The motto of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) is ‘Serve, Protect and Reassure.’ Members of the JCF do not always live up to the high expectations of their calling. The US Department of State produced a damning report on human rights practices in Jamaica for 2019. Given its own horrific track record of abusive policing, the US absolutely cannot claim any moral authority whatsoever to condemn other nations.
All the same, the report does document the alarming failure of the Jamaican Government to protect all citizens from state violence: “The government did not take sufficient action to address police abuse and unlawful killings. The government had mechanisms to investigate and punish police abuse, but they were not always employed. Fewer than 10 per cent of the investigations of abuse resulted in recommendations for disciplinary action or criminal charges, and fewer than two per cent of the investigations led to a conviction.”
In these incriminating circumstances, it was such a pleasure to see a member of the JCF actually serving, protecting and reassuring an ecstatic female citizen live and direct on video. Admittedly, the talented policeman, who performed his amorous duty on camera with such skill, should not have been engaged in oral sex on the job and in uniform. Even if he was on his lunch break! A male radio announcer wickedly passed judgement on the enthusiastic policeman by reminding us that, as children, we were taught not to eat on the street in our school uniform.
Still for all, a whole heap of us women admire the policeman’s mastery of technique and wish we could be beneficiaries of his juicy lips and nimble fingers. On our behalf, I’m appealing to the powers that be to consider letting him off with a tongue-lashing. In the larger scheme of police crimes, his action is a relatively minor violation. Interdiction is harsh punishment. The origin of the verb interdict is Latin. It comes into English via French ‘entredire,’ meaning to “forbid by decree, excommunicate.” The unsympathetic, short-sighted authorities have called down judgement on the policeman because of his eloquent speaking in tongues. Such a pity!
The expert policeman’s ‘how-to’ video could be the start of a sexual revolution in Jamaica. This is a teachable moment when we as a society can collectively debunk the myth that Jamaican men do not engage in oral sex. The instructive sound track of the video could motivate cowardly men who have never tasted forbidden fruit to step up to the plate. And it might encourage hypocritical men to come out of the closet and admit that they do enjoy pleasuring women in this very effective way. The orgasmic cries of the policeman’s partner were certainly not faked, as far as I could tell. He took his time and, in this way, lovingly reassured her that he did, in fact, want to serve her.
It is true that some women are quite skilled at the art and science of easing male performance anxiety in the bedroom. They know that nuff-nuff noise tends to boost an insecure man’s ego. The meaning of quiet belly-bottom groans is lost on some men. Then, any man who has to ask his partner to verbally evaluate his performance deserves the answer he gets. Even worse, any man who demands a command performance is likely to be taken for quite a ride by his cunning partner.
GRIEVOUS SEXUAL ASSAULT
A true sexual revolution in Jamaica will require much more than a single explicit video demonstrating the efficacy of oral sex. Antiquated laws will have to be repealed. Legal sex is defined rather narrowly in ‘The Sexual Offences Act’: “‘sexual intercourse’ means the penetration of the vagina of one person by the penis of another person.” How can this definition still be on the books in the 21st century? Why have our conservative laws not kept up with the actual practices of consenting adults?
The act states that, “grievous sexual assault” is committed when an offender “penetrates the vagina or anus of the victim with –
(i) a body part other than the penis of the offender; or
(ii) an object manipulated by the offender”.
Sex toys are clearly outlawed. It is also a grievous assault if the offender “places his penis into the mouth of the victim” or “places his or her mouth on to the vagina, vulva, penis or anus of the victim.” It is not an offence if “penetration [is] carried out in the course of a search authorised by law or for bona fide medical purposes.”
The offences outlined in the act refer specifically to situations in which an offender forces an unwilling victim to engage in sexual acts. But the definition of sexual intercourse – penetration of a vagina by a penis – seems to mean that the offender is always male and the victim female. The act does not take into account anal rape of a man by another man; or by a woman manipulating an object. In relation to oral sex, whatever the orifice, the use of both male and female pronouns does concede that the offender is not always male.
The Sexual Offences Act appears to criminalise even consensual sex acts between adults that do not demand penetration of the vagina by the penis. One of the most revealing confessions of the woman being served, protected and reassured by the policeman was that she didn’t even want penile penetration. His mouth and fingers were so satisfying. Elements of the Sexual Offences Act must be revoked. It is truly grievous sexual assault to force consenting adults to submit to outdated laws.