[GA] Right to Sexual Privacy [Complete]

Mousebumples

Mousebumples

TNPer
Right to Sexual Privacy
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Bananaistan

Description: The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individuals to privacy in their sexual relationships,

Resolving to uphold and protect this right from undue interference, while

Affirming that society in general has a legitimate public interest in
- preventing procreation in incestuous unions,
- restricting the exploitation of vulnerable or underage individuals, and
- enforcing fair sexual ethics in professions,

Hereby:

1) Defines “individual sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken individually without any external stimulus for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of the individual,

2) Defines “collective sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken with at least one other participating individual for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants, where such acts cause no permanent physical harm to any of the participants,

3) Defines “age of consent”, for the purposes of this resolution, as the age at which an individual is considered to be legally responsible for actively consenting to engage in collective sexual activity,

4) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure, where it does not directly cause physical harm to any other individual,

5) Mandates that, subject to the exceptions listed in clause 6 of this resolution, member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any collective sexual activity between consenting individuals who have reached the age of consent where such collective sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure, where it does not directly cause physical harm to any non-participant,

6) a) Member states are permitted to establish in law prohibited degrees of consanguinity and may restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise sexual activity between individuals falling within a prohibited degree of consanguinity but only to the extent that such sexual activity could result in procreation,

b) Member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise collective sexual activity where one participant has responsibility for or authority over another participant,

c) Member states are permitted to allow the exercise of disciplinary power by organisations on members and employees who engage in sexual activity with individuals for whom they are directly professionally responsible or otherwise directly exercise authority over,

7) Mandates that, for the purposes of clause 5, member states set a biologically appropriate age of consent which gives due regard to the typical age at which the physical and emotional development of individuals in their society provides them with the capabilities of granting genuine, informed consent to participation in sexual activities, and further mandates that there shall be no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in age of consent laws,

8) Clarifies that this resolution does not require the legalisation of any materials or artefacts which may be used for the purposes of individual or collective sexual activities, however urges member states to legalise such materials or artefacts where it would not cause harm to non-participating individuals and is otherwise permitted by international law.
Click to expand...

Please vote: For, Against, Abstain, or Present.
 
Against

In my opinion, the government should not regulate what allows. It should only regulate what prohibits or causes harm to others. No citizen should agree that the government regulate private activity.
 
This is a WA proposal, not national legislation. It infringes upon the national sovereignty of member states and compels them to adopt a very narrow position on what is considered acceptable and unacceptable, with a very Eurocentric view on what constitutes fair laws in the public interest.

I take particular issue with the following verbiage: "where such acts cause no permanent physical harm" and "a prohibited degree of consanguinity but only to the extent that such sexual activity could result in procreation."

In laymen's terms, this would force all WA members to adopt the legalization of oral and anal incest, among other things. It would also enshrine legal protection of even the most violent sexual fetishes which could be considered violations of national laws on assault or domestic violence.

I urge TNP members to consider the implications of the proposal more carefully.
 
StFrancisXavier:
Against.

Can I provide reasons for my vote here? sorry, still getting used to this!
Click to expand...
For the love of god, please do. Not enough people, in my opinion, give reasons for their votes.

Kondratev:
This is a WA proposal, not national legislation. It infringes upon the national sovereignty of member states and compels them to adopt a very narrow position on what is considered acceptable and unacceptable, with a very Eurocentric view on what constitutes fair laws in the public interest.

I take particular issue with the following verbiage: "where such acts cause no permanent physical harm" and "a prohibited degree of consanguinity but only to the extent that such sexual activity could result in procreation."

In laymen's terms, this would force all WA members to adopt the legalization of oral and anal incest, among other things. It would also enshrine legal protection of even the most violent sexual fetishes which could be considered violations of national laws on assault or domestic violence.

I urge TNP members to consider the implications of the proposal more carefully.
Click to expand...
If you don't like having your national sovereignty infringed upon, then get out of the WA.
However, I agree that "permanent physical harm" should be rephrased as something stronger, like "physical distress" or something, so we can prevent domestic violence and such, as you said.
Also, thank you for explaining your vote.
 
Kondratev:
In laymen's terms, this would force all WA members to adopt the legalization of oral and anal incest, among other things. It would also enshrine legal protection of even the most violent sexual fetishes which could be considered violations of national laws on assault or domestic violence.

I urge TNP members to consider the implications of the proposal more carefully.
Click to expand...
What is your solution, turn the government into perverts; sending surveillance cameras and bureaucrats into people houses to watch their love making to make sure that they conform to the morals and ethics of a select elite political class or worse an ethno-religious minority (and yes I mean minority because strict adherence is always a vast minority compared to just casual affiliates)

I think it is entirely in the wheel house of the General Assembly to protect the majority or in some cases minories that just want to live their lives in private without the overbearing pressure of authoritarian societies and religions that would seek to condemn and destroy them over what they do in consent and private.

I would also say that characterizing this as forcing states to legalize abuse and etc is a big rewriting of the actual wording. It allows states to still set ages of consent, as well as not forcing a centralized meaning of the word consent. Its very easy to internally define consent to protect against "domestic abuse", it can easily still be prosecuted in your nation by defining consent as "non-coerced permission".
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top