Enslavement

Suicide is an expression of a larger political issue: Ownership of one's own body.

Ownership of your own body is the most fundamental form of ownership. Everything else is just a form of social contract. For example, I "own" a car because I gave someone some money and he or she agreed to give me, in exchange, a piece of paper that says I own it and a set of keys that gives me access to enter and drive it. But I could sell it, and then it would be the same car but I woould no longer "own" it. My body, on the other hand, can only belong to me.

Or so it would seem that it should be. The thing is, if you truly own your own body, then you should be free to kill it!

But down through history there has been a persistent attempt to deny people ownership over their bodies. Slavery has been the most egregious one, and it continues to be so in some parts of the world. At one time, a slavemaster had the legal right to do anything to a slave. Torture, rape, even kill. The slave truly did not own his or her own body.

Denial of the right to suicide is the same thing, just in a milder form. It's milder because it's ultimately so absurdly unenforceable. But it does have the effect of limiting one's ability to act freely. You can't for example, calmly and rationally discuss your detailed suicide plans with a professional counselor without triggering some form of legal intervention -- forceful, if necessary.

Here's another example of people denying the right of others to their own bodies: Laws prohibiting public nudity.

If you truly own your own body, you have the right to display it or hide it as you see fit. Laws demanding that you not display certain parts of your body are attempts to limit your ownership of your body and thus are attempts to enslave you.

The Muslims carry this to great extremes with their requirements that women cover most or nearly all of their bodies whenever they step outside their homes. In countries where they are politically dominant, they have managed to enact this bizarre idea into laws that are enforced by armed thugs known as "police". People wearing uniforms and carrying badges in these countries are authorized by the majority to kidnap, torture and even kill women who don't dress as they demand. The Islamists' actions differ only in degree, not in kind, from the actions taken by Christians in the countries where they dominate.

Christians don't demand that women cover all their bodies, they just demand that they cover their nipples and pubic hair. It's a much smaller surface area, but it's still the same principle, it's still a demand limiting one's ownership of one's body, and it's still enforced by the same armed thugs who will, to be fair, probably not stone offenders to death but will kidnap them and hold them in small, uncomfortable cells until they pay a ransom known as "bail" and agree to begin covering those parts of their bodies demanded by the Christian majority.

Both Christians and Muslims demand that men not display their penises. Everywhere in the world that is politically dominated by Christians or Muslims, there are laws to enforce this form of slavery.

The recent brouhaha about the Wikipedia article that displays a picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl on a 1976 album cover from the German rock group "The Scorpions" (shown here) demonstrates this Christian enslavement enterprise in full force. Display of the naked body of a person not yet an adult is now deemed by certain of these groups to be "pornographic" and thus has caused all the ISPs in the UK to block Wikipedia for their subscribers."

Pornographic" and the root word "pornography" would seem to be another of those magic words like "terrorist" that, upon invocation allows the user to take any action at all. We are expected not to question the word or the concept, having been hypnotized by its incantation.

I question the whole thing.

I question the definition of "pornography". Is "pornography" just something that gives a male an erection or causes a female to get a wet cunt? I no longer get an erection as readily as I once did, and some men apparently can't do it at all without the help of pills. So apparently, older men should be able to view things that would be denied to younger men? But, even more fundamentally, what is the problem with men getting erections and women getting wet cunts? This is how the sexual process starts, and so is it that the enslavers want to deny sex altogether?"

Oh no, we're just concerned about the children," is the response I expect to hear. That's another one of those incantations like "terrorist" and "pornography" -- whenever I hear "it's for the children" I immediately start looking to see how I'm being conned. Supposedly, seeing naked people is bad for children, which seems like an odd idea given the complete lack of evidence that children living at nudist camps suffer any ill effects from being naked or seeing other naked people. So let's forget about that smokescreen.

What's really going on here is just one more attempt at enslavement by those who aren't satisfied with living their own lives and feel a need to control others. Religious people, in other words.

Islam is said to be the fastest growing religion, so it seems likely that before long some US communities will begin to be populated by majorities adhering to this new perversion. Thanks to the Christians who have imposed dress codes on everyone else for centuries, the Islamists will have plenty of legal precedent to impose their own stricter dress codes and require that Christian women to walk around in chadors or get thrown in jail. I can hardly wait.