>>2702838NTA, but rights tend to lean toward keeping others out and away
Unwanted touching is assault/battery, unwanted detainment is criminal detention, unwanted sexual touch is sexual assault, unwanted property entering is trespassing. Whether the unwanted touching causes damage or serious damage only enhances the crime, it isn't necessary. It's also not like going on any property is automatically criminal trespassing, you need to either be told to leave or you need to have walked past some signs and fencing that tell you to fuck off or you need to have been behaving in a very suspicious or threatening manner.
In your slavery analogy, that's not keeping others out and away. It's forcibly keeping others in contact (criminal detainment). Let's apply the same line of thinking to the other crimes I listed. Instead of protecting people from unwanted touching, it would be allowing people to superglue others to themselves. Instead of protecting people from detainment, it would be allowing people to lock themselves in others' property. Instead of protecting people from unwanted sexual touching, it would be allowing people to superglue others' hands to their asscheeks and genitals. Instead of protecting people from unwanted property entering, it would be allowing people to chain others inside their property.
Applying that line of thinking to similar situations shows why the analogy doesn't make sense
