Nowadays, I have been studying
the Millennium Declaration.
Until now, I have not met in it any theses fundamentally different
from those in the Hong-Kong Declaration.

As soon as the Hong-Kong Declaration of the Sexual Rights (1999) has included autoeroticism among the standards accepted by the civilization

[see the §5 of the Declaration "The right to sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure, including autoeroticism, is a source of physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual well being. "],

in the same moment the pleasure not aiming at pregnancy was included into the civilization, in this case even without any intimacy & attachment to another person, i.e. just for the sake of pleasure, sexual satisfaction and letting "the steam" blow off. 

The fault of the Declaration is that while speaking about safety and ethics in its §2, it does not include all the consequences of the non-procreative standard motivated in §5: to oblige the persons who offer the others any support for their sex to incorporate the consequences of the §5 as an inseparable ingredient of the contemporary civilization. This failing to notice the possible impact of the non-procreative practices for the HIV/AIDS-curbing and for the control of the overpopulation (with all its consequences for ecology and poverty) takes us aback as well as the failing to include the mentioned impact into the Declaration by the experts of such a World-wide organization as the WAS.

The attainment of the sex pleasure without aiming at pregnancy can

• either be 100% safe, both against diseases [STD's] AND against pregnancy (solo-sex, even if inspired without a contact [peep-show]; toys; hands in gloves [~ the medical standard of body-to-body contact]),
• or it can be only safe against pregnancy, which needs a vow (since the behaviour without the risk of pregnancy can yet involve the mutual frictions of the mucous membrane and exchange of the body fluids),
  
  • either the Registered Partnership (for the G&L)
  • or its hetero-parallel - not existing yet, anyhow systematically predictable - Oral/Anal Registered Partnership for the Heterosexuals.

The only fundamental ethical commandment sounds: not to harm anybody while possibly fully satisfying our sexual pleasure. (The sex is not about a given behaviour/activity/action but about pleasure [in some civilizations linked with spirituality]: the same /or almost the same/ pleasure can be attained by several sorts of actions, some of them fully safe.)

Think-off all the requirements which go beyond this main commandment. Leaving them out of my consideration is not easy since they are imbued into us deeply from the childhood on! It is not easy at all to think-off so many a cultural "commandment". These commandments impose the shame and bind it with the sexual pleasure. It is not easy to perform a psychical "turn about" and consider the many "holy" requirements as mere spam, for the times of HIV/AIDS! It deserves nothing less than to re-valuate as immoral what has been moral in the historical perspective, and - vice versa - what was labelled as kinky, to perform towards the fully possible satisfaction; this re-valuation - in the light of the full rational awareness - for the sake not to harm anybody, including myself. While many a sexual act in couples has been used to occur without love and warm mutuality, from now on, it should never more occur without the mentioned friendly, brother-sister love and respect to the rights of any other person involved.

The civilization & culture want to throttle sexuality (~ the only historically known style to streamline it), instead of adjusting themselves to the times of HIV/AIDS. The traditional streamlining concept tries to squeeze all the sex into the procreative model (or its penetrative simulating with condoms). - The new concept of the sex-pleasure, now only within the legal borders, faces a duel with the mentioned traditional - "cultural" (i.e. the procreative, or the as-if-procreative with condom) - concept of sex.

The legality has more open arms than the general civilization with its culture.
[The legality cannot avoid reflecting the reality, while in culture - and esp. in religion - too many persons make their jobs from the concept with no duty of the reality-feedback.]

After all the legal conditions

• of safety
  
  • (against the diseases [STD's]
  • and against an unwanted pregnancy),
• of the consensual age and
• of the consensual space are fulfilled,
  

don't let us hide any more, but rather invite the authorities (the surgeon general, police and - indeed - the deputies & politicians)!

The rightful requirements of ethics do have been reflected by the legality. (Since the legality must be expressed literally & explicitly. Culture, contrary, exerts its impact often subliminally.)

It is the civilization the requirements of which go beyond the rightfulness. We cannot change our anthropological invariables which include our drive to pleasure, and so it is the culture which must adjust to the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. 

The word "sexuarium" has two meanings:
(1) it can be a building (or an enclosed space) covering all the toys and tools of the richest sex-shop & everything we are allowed legally to practice from porn, history and fancy;
(2) its metaphoric sense is that in any place (from bedroom to forest and beach) I am allowed to behave only in accordance with the level of my partnership (not offending the non-involved persons around, neither), i.e. like in the proper space of the physical sexuarium (see the model of sexuarium).

The sexuarium can be used to conceive pregnancy, as well: the better the pleasure, the higher probability of success, and there is no reason why not to have a nice time while the procreative sex. (The non-procreative purpose of the sexuarium has been mentioned as the first just since the percentage of the non-procreative sexual actions is prevailing.)

The consensual sex-space can by used for therapy and for the surrogate training towards initiation, too.

Specifically applied in the times of the world economy crisis:
In the times of crisis, the paradigm & structure of supply towards the specific - sexual - demand must be changed.

Incorporating the consequences of the §5 of the Hong-Kong Declaration into the commercial sex-services and the support of the sexuality will lead to their legality, and therefore to the tax-paying, as well. On one hand it will allow more persons to have new job in this industry, lowering so the unemployment. On the other hand the new concurrence will lower the prices, enabling so the threatened social layers [typically: the singles] to be satisfied safely. 

After the re-valuation of the sexual standards leading to the pleasure and satisfaction, based on the §5 of the declaration and fixed by the health authorities, the risky services can fully be put outlaw.

The authorities (the Public Health dpt. and the Surgeon General) are not allowed any more to play the role of "the dead beetle" or of the ostrich. If they will do so, let us arrange a fully safe & legal sex-action in a consensual space and - instead of hiding against the authorities & police - to invite them via their registry office. They will face two options: either not to come (which they cannot do forever), or to ascertain that there is nothing illegal and/or harmful. This will corroborate the validity of the §5, already fully valid. - Unlike the sexologists (see the case of the Declaration of WAS mentioned above), the authorities (the Surgeon General before all) are not allowed to overlook something or somebody from among their fellows-citizens/taxpayers. And if they do so, there are the common standards & methods (well known already from different spheres of social life) to make a given argument visible.

Porn(*) is boring & passive; the people need a playground of fancy, fun & creativity.
(*The mainstream, the vast majority of the porn; now taking aside the creative minority.)