Dogtooth craves nudity...

I recently went for a drink with Dogtooth. He was suffering from what Anthony Burgess repeatedly refers to as a crapula, and treated himself to an iceless Pepsi. No sooner had I got my tentacles round a pint of Deuchars IPA than the conversation turned to the concept of indecency. Dogtooth pointed out that the first thing a rational legal system would do is to remove the concept that certain body parts should be illegal. As far as I can work out the order of illegality goes thus: breast excluding nipple, buttocks, female nipple, flaccid penis, vagina, anus, and erect penis. These specific parts of the body must be hidden away. A rational person might venture to suggest that nothing should be illegal based on a capacity to offend. A good number of people are offended by the sight of fat people kissing, but very few advocate taking legal action against such offenders.
Let us consider the horror of 200,000 Americans who phoned in to complain about a momentary glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast. The Newt's stance on breasts is the same as its stance on homosexuality; there are only two legitimate responses: arousal or indifference. The fact that someone has taken an illogical dislike to a particular part of the human body does not mean they can expect the police to enforce a state of affairs where they can pretend such a body part doesn't exist. The lamest excuse of all is to mention children. Do people think that the healthiest way to raise a child is to keep them in complete ignorance about the existence of breasts until they grow a pair, or marry someone with a pair?
I exhale slowly and sink back into the dark waters.