After World War 2 the victorious Allies had to contend with the challenge of how to bring the Nazi leadership to justice for their actions during the War.
The Nazis defense included that their actions were not illegal under German Law . Although some have dissented on the process and outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials the Nazi leadership were convicted on the basis of there being a Law which is intuitively known and above all laws created by states. Although Nazi atrocities were legal they remained atrocities. Similarly depravity remains depravity even if made legal.
Some persons claim ” privacy rights” to depraved behaviour such as fisting, felching, rimming, “farming” , scat , watersports, etc because they fail to recognize what is explained in the article below i.e. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights can only be of value if it is underpinned by a moral law.
Where does that moral law come from ?
Higher Law vs. Horizontal Law
The Constitution states that it is “the supreme law of the land” (Art. 6). This can’t mean that it is the supreme moral law of the land since there is very little of what we think of moral law in it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land only in terms of what powers are actually enumerated in the document itself. If the Constitution does not address a topic, it has no authority over it and therefore does not carry the validity of “supreme law.” The Constitution assumes an existing body of moral law. That’s why you will not find a prohibition against murder, rape, theft, marriage. These moral issues were settled by the populations of the various colonies (and later states) and were written into their law codes. Paul Campos, law professor at the University of Colorado, is nearly correct when he writes:
Like all hotly contested questions of constitutional law, the question of whether abortion is a constitutional right has nothing to do with the meaning of the Constitution. What decides constitutional questions are the political preferences and ideological inclinations of federal judges, and nothing more.
And where are these “political preferences and ideological inclinations” found and shaped? That’s the real and only meaningful question, and it’s the question that modern-day jurists do not want to answer. Attempts are made to anchor present judicial decisions in previous decisions. That only takes them back a notch. At some point, there has to be a final notch. The anchor must come to rest on something solid, unmovable, and ultimately stable. While the proper understanding of a fixed law might change, the law itself and its transcendent origin cannot.
A Tragic Case Of Ignorance
Published: Tuesday | December 11, 201211 Comments
I would be grateful if you would publish this open letter to Ms Shirley Richards:
I write with reference to your column published in the December 9 edition of The Sunday Gleaner under the caption ‘Wrestling with rights’.
As a member of the religiously conservative Lawyers Christian Fellowship, your ignorance of the source of modern human rights is understandable. After all, the theology your group exists to promote once supported such heinous practices as slavery, requiring a woman to marry her rapist, and the stoning to death of individuals found engaging in adultery. Or would you say that your theology has evolved from those original biblical injunctions?
Permit me, as a human-rights lecturer, to update you on a few things regarding the evolution of human rights:
First, before 1948, there was no universal standard of ‘human rights’. Up to that point, each state determined the rights enjoyed by its citizens. The result was that Germany thought it was fine to kill millions of Jews, the Spanish government had no problem with executing millions of ‘heretics’ who didn’t subscribe to Catholicism, slavery was permissible, and even today, Christians are publicly beheaded in some Muslim countries for daring to preach the gospel.
Partly in response to these (so-often-religion-inspired) atrocities, the world decided in 1948 to inaugurate the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). This established basic human rights standards for all citizens of earth, simply because they are humans. A state may grant human rights protection over and above those found in the UDHR, but not less. While the UDHR was not a binding treaty, it inspired the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and that is a binding treaty.
States could certainly exceed the protections afforded by the ICCPR, but must never provide for less. Jamaica ratified this treaty in 1975 and is, therefore, bound by it. Among other things, the treaty provides that the UN Human Rights Committee will interpret its provisions and assess the states’ compliance. In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee found that a law similar to Jamaica’s which criminalised the right of consenting adults to engage in their private acts of intimacy was a violation of the rights to privacy, as well as protection from cruel and inhuman treatment, and the right to equality before the law.
jamaica in violation
By maintaining the anti-buggery law, Jamaica is, therefore, in violation of its human-rights obligations, and the relativist arguments you raise, clothed in bigoted sophistry, will not change that fact.
You, Madam, are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are NOT entitled to your own set of facts. I would certainly hope the recent barbaric attack at the University of Technology, which you belatedly and disingenuously condemned, demonstrated the immense harm that results from the anti-gay animus you and other fundamentalist Christians are whipping up in Jamaica. You are as guilty as the hooligans who so savagely abused this young man.
In this regard, I would like to commend to you the excellent article by the associate editor of The Gleaner, Byron Buckley, which was also published in The Sunday Gleaner of even date. The horrendous UTech attack has obviously caused Mr Buckley to experience an evolution in his thinking and he has abandoned his previous position that the privacy rights of consenting adults should be sacrificed for some perceived moving target of “general morality”. (http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20111225/cleisure/cleisure2.html).
It is indeed tragic that you, as a member of the noble legal profession, refuse to allow evidence-based logic to help you to grow beyond the narrow confines of your harmful ideology.
Maurice Tomlinson is a former human-rights lecturer at UTech. Email feedback to firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com.
What is felching?
Felching is sucking (usually your own) cum out of someone’s arse, possibly with a straw. It may then include passing the spunk from mouth to mouth.
What’s the attraction?
Many of us are drawn towards tasting or swallowing cum (our own or others). It can mean taking into the body something seen as valued and potent.
Felching can also signify the end of the sex act. This meaning is even stronger if the cum’s been inside the other man as it’s a strong sign of two men joining together in a very intimate, ‘no limits’ way.
A strong, ‘piggy’ erotic charge comes from breaking the taboos around cleanliness and health that come with taking into your mouth something that’s been up another man’s arse.
Last review: 30/09/2011
Next review: 30/09/2013
Also known in personal ads and internet profiles as:
- on the left (wants to fist)
- on the right (wants to be fisted)
- round the neck (both gives and takes a fist).
What is fisting?
Fisting involves putting a hand, sometimes forearm, into another man’s arse, occasionally going up as far as the lower (sigmoid) colon. It doesn’t mean clenching your fist into a ball and pushing it into someone’s arse hole, which is usually not possible. Instead fingers are kept pointing straight and close together; a fist shape can be made once inside the arse.
Punch fucking is inserting a clenched fist in and out of the hole, like a cock pumps an arse. Due to the difficulties and potential dangers of doing this it’s best left to advanced fisters.
Double fisting means putting two hands inside the arse.
Piston fucking or jackhammering is when one man puts his dick and hand inside the other man’s arse, then wanks himself off inside the guy’s arse.
Chariot racing is when one fister fists two men (one hand in each arse).
The 2006 Gay Men’s Sex Survey found that in the previous 12 months 13% of men had fisted or been fisted. Fisting was almost twice as common as being fisted.
What’s the attraction?
Fisting fans call it the ultimate sexual experience, involving intense feelings of trust, intimacy and vulnerability. A guy being fisted is putting himself in the other man’s hands.
Fisting allows direct stimulation of the prostate (known as the ‘male’ G spot), the walnut shaped gland inside the arse where the base of the dick ends, below the belly button. Stroking it gives stronger orgasms. Manipulating the prostate triggers in the bottom the desire to piss, even with an empty bladder: this can be very pleasurable. A fister may be able to trigger an orgasm in the fistee, even though his cock is soft.
When the fister’s hand first enters the arse, the sensation is like being fucked by a large cock, but more powerful. Most cocks aren’t wide or long enough to do what a fist can: fill the rectum, prod the far side or go through the lower colon. So taking a hand is much more intense.
As the fister moves his hand deep inside, trying to get the best position to move through the sphincter of the lower (sigmoid) colon, the pulsating sensations coming from the fistee’s arse can become so strong that he can almost lose touch with the real world. When the fister finds the sphincter to the colon and moves his hand through it, the waves of pleasure can become even more intense. The pleasure centre is inside the body and this feeling is a real buzz for the fistee: he senses something moving within his body, not at the surface.
Some say the rhythmic pumping of a hand up and down and around inside the colon is bliss, that no other sexual sensation comes close. If the fistee can take the fister’s hand clenched into a fist – making it wider so it rubs more against the muscular wall of the colon – the sensations get even stronger. This shouldn’t be painful.
The pleasure can be so strong and come in such strong waves that a fistee might almost feel hypnotised. This is deep fisting, and a fistee only comes to this with time and patience. A man regularly fisted by the same guy can be played like a musical instrument by his top, which is where the top gets his pleasure.
When a man’s being fisted and experiencing the pleasure coming from his arse, he doesn’t think about his cock – it stays soft. Even if the fistee plays with it during fisting, it’s unlikely he’d get an erection unless he’s taken a drug like Viagra. The fistee’s mind is totally concentrated on his arse and the feelings coming from inside him.
The fist is a potent symbol of masculine strength. Taking one inside can represent an even more powerful act of penetration, domination and surrender than taking a cock. Fisters can see themselves as a select group of hardcore men marked out by an act that shocks and disturbs the more conventional and less sexually adventurous.
Fisting involves pushing your limits, and for some the feeling of a man reaching deep inside them can’t be beaten. A regular fuck with a cock just might not be fulfilling enough, especially if you want to feel your ring being stretched and your insides probed like never before.
Last review: 30/09/2011
Next review: 30/09/2013