Travel by air, get felt up

[Scooter]

Andrew, I could care less who sees me naked, that isn't the point. It is yet one more in a long list of erosions of our civil liberties in order to get on board an airplane (and probably soon on trains and buses as well). I insist on manual pat downs and I act and comment as I do during them in order to make the job as uncomfortable as possible for those doing it. Because SOMEBODY has to send the message that we aren't going to go along like sheep with whatever new erosion of liberty that comes along. Otherwise, the day will come when walking through security naked will not get you thru quicker, because you will still have to wait to get the lighted scope shoved up your rectum to make sure you aren't packing any explosives up there.

Let's name this for what it is - people are being strip searched. Not physically, they don't have to go through the effort of taking off their clothes, but it is a strip search nonetheless. It is strip searching going on in the name of security theatre, and I call it "security theatre" because it is all for show - there has been NOTHING proffered to demonstrate that it is either necessary or in any measure effective to be systematically strip searching airline passengers.

You can choose to blame your fellow passengers for slowing you down, rather than put the blame where it belongs, on those who have orchestrated this security theatre to make it look like they are doing something to combat terrorism, when NONE of these measures, not the removal of shoes, not the limitations on liquids, not the "enhanced patdowns" and most assuredly not the body scanners, have demonstrated the ability to stop a single terrorist.

You can continue to bow like a sheep to the rent-a-cops if you wish. I'm drawing my line in the sand right here.

[Gob]

I don't give a damn who sees me naked, it's them who'll lose their lunch not me. Hen and Hatch of course, is a different matter. We'll be travelling to the UK this December, probably via Dubai or Hong Kong. Fortunately we will not be subjected to this for of "security" search in either direction.

[Joe Guy]

The bottom line remains simple: Why should a complete stranger's seeing your labia or penis, or your seeing a complete stranger's labia or penis, matter any more than does a complete stranger's seeing your nose, or your seeing a complete stranger's nose?

Is there any answer other than a social construct built around shame associated with genitals? If so, I have yet to see it.

Until everybody in the U.S. decides that it is acceptable to walk naked in public, those who aren't Andrew D will prefer to not have their bodies exposed to others at an airport without giving their consent.

Nowadays, we are all subject to being viewed and recorded without our knowledge. We have much less control over our public image than we've ever had & our ability to maintain our privacy is dwindling.

The final battle - the 'Battle of the Alamo' to retain what remains of our waning privacy - will be lost if we remain on our current course of transparency.

I have chosen to keep my clothes on while around people I don't know or trust - and will continue to do so as long as I have the power within me.

[Lord Jim]

I have chosen to keep my clothes on while around people I don't know or trust -

I'll go you one better...

I have chosen to keep my clothes on while around most people I do know and trust....

And they have chosen to do the same, and we're all perfectly happy with the arrangement....

[Andrew D]

You're preaching to the choir there, Scooter. As I posted last month:

Long before Shrub ever started masquerading as the President, very powerful interests wanted Americans to be subject to search and seizure anywhere, at any time, and for no articulated reason. Terrorist attacks were their golden opportunity, and they have expoited and continue to exploit it to the fullest.

It is true, of course, that those authoritarian proclivities found a more comfortable home on the right than on the left: Right-wingism and authoritarianism have an inherently hand-and-glove relationship. But the left is by no means innocent. And the driving interests are neither left nor right. Their concern is not ideology; it is power.

Search-and-seizure rights have been steadily eroded for a long time. One can see it, for example, in the Supreme Court's self-consuming standard of an expectation of privacy. The Court says that for an expectation of privacy to be recognized by the law, it must be one which society considers objectively reasonable. That contains the seeds of the destruction of privacy altogether.

Today, the government does some invasive thing which the Court finds to be at the very edge of permissibility, but permissible. As time goes by, people become accustomed to that thing. So after a while, when the government does some other invasive thing that would have been impermissible a few years ago, what "society considers objectively reasonable" has shifted. The previously impermissible thing is now at the very edge of permissibility, but permissible. And that causes the "objectively reasonable" line to shift again. And more things become permissible. And that shifts the line yet again. And even more things become permissible. Eventually, no expectation of privacy is "objectively reasonable," and the government can search anyone it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, and without giving any reason.

Which is the underlying purpose.

Suppose that when those of us who are now in our forties were children, some local government had decided that it could search every bag carried onto a public-transit vehicle. People would not have put up with that for a minute. But now we have been conditioned to accept such things. And the conditioning goes on. When full-body scanners were introduced, people were permitted to shield their genitals from observation. Now, people are expected to submit to genital groping in order to board a plane. Give it a while, and body-cavity searches will be considered as routine as the e-ticket.

But the give-us-a-line-of-our-own-so-we-don't-have-to-wait-forever point is not about whether the authorities will strip search us. One way or another, they will. It is about whether we have to wait an hour and a half to be strip searched or whether we can get it over with in ten minutes and kick back and enjoy a beer or two before the plane takes off.

And the authorities are strip searching us in large measure to cow us. And maybe the best way to show them that we are not cowed is to say "Here. See? I am not intimidated by you, because I don't give a flying fuck anyway."

Or maybe not. I don't know.

But I do know that if I do not submit to a strip search, whether visual or manual, they won't let me on the airplane. If I must fly -- and as I mentioned before, I do what I can to avoid that necessity -- the people who insist on making sure that I don't have explosives tucked behind my balls (is it even possible to carry a dangerous amount of explosives that way?) could at least speed the process along.

Or, more precisely, they could at least make available a speedy option. If Joe Guy and Lord Jim would rather wait in a long, slow line, fine. They can take the next flight. Or the one after that.

But those of us who are not nudity-obsessed should not have to wait for those who are.

I mean, if an airline decided to delay an entire flight so that someone afflicted with OCD could go back to the check-in area and tap each of his index fingers thirteen times on the counter, the other passengers would be outraged. And rightly so.

And delaying some passengers so that others can indulge their childish modesty is right on par with that.

[Lord Jim]

And delaying some passengers so that others can indulge their childish modesty is right on par with that.

Are you at all aware of that fact that what you're calling "childish modesty" would be more correctly described as "social norm" and that it is your view that occupies the marginal, far fringe position?

[Andrew D]

If you say so, fine.

So give us marginal far-fringers a way to get on the damn plane instead of waiting for you puerile social-normers to worm your phlegmatic way through security because you're so afraid that people might see the genitals that everyone already knows you have.

What's the problem?

[Scooter]

For now at least it would appear that the naked passengers are going to be causing delays for the clothed ones:

MADRID — Spanish airline Iberia says a man stripped naked on a flight bound for Germany carrying 110 passengers, causing the pilot to turn back to Madrid airport minutes after takeoff.

“The flight took off around 7:45 p.m. Thursday and not long after a man took all his clothes off, became disruptive and then locked himself in a toilet,” Iberia spokesperson Santiago de Juan said Saturday.

He declined to give the passenger’s nationality but said the incident caused considerable inconvenience to a “nearly full flight of passengers who reached their destination of Frankfurt late, after police had to come aboard to take the man off.”

De Juan said flight disruptions are mostly caused by drunken passengers, but this time alcohol hadn’t played a part.

[Lord Jim]

MADRID — Spanish airline Iberia says a man stripped naked on a flight bound for Germany carrying 110 passengers, causing the pilot to turn back to Madrid airport minutes after takeoff.

Well that was completely uncalled for...

If someone wishes to completely disrobe and parade around on an airplane that should be entirely within their right to do so. It's the childishly modest passengers who found this objectionable that are out of line. If someone objects to a person being nude on an airplane, they are the one with the problem, and they should have to get off the plane. It's just the same as objecting because there's a black person on the plane.

Obviously, anyone who would object to a person walking around nude on a plane needs serious psychiatric help to them overcome their infantile obsession with modesty.

[Scooter]

This guy tried a G-rated variation going thru security at Salt Lake City airport and seems to have made some security agents uncomfortable (good for him). Note that they repeatedly ask him to put on a shirt and yet went he repeatedly asks whether it is a legal requirement, they refuse to answer. I'm guessing no one was going to require him to submit to a secondary pat down.


I think the next time I have to go thru airport security I'm going to hit the restroom first to work up an erection. Let them feel that when they pat me down.

[Andrew D]

The Iberia airlines thing is, of course, a completely irrelevant diversion. It has nothing to do with going through security naked. That person got naked on an airplane after he had (presumably) gone through security and after the plane had taken off.

What does that have to do with speeding up the security-screening process? As is obvious to most of us, nothing.,

As usual, Lord Jim prefers cleverness, at which he is quite talented, over substantive thought, of which he has little to offer. Getting naked to go through security has nothing to do with "parad[ing] around". It has simply to do with expediting one's progress through the security procedures.

If Lord Jim and others like him are so afraid of seeing other people's genitals, well, that is a "problem" which can be solved with a long curtain rod and some bedsheets. Every sizeable airport has multiple lanes for going through the scanners anyway. Just screen one (or more, depending on demand) of them off from the others so that the people who want to get through the process as quickly as possible can do so without offending the tender sensibilities of those who prefer to piss away their time being herded around like cattle in a feed lot.

Or maybe seeing other people's genitals is not really the issue. Maybe other people's seeing Lord Jim's genitals is the real issue.

Fine. Whatever it is that Lord Jim is so concerned about others' not seeing can be viewed only by TSA personnel. (One way or another, they are going either to see it or to feel it. That is not my decision; it is the TSA's.)

Again -- as in notice that Lord Jim has carefully avoided answering the question put to him, which is typical -- what's the problem?

It seems straightforward enough: Those of us unashamed of our nakedness can move quickly through one line and spend the next hour or two sipping lattes or whatever. Those of us ashamed of our nakedness can spend that time moving a few feet per minute through the lines dedicated to doing things their way. Those of us who are afraid of being seen naked do not have to be seen naked (except by the TSA people, but that's not my fault). Those of us who are afraid of seeing other people naked do not have to see other people naked. Those of us adult enough to have outgrown both of those fears can proceed expeditiously through the security process.

So, yet again -- maybe an answer this time? -- what's the problem?

[Scooter]

The Iberia airlines thing is, of course, a completely irrelevant diversion. It has nothing to do with going through security naked. That person got naked on an airplane after he had (presumably) gone through security and after the plane had taken off.

What does that have to do with speeding up the security-screening process? As is obvious to most of us, nothing.

It was a joke. Perhaps the last time you went through airport security the scanner irradiated your sense of humour.

[Andrew D]

It is a funny story. And I did not think that you posted it as anything more than that.

It also, however, gave Lord Jim a convenient way of dodging the issue. So it seemed, and still does seem, to me appropriate to direct attention back to the relevant question: Should people who are willing to strip naked in front of the TSA authorities -- bearing in mind that the TSA authorities are going to see us naked or grope us or both, regardless of whether or not we are willing to strip naked in front of them -- in order to expedite our passage through security be allowed to do so? Or should we have to wait and wait and wait, because some people -- people whose nakedness is not even at issue -- are not adult enough to cope with that?

As I wrote before, I would like to see a large number of people drop their pants and pull up their shirts. That, of course, would be a protest tactic. A protest tactic should not necessarily become standard behavior, just as a sit-in at Woolworth's to protest segregation no longer makes sense once Woolworth's is no longer segregated.

I have no problem with dividing the space (in proportion to whatever levels of demand may arise) both so that Lord Jim will not have to see anyone else's genitals and so that no one else (except the TSA personnel, over whom I have no control) will see his. I have no interest in compelling people to go naked if they do not want to.

So why is he so dead-set against allowing those of us who are not afraid either to see others naked or to be seen naked ourselves the opportunity to get through the system faster? Is there something about his naked body that he is ashamed of? Is there something about the naked bodies of others that he is ashamed of or otherwise put off by? Is he concerned that if he declines to go through the express line of naked people, others will assume that there is something about his naked body that he is ashamed of?

I don't know. And unless he answers the question put to him, I probably never will. And if he posts one of his witty substitutes for an answer, he will still not have answered. And none of us will know. And maybe that is how he wants it. Or needs it.

[Joe Guy]

So, yet again -- maybe an answer this time? -- what's the problem?

The problem is that your idea of a naked express line for boarding a plane is silly.

Other than the fact that it's not going to happen, it is a fun thing to talk about.

But an attempt to turn this issue into a serious discussion is ... well....

stupid.

[Andrew D]

If people who can't come up with any substantive responses keep insisting on trying to turn it into something that it is not, then it will probably go nowhere. A shame, but unsurprising. One of the most effective tools of warding off ideas that are perceived as dangerous but cannot be rationally refuted has always been to lampoon them rather than to address them.

We do not need long lines of naked people stretching across airports and threatening our precious children with the prospect of seeing nude bodies. If I am wearing sweatpants, a T-shirt, and sandals -- which is my customary air-travel garb anyway -- I can go from clothed to naked in well under half a minute. When someone a few people ahead of me steps through the screening area, I can pull off those four articles of clothing, drop them into a bin on the conveyor belt, step through the screening area, and put them right back on. No one has to see me naked except the few people just ahead and just behind me in line, and those people have already demonstrated that they do not care by choosing that line in the first place.

And, of course, the TSA personnel. The TSA personnel are going to see you (or feel you) naked, whether you like it or not.

That is another incomprehensible aspect of the whole thing. If you travel by air, complete strangers are going to see (or feel) you naked. That is a fact. A lamentable fact in my opinion, but a fact nonetheless.

So why does it matter whether the people who see you naked are these complete strangers or those complete strangers or both? You are going to get seen naked by complete strangers either way, so what difference does it make?

Nobody is going to see you or anyone else naked except the people who have already demonstrated that seeing you and others naked is not a problem for them. If you do not want people to see you naked, stay in one of the (slow) lines where you will not be seen naked (except by the TSA personnel). If you do not want people to see your children naked, keep them with you. If you do not want to see naked people, stay in one of the (slow) lines where there are no naked people. If you want your children not to see naked people, keep them with you.

What is the downside to this?

Can anyone explain how this would be detrimental to anybody? Or will it just be more streams of vacuity?

[Joe Guy]

The answer is that you seem to enjoy (or not care) about being seen naked at airports.

There are people who don't share your opinion.

Vacuity is in the eye of the beholder.

[Andrew D]

Maybe the idea is silly.

Of course, there was a time when the idea that people should be able to practice whatever religion they want was seen as silly (and worse). Almost everyone knew that religious tolerance was an idea not even worth considering. It was just not going to happen.

But we outgrew that.

There was a time when the idea that people should not be condemned to lifetimes of slavery simply for being of African descent was seen as silly (and worse). Almost everyone knew that the abolition of slavery was an idea not even worth considering. It was just not going to happen.

But we outgrew that.

There was a time when the idea that women should be allowed to vote was seen as silly (and worse). Almost everyone knew that women's suffrage was an idea not even worth considering. It was just not going to happen.

But we outgrew that.

There was a time when the idea that people, even married couples, should be allowed to use contraceptives was seen as silly (and worse). Almost everyone knew that birth control was an idea not even worth considering. It was just not going to happen.

And all the way along, there were people who said "Well, yeah, but that's different. Sure, people shouldn't be imprisoned or tortured or murdered for being Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or whatever, but come on -- abolish slavery? That's just silly."

"Well, yeah, but that's different. Sure, people shouldn't be slaves just because they are descended from Africans, but come on -- letting women vote? That's just silly."

"Well, yeah, but that's different. Sure, people shouldn't be denied the right to vote just because they are female, but come on -- contraception? That's just silly."

And what can we expect to see now? "Well, yeah, but that's different ...."

Eventually, we will outgrow this too.

[Scooter]

I see this causing as much or more delay in lineups as happens now. Just as now we have to wait impatiently behind the idiot in front of us who is searching each of his pockets for change, who hasn't pulled his laptop out of its case, who is riflling through her purse and makeup bag for liquids she hasn't put in a clear resealable plastic bag, etc., so too will those who are going through the naked line have to wait for the guy wearing four layers of clothes to take them off and fold them as neatly in the tray as he would in his dresser drawers at home, for the woman struggling to get out of her pantyhose and girdle, for the woman who stands there arguing with the agent, "You mean I have to take EVERYTHING off to use this line? I can't leave on my bra and panties?" etc., etc.

[Joe Guy]

None of the issues that you cited have anything to do with giving up our right to privacy in order to obtain some other privilege.

The examples that you gave are nothing more than a reference to our country's history.

[Gob]

Aren't we losing the point that it is only US ariports find the need to do this? Paranoia or good practice?

Or a I mistaken?