Oleg Volk has it right, as usual

Oleg Volk runs A Human Right, the website that opened my mind about liberty and self-defense. It’s a wonderful place to experience a profound new perspective on subjects we all think we understand. Oleg is a wise, wise man, the kind who uncompromisingly believes in principles that everyone claims to, but he backs them up when it’s difficult or unpopular. His latest post concerns the difference between nudity and nakedness:

Nudity is a voluntary condition. A person may choose to be nude for comfort, for a religious rite, to please or to titillate others or for any other reason.

Nakedness is altogether different. A person naked to the weather, to thorns and rough ground, to unwelcome attention or to any other forced discomfort isn’t enjoying the nudity.

The difference is very similar to the contrast between consensual and forced sex. The former is pleasant, the latter is rape and typically traumatic. Other analogies would be volunteering/conscription or going unprotected willingly/by compulsion. A person who must appear at a government office and disarmed to enter is naked before the authority. So it the person who has no privacy of correspondence or financial transactions. “Having nothing to hide” would be nudity, but having no choice about it is pure nakedness.

Stripping victims naked may have had practical purposes (such as the ease of looting unattached clothes and the removal of hidden weapons), but it is also an assertion of total control. In that sense, the psychological importance of detailed airport screening outranks its practical benefits. Stripping a whole people of protective layers, be they clothing or personal arms, leads to feelings of vulnerability and eventually to dependency on the controlling authority for protection against outside threats. It also leads to overwhelming dependence on the benign treatment by the same authority.

In short, anyone who wishes others stripped — of clothes or privacy or arms — is merely acting as a rapist by proxy. They might not yet violate others bodily but their purpose and motive is the same: control and psychological subjugation of others. So even if you go unarmed by choice, be sure to reject those who would make your way of life compulsory.

Well said. We all need to re-learn how to respect others in their personal decisions. Forcing your beliefs or decisions on others is wrong, even if it’s by proxy or you think they’ll be better off for it.


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