in their nation;
   
3. Obliges that each of these bodies must establish an impartial channel for reporting and addressing abuse, unfair treatment, or subversion of individual rights in any sex work institution;
   
4. Mandates that all sex work institutions must be licensed, registered, and regularly inspected (and per the aforementioned reports) by this body to ensure that:
   
   1. Protections are put in place to prevent sex workers from facing physical, sexual, or psychological abuse/violence during sex work.
   2. Sex workers are allowed to form labor unions (and meet regularly) to advocate for fair pay, working conditions, or to protest infringements of their rights.
   3. Prior to employment at any sex work institution, future workers are informed of their individual rights during sex work, including their rights to consent and protection.
   4. No sex work institution participates in sex trafficking, blackballing, or any other form of physical, sexual, or psychological harm to their employees in an effort to subvert those workers' right to consent.
   5. All sex workers, employers, employer agents, and clients confirm their identities prior to any kind of sex work in order to ensure they are of legal age of consent in their nation and do not have a history of abuse, sex offenses, or any other action that might lead to the harm of others involved.
   6. All sex work institutions abide by the same laws, regulations, and responsibilities as in any other industry, including health, safety, and compensation regulations.
   7. Sex work institutions provide and mandate the usage of barrier contraception during any form of sex work involving penetration.
   8. Sex work institutions and employers are made aware that any violation or transgression of the aforementioned mandates may result in criminal justice or the loss/suspension of sex work license.
5. Affirms that precautions must be taken to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STI) among participants in sex work:
   
   1. Any participants in sex work must receive complete STI testing - or vaccination when it is available - prior to skin on skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids, and must continue to receive testing on all STIs (that are not covered by prior vaccination) on a regular and frequent basis while they continue to participate in said sexual contact.
   2. Any client or sex worker who has contracted an STI may not participate in skin on skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids as a part of any kind of sex work until the time in which that STI is fully and verifiably cured or treated to the point where it is no longer sexually transmittable.
   3. Participants in skin on skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids as a part of sex work must inform all other participants if they carry any incurable STIs that have been treated to a point of non-transmissibility.

[/list]

[Thousand Branches]

Reserved

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:

At a bare minimum, until the GA179's guarantee of the ability of a state to choose to ban sex work entirely is included, the entire resolution is a non-starter regardless of any other merits it might have, assuming you, for whatever reason, insist on repealing 179.

That said, looking it over, I really do not see why you are insistent on a repeal. You would need GenSec to weigh in for certain, but I believe, at least in terms of legality, this would be fine with 179 still on the books. There is, perhaps, a bit of duplication, but I would err towards arguing it is minor as compared to the other provisions.

[Thousand Branches]

OOC:

At a bare minimum, until the GA179's guarantee of the ability of a state to choose to ban sex work entirely is included, the entire resolution is a non-starter regardless of any other merits it might have, assuming you, for whatever reason, insist on repealing 179.

That said, looking it over, I really do not see why you are insistent on a repeal. You would need GenSec to weigh in for certain, but I believe, at least in terms of legality, this would be fine with 179 still on the books. There is, perhaps, a bit of duplication, but I would err towards arguing it is minor as compared to the other provisions.

I included the first clause solely to provide for the problem discussed in that first paragraph? It literally says basically “this resolution is continuing the trend of neutrality when it comes to the legality of sex work as a whole”. I mean like what else could that possibly mean? Is that just unclear? Am I just really stupid? I really don’t think so o.o

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:

At a bare minimum, until the GA179's guarantee of the ability of a state to choose to ban sex work entirely is included, the entire resolution is a non-starter regardless of any other merits it might have, assuming you, for whatever reason, insist on repealing 179.

That said, looking it over, I really do not see why you are insistent on a repeal. You would need GenSec to weigh in for certain, but I believe, at least in terms of legality, this would be fine with 179 still on the books. There is, perhaps, a bit of duplication, but I would err towards arguing it is minor as compared to the other provisions.

I included the first clause solely to provide for the problem discussed in that first paragraph? It literally says basically “this resolution is continuing the trend of neutrality when it comes to the legality of sex work as a whole”. I mean like what else could that possibly mean? Is that just unclear? Am I just really stupid? I really don’t think so o.o

It is a preambulatory clause, and is, therefore, legally meaningless fluff that does nothing. You have to phrase it as an affirmative grant of power to member states, or an outright denial of power to the GA as an active clause after the "The World Assembly hereby:" bit (you should also move your definitions after that as well, by the way, as that is the traditional separating point between the meaningless fluff preamble clauses and the legally binding active clauses).

Edit: Though, again, I think the smarter thing to do is just drop the repeal entirely and focus on this resolution, and then that issue ceases to be relevant anyway.

[Thousand Branches]

It is a preambulatory clause, and is, therefore, legally meaningless fluff that does nothing. You have to phrase it as an affirmative grant of power to member states, or an outright denial of power to the GA as an active clause after the "The World Assembly hereby:" bit (you should also move your definitions after that as well, by the way, as that is the traditional separating point between the meaningless fluff preamble clauses and the legally binding active clauses).

Hmm I don’t think I ever intend for anything in my writing to be meaningless fluff. I suppose I can just move “The World Assembly hereby” to the beginning? As far as I was reading the GA rules, I really didn’t see anything about this. Although in your defense, I am known for being a blind old bat. That does however seem like an odd rule because why would you ever want to specifically invite fluff into a resolution? I’m no legal nerd but I tend to think legislation is never meant to be fluff. Also the later mention of tradition makes me wonder if that bit is tradition too? Very confused now xD

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

It is a preambulatory clause, and is, therefore, legally meaningless fluff that does nothing. You have to phrase it as an affirmative grant of power to member states, or an outright denial of power to the GA as an active clause after the "The World Assembly hereby:" bit (you should also move your definitions after that as well, by the way, as that is the traditional separating point between the meaningless fluff preamble clauses and the legally binding active clauses).

Hmm I don’t think I ever intend for anything in my writing to be meaningless fluff. I suppose I can just move “The World Assembly hereby” to the beginning? As far as I was reading the GA rules, I really didn’t see anything about this. Although in your defense, I am known for being a blind old bat. That does however seem like an odd rule because why would you ever want to specifically invite fluff into a resolution? I’m no legal nerd but I tend to think legislation is never meant to be fluff. Also the later mention of tradition makes me wonder if that bit is tradition too? Very confused now xD

You want the rule that requires resolutions to be written as laws. Simply moving the "The World Assembly hereby" will not actually do anything.

Preambulatory clauses are about justifying your resolution. "Wishing, hoping, believing, finding, claiming, acknowledging" and other such verbs introduce those kinds of clauses. Most resolutions have them to present arguments about WHY the stuff that comes later should be done but they do not actually do anything. You can, in fact, contradict them later all you want without running afoul of the contradiction rule. Ultimately, this is the fluff section. Some writers, like IA, often dispense with this entirely, especially if low on space.

Active clauses are what your resolution does. Verbs like "directs, commands, reserves, orders, enacts, compels," etc... are verbs introducing those kinds of clauses. You need these. These are actual legislation.

In your resolution, the first two clauses are preambulatory clauses. They do not create any law. If you stopped the resolution after them, it would be illegal for failing to have an active clause.

The rest of your clauses are active clauses.

If you wanted to write an active clause to maintain WA neutrality you would write something like:
"Reaffirms the right of member states to determine the legality of sex work within their borders" (if no repeal)
or
"Reserves to member states the right to determine the legality of sex work within their borders" (freestanding clause).

[Thousand Branches]

Hmm I don’t think I ever intend for anything in my writing to be meaningless fluff. I suppose I can just move “The World Assembly hereby” to the beginning? As far as I was reading the GA rules, I really didn’t see anything about this. Although in your defense, I am known for being a blind old bat. That does however seem like an odd rule because why would you ever want to specifically invite fluff into a resolution? I’m no legal nerd but I tend to think legislation is never meant to be fluff. Also the later mention of tradition makes me wonder if that bit is tradition too? Very confused now xD

You want the rule that requires resolutions to be written as laws. Simply moving the "The World Assembly hereby" will not actually do anything.

Preambulatory clauses are about justifying your resolution. "Wishing, hoping, believing, finding, claiming, acknowledging" and other such verbs introduce those kinds of clauses. Most resolutions have them to present arguments about WHY the stuff that comes later should be done but they do not actually do anything. You can, in fact, contradict them later all you want without running afoul of the contradiction rule. Ultimately, this is the fluff section. Some writers, like IA, often dispense with this entirely, especially if low on space.

Active clauses are what your resolution does. Verbs like "directs, commands, reserves, orders, enacts, compels," etc... are verbs introducing those kinds of clauses. You need these. These are actual legislation.

In your resolution, the first two clauses are preambulatory clauses. They do not create any law. If you stopped the resolution after them, it would be illegal for failing to have an active clause.

The rest of your clauses are active clauses.

If you wanted to write an active clause to maintain WA neutrality you would write something like:
"Reaffirms the right of member states to determine the legality of sex work within their borders" (if no repeal)
or
"Reserves to member states the right to determine the legality of sex work within their borders" (freestanding clause).

Ah!! That does make sense, it isn’t fluff, it’s just argument rather than legislation Fair enough, I’ll make the change soon ^-^

[WayNeacTia]

Mandates that any club, brothel, network, institution, or other organization that practices any form of sex work must be licensed, registered, and inspected regularly by this body to ensure the undermentioned mandates are being clearly and properly carried out:

So let me get this straight? Escorts, whom work out of their homes on the side are now required to be licensed by the WA? How exactly is that going to be enforced? You are essentially killing off the living of a great many people, and will bankrupt the General Fund within a week with all the paperwork that will need to be sent out. Congratulations!

Clients, procurers, and sex workers must be regularly and thoroughly tested for sexually transmitted infections prior to any skin on skin sexual contact.

How in the fuck are you planning on enforcing this one? STI passports now? Do you really think a person whom is perusing the classifieds looking for a quick fuck is going to go out beforehand and make sure they are tested for STI's? You really haven't thought this one through it seems.

Additionally, any client, procurer, or sex worker who contracts an STI may not participate in skin on skin sexual contact as a part of any kind of sex work until the time in which that STI is fully and verifiably cured.

Same as above. You obviously don't understand the oldest profession in history do you?

All in all a lot of fluff and unenforceable mandates. You believed that #179 was an easy mark for a repeal, but no one would pass that repeal unless a replacement was ready, and managed to throw two gutter balls for the price of one. I'll be generous as you are new and give it a 5/10 for effort. Still wouldn't vote for it.

[Thousand Branches]

So let me get this straight? Escorts, whom work out of their homes on the side are now required to be licensed by the WA? How exactly is that going to be enforced? You are essentially killing off the living of a great many people, and will bankrupt the General Fund within a week with all the paperwork that will need to be sent out. Congratulations!

Yep But also no… Escorts would classify as a network and yes, they would have to be licensed as a network so they could be properly regulated. It really doesn’t seem all that difficult to enforce, if you do sex work, you get licensed and regulated to do sex work. If you do it at home I don’t see that many things changing tbh? I don’t even see where you connected the dots to the General Fund…

How in the fuck are you planning on enforcing this one? STI passports now? Do you really think a person whom is perusing the classifieds looking for a quick fuck is going to go out beforehand and make sure they are tested for STI's? You really haven't thought this one through it seems.

Oh no, I have. Thanks for belittling my time, effort, and research btw, it’s appreciated. And uh yeah you answered your own question here. If you want a “quick fuck” and you aren’t tested for sexually transmitted disease, as they say in NSGP: “cope harder”. I don’t much care how the individual member states enforce that, but it really isn’t that hard to just keep documentation on you when you go into a brothel. Yes, this does put a damper on the industry of the “quick fuck/hot milfs in your area” business, but considering that is where a majority of STI is spread, I really don’t think being tested is such a horrible thing, do you? Besides, if nothing else this would just encourage more people to get STI tested regularly, which tbh I also don’t think would be a horrible thing.

You believed that #179 was an easy mark for a repeal, but no one would pass that repeal unless a replacement was ready,

Okay most of this last bit is sarcastic drivel so I don’t intend on responding (oh no Wayne gave me a 5/10 how will I ever cope!!!). However, this bit is especially funny to me because… yeah isn’t that literally the point of repealing and replacing? I mean yeah it’s spun in such a way to make it sound like the most evil thing in the world, but literally yeah. I found an old GA resolution that I thought could be greatly improved upon and put in the time and effort to write a replacement so people could trust that I wouldn’t be leaving the GA without any legislation at all on the topic. That’s literally saying the same thing but in nicer and more realistic words (I mean seriously, do you think I wrote these resolutions for some kind of malicious purpose?). Funny how tone works, isn’t it?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

<snip>

As with much of your output of late, this level of hostility was uncalled for. I've heard misery loves company, but spreading it doesn't seem to be making you feel any better. So could you maybe cut it out before the few remaining tatters of the GA's reputation die off and we stop getting new players entirely?

Thanks!

---

IC: "Ambassador, while we have no intrinsic problems with the proposal, there are a couple of concerns. The medical costs provision makes little sense. If sex work is legal, then the work itself ought to follow standard laws regarding workers' compensation and the like. In hazardous lines of work where nations don't cover all health costs as a matter of course, there are funding mechanisms for workplace injuries and illnesses contracted as part of the job. Nations with so-called 'socialized medicine' ought to decide for themselves whether to simply cover all workplace injuries and illnesses, or assess fees to employers with higher rates of healthcare usage or causation. Wording to that effect should be relatively simple, though if you have trouble we're more than happy to assist."

"Then, we question the apparent assumption that a 'procurer' might be a lawful participant in a legalized sex industry. If the so-called 'procurer' is someone who simply connects workers and clients, analogous to an actor's or author's agent, then that person cannot reasonably be responsible for the obligations you've accrued to 'procurers.' Meanwhile if they can be held responsible for those things, then they are either employers, no different from the 'employers' you already account for; or they are pimps, which necessarily exploit people and should not be permitted to exist no matter what the law on sex work itself may be. In short: drop the word 'procurer' because those called that are either employers within ordinary law; middlemen with limited scope; or criminals which deserve no special consideration."

[Thousand Branches]

IC: "Ambassador, while we have no intrinsic problems with the proposal, there are a couple of concerns. The medical costs provision makes little sense. If sex work is legal, then the work itself ought to follow standard laws regarding workers' compensation and the like. In hazardous lines of work where nations don't cover all health costs as a matter of course, there are funding mechanisms for workplace injuries and illnesses contracted as part of the job. Nations with so-called 'socialized medicine' ought to decide for themselves whether to simply cover all workplace injuries and illnesses, or assess fees to employers with higher rates of healthcare usage or causation. Wording to that effect should be relatively simple, though if you have trouble we're more than happy to assist."

"Then, we question the apparent assumption that a 'procurer' might be a lawful participant in a legalized sex industry. If the so-called 'procurer' is someone who simply connects workers and clients, analogous to an actor's or author's agent, then that person cannot reasonably be responsible for the obligations you've accrued to 'procurers.' Meanwhile if they can be held responsible for those things, then they are either employers, no different from the 'employers' you already account for; or they are pimps, which necessarily exploit people and should not be permitted to exist no matter what the law on sex work itself may be. In short: drop the word 'procurer' because those called that are either employers within ordinary law; middlemen with limited scope; or criminals which deserve no special consideration."

Fair commentary! Admittedly I sometimes forget that this resolution does not stand on its own. My weakness in GA writing is definitely my lack of knowledge on every passed proposal I also think my small brain is preventing me from entirely understanding what you mean in the first paragraph, so I really would much appreciate help with the writing and the meaning of what I should be changing there

As for the second clause, I’ll admit I was mostly thinking of pimps. I hadn’t eden considered that those would be illegal in and of themselves. Of course history suggests that procurers often do end up being part of the sexual process but if there is already legislation outlawing that, I am happy to remove the word

[Sierra Lyricalia]

IC: "Ambassador, while we have no intrinsic problems with the proposal, there are a couple of concerns. The medical costs provision makes little sense. If sex work is legal, then the work itself ought to follow standard laws regarding workers' compensation and the like. In hazardous lines of work where nations don't cover all health costs as a matter of course, there are funding mechanisms for workplace injuries and illnesses contracted as part of the job. Nations with so-called 'socialized medicine' ought to decide for themselves whether to simply cover all workplace injuries and illnesses, or assess fees to employers with higher rates of healthcare usage or causation. Wording to that effect should be relatively simple, though if you have trouble we're more than happy to assist."

"Then, we question the apparent assumption that a 'procurer' might be a lawful participant in a legalized sex industry. If the so-called 'procurer' is someone who simply connects workers and clients, analogous to an actor's or author's agent, then that person cannot reasonably be responsible for the obligations you've accrued to 'procurers.' Meanwhile if they can be held responsible for those things, then they are either employers, no different from the 'employers' you already account for; or they are pimps, which necessarily exploit people and should not be permitted to exist no matter what the law on sex work itself may be. In short: drop the word 'procurer' because those called that are either employers within ordinary law; middlemen with limited scope; or criminals which deserve no special consideration."

Fair commentary! Admittedly I sometimes forget that this resolution does not stand on its own. My weakness in GA writing is definitely my lack of knowledge on every passed proposal I also think my small brain is preventing me from entirely understanding what you mean in the first paragraph, so I really would much appreciate help with the writing and the meaning of what I should be changing there

As for the second clause, I’ll admit I was mostly thinking of pimps. I hadn’t eden considered that those would be illegal in and of themselves. Of course history suggests that procurers often do end up being part of the sexual process but if there is already legislation outlawing that, I am happy to remove the word

I suppose we're doing this all OOC, then. OK.

1. The medical costs provision:

If a sex worker contracts an STI of any kind, their procurer or employer must compensate those workers for any medical costs associated with the treatment of that STI, including a permanent stipend if that STI requires permanent treatment or medication.

Let's say you have a factory or construction worker who gets injured on the job; or an office worker with the easily predictable and endemic condition of carpal tunnel syndrome. In the US and UK, that person would file a claim for workers compensation insurance payouts from privately funded insurers; in France, that person would receive free state-funded medical care, plus salary compensation for missed workdays from the social security system. Other countries may do things differently from either of those regimes. The vast spectrum of possible funding mechanisms for both healthcare and workers' comp across the WA makes this provision a questionably good idea. And it serves to continue to separate fully legal sex work from other industries. Legal sex providers should be subject to exactly the same rights and responsibilities as any other employer or contractor, especially when it comes to things like occupational hazards. While sex work is different from other kinds of work, national law is still fully competent to account for its particular requirements and consequences just like any other industry or service.


2. There is not a resolution outlawing pimps. But where sex work is legalized and treated the same way as any other form of employment, the vast majority of pimps would be guilty of unfair labor practices. Including "procurers" in these provisions is problematic for the reasons I stated: if the procurer is simply a middleman (e.g. Craigslist before questionable US legislation passed), then there is no reason for them to be tested, obligated to confirm ID, or participate in sexual contact.

If the procurer is an employer of sex workers, then same as above except for the ID provision, which would best be served through an official licensing board. Though in the situation in which a manager or supervisor is also participating, that person becomes a (sex) worker for some legal purposes, like if you need a hand with some offsite IT job and your supervisor is the one who helps out, the law would treat the two of you identically if the client (say) sexually harassed one or both of you, or forced you to lay ethernet cable in an asbestos-filled room. If the manager is the one at fault, that's no different than any other employment law violation, regardless of what the worker does for a living. It's the former and current stigma of prostitutes being open season for harassment and worse that justifies special or more stringent enforcement of ordinary laws (as when the US cracked down on drunk driving through a concerted effort to make punishments for even "harmless" DUI too harsh to abide).

If the procurer is neither a middleman nor a regular employer, then they don't have a role in a legal industry. While I haven't personally contracted sex services and thus might be wrong here, I struggle to think of an example of sexual procurement that's neither middleman, employer, or straight up pimp. Some pimps might be capable of making the transition to employer in good standing; but the majority are simply criminals and would be even if sex work itself were legalized, as they make their living specifically by theft from "their" workers.

Thus having a separate category of procurers in this legislation makes no sense if sex work is truly to be legal. Therefore I'd make these changes to the Mandates section:

• Protections must be put in place... ...from any client, employer, supervisor, law enforcement officer, or other sex worker.
  ...
• All sex workers, employers, employer agents, and clients must confirm their identity...

...and simply remove the word from the Affirms section.

I sure wrote a lot of words here, so let me know if any of them are useless or convoluted. I've been sick enough (not the 'rona thankfully) that my brain feels sluggish.

(edit 2021/10/29: add additional source of harassment and assault requiring protective measures for workers

[Bears Armed]

Thus having a separate category of procurers in this legislation makes no sense if sex work is truly to be legal. Therefore I'd make these changes to the Mandates section:

• Protections must be put in place... ...from any client, employer, supervisor, law enforcement officer, or other sex worker.

OOC: That listing makes it look as though law-enforcement officers are being defined [automatically] as sex workers, so I'd change the order of the last two entries to make it

[*] Protections must be put in place... ...from any client, employer, supervisor, other sex worker, or law enforcement officer.

[Thousand Branches]

OOC: Thank you to BE and SL, I will do my best to give this bad boy a new coat of paint once I have access to a computer, editing forum stuff on a phone is very gross.

I suppose we're doing this all OOC, then. OK.

Apologies, I’m far more used to the way the Security Council runs, is there a guide somewhere as to how GA rp works?

1. The medical costs provision:

If a sex worker contracts an STI of any kind, their procurer or employer must compensate those workers for any medical costs associated with the treatment of that STI, including a permanent stipend if that STI requires permanent treatment or medication.

Let's say you have a factory or construction worker who gets injured on the job; or an office worker with the easily predictable and endemic condition of carpal tunnel syndrome. In the US and UK, that person would file a claim for workers compensation insurance payouts from privately funded insurers; in France, that person would receive free state-funded medical care, plus salary compensation for missed workdays from the social security system. Other countries may do things differently from either of those regimes. The vast spectrum of possible funding mechanisms for both healthcare and workers' comp across the WA makes this provision a questionably good idea. And it serves to continue to separate fully legal sex work from other industries. Legal sex providers should be subject to exactly the same rights and responsibilities as any other employer or contractor, especially when it comes to things like occupational hazards. While sex work is different from other kinds of work, national law is still fully competent to account for its particular requirements and consequences just like any other industry or service.

Hmm perhaps then I can reskin the clause as more of a confirmation that sex work should fall under previously set boundaries? I would still like to have something like that.

Therefore I'd make these changes to the Mandates section:

• Protections must be put in place... ...from any client, employer, supervisor, law enforcement officer, or other sex worker.
  ...
• All sex workers, employers, employer agents, and clients must confirm their identity...

...and simply remove the word from the Affirms section.

I sure wrote a lot of words here, so let me know if any of them are useless or convoluted. I've been sick enough (not the 'rona thankfully) that my brain feels sluggish.

(edit 2021/10/29: add additional source of harassment and assault requiring protective measures for workers

Thank you! I have made these changes

[Thousand Branches]

Medical costs provision has been axed and replaced

[Faerixe]

The sex industry should be regulated to prevent disease and abuse. I think people should be able to make the personal choice of being a sex worker or visiting a sex worker. But since there is a risk of health issues it should be regulated.

[Thousand Branches]

The sex industry should be regulated to prevent disease and abuse. I think people should be able to make the personal choice of being a sex worker or visiting a sex worker. But since there is a risk of health issues it should be regulated.

I agree, hence the resolution. The hope is to leave sex work as unlegislated but to establish boundaries and laws against dangerous or harmful practices and injustices that are often prevalent in the industry

EDIT: ew that sentence is so terribly written but I’m too lazy to fix it

[Xernon]

"An interesting and well written proposal! Our delegation finds itself in support of this resolution as a whole though we have two notes. First, under your 'mandates' operative clause, in the fourth bullet point, you use the words 'No house of sex work employment...' and while we understand the intent here, perhaps a clearer wording would be simply 'No place of sex work...'. Second, while we agree with the STI testing mandates under the 'affirms' operative clause, we don't see a clear mandate establishing laws or calling for member nations to create laws to address the intentional or negligent spread of STIs in the sex industry. We believe the creation of that accountability to be very important to enforce the intent of the protections. That is all, and again, well done on a great draft."

[Yaak]

No.

[Thousand Branches]

“Second, while we agree with the STI testing mandates under the 'affirms' operative clause, we don't see a clear mandate establishing laws or calling for member nations to create laws to address the intentional or negligent spread of STIs in the sex industry. We believe the creation of that accountability to be very important to enforce the intent of the protections. That is all, and again, well done on a great draft."

“So sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re asking for here, would you mind elaborating?”

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a “sex worker” as any consenting adult who receives any sort of payment in return for sexual services, performances, or any other consensual sexual act;

You should either:

(1) scrap this definition, because people already have a reasonable understanding of what a "sex worker" is; or

(2) add a whole bunch of other definitions. If I don't know what a "sex worker" is, I probably don't understand what "any sort of payment" refers to, or what a covered "sexual act" is.

Further defining a “client”, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who exchanges money, goods, or services for any sexual activity that involves either body to body contact or the exchange of bodily fluids;

Same as above. Do we really need a definition of "client"? If so, why are you creating tension between this definition and your definition of a "sex worker"? Up above you refer to sex workers being paid for "any other consensual sexual act" but now you're saying a "client" is only someone paying for "sexual activity that involves either body to body contact or the exchange of bodily fluids."

To make it more concrete: under your definitions a stripper would be a sex worker, but the people paying to watch the stripper would not be clients unless they got handsy or started flinging bodily fluids around.

Also, "exchange of bodily fluids"? Really? Gross. Who are these clients going around looking to pay people for the exchange of bodily fluids? What are we even talking about here.

Really, you don't need these definitions. I know talking to some folks is like talking to a brick wall, but come on! If folks don't understand what a sex worker and a client are you've probably already lost. Those are not unusual terms with highly-technical definitions.

I could comment a lot more but I'd prefer to see what is done with these helpful suggestions before I spend more time on this.

[Thousand Branches]

Oh wow I actually have explanations for all these things! I hope this helps clear stuff up.

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a “sex worker” as any consenting adult who receives any sort of payment in return for sexual services, performances, or any other consensual sexual act;

You should either:

(1) scrap this definition, because people already have a reasonable understanding of what a "sex worker" is; or

(2) add a whole bunch of other definitions. If I don't know what a "sex worker" is, I probably don't understand what "any sort of payment" refers to, or what a covered "sexual act" is.

I’m gonna be honest, I note here what a sex worker is for the sake of eliminating loopholes such as non-consensual sex and to make sure that these regulations are only on the actual industry of sex and not, for instance, dating apps or sex hookup things, which I don’t think should have the same regulations or fall under the same umbrella. TLDR: The definition of sex work even irl is incredibly vague and blurred and I’m hoping to make it much more concrete for the sake of this resolution.

“any sort of payment” seems pretty self explanatory, it’s just a shorter way to say “the exchange of goods and services” tbh.

“sexual act” is a little more up in the air, I may try and make that slightly clearer but I’m not entirely sure how I would tbh.

Further defining a “client”, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who exchanges money, goods, or services for any sexual activity that involves either body to body contact or the exchange of bodily fluids;

Same as above. Do we really need a definition of "client"? If so, why are you creating tension between this definition and your definition of a "sex worker"? Up above you refer to sex workers being paid for "any other consensual sexual act" but now you're saying a "client" is only someone paying for "sexual activity that involves either body to body contact or the exchange of bodily fluids."

To make it more concrete: under your definitions a stripper would be a sex worker, but the people paying to watch the stripper would not be clients unless they got handsy or started flinging bodily fluids around.

Also, "exchange of bodily fluids"? Really? Gross. Who are these clients going around looking to pay people for the exchange of bodily fluids? What are we even talking about here.

Really, you don't need these definitions. I know talking to some folks is like talking to a brick wall, but come on! If folks don't understand what a sex worker and a client are you've probably already lost. Those are not unusual terms with highly-technical definitions.

I could comment a lot more but I'd prefer to see what is done with these helpful suggestions before I spend more time on this.

Most of this I’m gonna go ahead and agree with and will remove the definition.

The only thing I have argument with is the bit arguing “the exchange of bodily fluids” is unnecessary. Perhaps this is not a part of sex work you are aware of, but it is surprisingly common. The exchange of fluids, whether in the form of spit, urine, blood, sexual fluids, etc is a notable part of sex work and something that can absolutely contribute to the spread of STI. As a note here, I will just move that bit to the STI clause but it will remain because it is a part of preventing the spread of STI.

Thank you for the advice though, I have made these edits

[Thousand Branches]

As this has very nearly fallen off the first page, bump for visibility. Still very open to advice, concerns, ideas, etc

[Minskiev]

This is more stylistic but the lists could look nicer, I think. There doesn't need to be a space in between all the list sections and the clauses above and below them.

The affirming clause could use a transition, it flows weirdly.