Of Human rights, anarchy and depravity

In his  commentary  below  Human Rights  lawyer  Hilaire  Sobers  sees  religion , and  in the context  of  Jamaica, Christianity  as  a treat  to  Human Rights  as  religion  imposes  its  morality  on  societies.

As  a  secularist, i.e  one  who  holds  the  view  that  religion should  have  no  place  in public  affairs,  Mr.  Sobers  holds  that  the  human brain  is  the source  of  moral  direction.

He  is  critical  of  the  fact  that  “Jamaican law criminalises certain private sexual acts done by consenting adults, even as we claim to uphold a right to privacy and equality under the law”.

Some  of  these  acts  include  Scat, farming, fisting, felching, rimming, chariot racing  which no  doubt  arose  from  the human  brain.

One  is  left  to  wonder  if   Mr. Sobers  is  able to distinguish between  human rights on  the  one  hand  and  anarchy   and  depravity  on  the  other.

 Mr. Sobers’  analysis also  raises  concerns  about whether  the Inter American Commission  on Human Rights  (IACHR), where  Mr. Sobers  has  been employed  since  2004 , is  able  to  make  this  distinction. 

Rev  Earl  Thames  exposed  Mr. Sobers’  folly in a letter  written  to  the Gleaner   after Mr. Sobers  addressed  rights  and  religion at  a  forum  at  the Norman Manley  Law  school  in 2012.



Scat / Things to know

Also known in personal ads and internet profiles as:

  • brown
  • dirty (as in ‘into dirty’)
  • scatology.

Hanky code

Brown worn:

  • on the left (wants to dump on you)
  • on the right (wants to be dumped on).

What is scat?

Scat involves playing with shit, smearing it on your or his body, and sometimes eating it. It can also mean just getting off on seeing another guy dump his load.

‘Farming’ is taking shit from public toilets to play with.

What’s the attraction?

Taboos around cleanliness couldn’t be more powerfully broken by shit play: it’s everything we’ve been told not to do since childhood.

Men can be drawn to scat precisely because it provokes such a strong negative reaction in others. Lovers of scat might get a kick from stepping over what for most people is the line between what’s OK and what’s too extreme. Scat is perhaps the ultimate in sex without limits or inhibitions.

Privately we’re often fascinated by our own bowel movements and excrement. Scat lets men explore and share this interest and enjoy a special bond with other lovers of shit.

For scat fans shit can excite all the senses with its warmth, texture, smell, colour and possibly taste. Just like contact with the intimate body fluids of cum, spit or piss, sex involving shit can be a sign of intense closeness as someone is offering something that’s come from deep inside them. And in an intense power play scene, nothing is more symbolic of degradation, humiliation and control than exposure to faeces.




Reason And Faith Are Like Oil And Water

Published: Tuesday | February 5, 2013Comments 0

Hilaire Sobers , Guest Columnist
Hilaire Sobers , Guest Columnist

Hilaire Sobers, Guest Columnist

In his column ‘An unexamined life is not worth living’ (Gleaner, February 1, 2013),Peter Espeut contends, “The greatest enemies of true religion are apathy, sloppy reasoning, and dishonesty.” I wouldn’t accuse Peter of being apathetic to religion. However, his column was a model of the sort of sloppy reasoning that I’ve come to expect from Christian apologists. So perhaps in that regard, “sloppy reasoning and dishonesty” are actually the allies of religion.

Peter claims that it is “all the fashion to attack religion, and Christianity in particular”. Apart from citing positions supposedly adopted by natural and social scientists, he claims that others attack Christianity out of discomfort with its “ethical demands”. This discomfort, he asserts, leads such persons “to discredit Christianity in order to legitimise their lifestyles”.

First, Christianity doesn’t need anybody to discredit it – it does a superior job all on its own. Second, the “ethical demands” go beyond simply proselytising; they seek and find political expression in laws that have the effect of imposing Christian beliefs on all individuals, whether they subscribe to Christianity or not.

This is demonstrated by the following: 1) Jamaican law continues to criminalise blasphemy and obeah, even though we claim to uphold the principle of freedom of religion; 2) Jamaican law criminalises certain private sexual acts done by consenting adults, even as we claim to uphold a right to privacy and equality under the law; 3) Jamaican law imposes a Christian notion of marriage, even in a country with several groups of non-Christians.

Christianity, given its totalitarian outlook, is the antithesis of human rights and liberal democracy. This is the principal basis upon which many secularists, including me, attack religion, and more particularly, Christianity. Objection to Christian tyranny is not about legitimising lifestyles; it’s about combating an institution (religion) that is more interested in imposing its own brand of morality than in protecting the inherent dignity and rights of all.

Contrary to Peter’s claim, it’s not true religion that leads to liberation of people; it’s respect for their human rights that does. That’s what the Enlightenment project was, and continues to be all about – ensuring that we do not return to that period when religion was in the ascendancy – the Dark Ages.

I’m rather amused by Peter’s tortured treatment of science and religion. For him, science is incapable of refuting the existence of God, contending that “positivist or empirical sciences accept as data only those phenomena which can be observed and measured”.


He goes on to say, “By definition, God is a spirit, not detectable by the human senses or scientific instruments.” This, of course, raises the obvious question: If God is not detectable by the human senses or scientific instruments, on what basis can Peter (a human, I presume) claim any knowledge of God’s existence?

According to Peter, belief in the existence of God is a matter of faith, not science. If God exists as a matter of faith, and not science, does that not mean that Santa Claus, Thor, Zeus, and Mithra also exist as a matter of “faith”?

What Peter seems not to appreciate is that faith and knowledge are not one and the same – this is demonstrated most egregiously in his claim that theology is “queen of the sciences”. Theology, given its faith foundation, is more a branch of mythology than science. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a deity. To say that atheism has the characteristics of a religion is as fatuous as claiming that not collecting stamps has the characteristic of a hobby.

Peter complains that many people who enter this debate ” are not rigorous enough in their arguments”, and “have only a passing acquaintance with religion, or a shallow understanding of science”. Given Peter’s command of religion, my parting shot would be “two out of three ain’t bad “.

Hilaire Sobers is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and hilaire.sobers@gmail.com.




Human Rights Born Of Christianity

Published: Saturday | March 17, 20128 Comments


I wish to congratulate Daniel Thwaites for his excellent article, ‘The Christian root of human rights’ published on Tuesday, March 13, 2012, which showed up the folly of Hilaire Sobers, who had the privilege of addressing the Public Law Forum at the Norman Manley Law School recently.

In direct opposition to Mr Sobers attempt to break the link between human rights and religion, Mr Thwaites showed that human rights assume the moral imperatives of religion, especially those of the Christian faith. However, I believe that Mr Thwaites could have gone further, as what is now being extolled as natural human rights owe their historical origin directly to Christianity.

taught by christ

The modern concept of human rights is the product of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. But the United Nations is the product of the League of Nations, which was formed after the First World War. The main person who was responsible for the formation of the League of Nations was President Woodrow Wilson of the United States.

What was the motive for his advocacy for this body? He wanted to put the Sermon on the Mount taught by Jesus Christ into international relations. In other words, the root of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the teaching of Jesus Christ.

It is sad to see intelligent persons trying to establish a philosophy not only on sand, but on quicksand.

The truth is that the theory of human rights has never rested on man’s humanity, but on man’s divinity. The basic premise of the original theories of human rights was that human beings were created “in the image and likeness of God”, and so had certain inalienable rights.

As merely advanced animals, human beings have no more rights than a cow, or a chimpanzee. God is essential for human rights. For them to be valid, therefore, human rights have to be thoroughly theocentric. One hopes that Mr Sobers’ philosophy will have no influence in Jamaica.



Spaldings PO, Clarendon 





Fisting / Things to know / What can go wrong?

Also known in personal ads and internet profiles as:

  • fistfucking
  • ff
  • handballing
  • red.

Hanky code

Red, worn:

  • 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.

Deep fisting

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.

Pushing limits

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.

This entry was posted in Hilaire Sobers, IACHR, Jamaican Human Rights, Rev Earl Thames. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s