It takes someone truly committed to conceal an object large enough to be an effective weapon in a body cavity. Could a terrorist do this? I suppose so. The question is whether we want to adopt a method that will catch maybe 70% of the concealed prohibited items that come through (no searches of intimate areas), 99.999% (pat searches of intimate areas included), or 100% (body cavity searches)? There is a point where you decide to accept some risk in order to avoid excess inconvenience, indignity, and delay. You set that point at one level, I at another.

I sense a certain amount of intellectual condescension here. Obviously, us law enforcement/security types are too dull to understand all the issues. In fact, I don't regard this as a simple thing at all. It's very complex, and takes into account logistics, social mores and customs, efficiency, matters and expectations of privacy, and the limits of government in exercising police powers. My experience is that people are prone to trying to resolve complex problems (e.g. crime) with simple solutions (e.g. harsh, lengthy prison terms). These kinds of solutions almost never work, but it provides the people that think them up a brief moment to tell everyone what a great job they've done.

But, I digress. If I do something to cause the screeners to think I might be carrying contraband, I expect to be searched, and that includes touching private areas. I don't like it, but then I don't like the screening process, anyway. I just happen to think that it's necessary.