Do you think I used the term "g-string" for naught, it was a clue -- that is this -- when you can be clear be so, and sodomy is clear -- modesty, public decency, and privacy are not so clear and perversion is like a spider's web -- each strand barely noted, but with continued efforts a trap is sprung. Good folks go along with simple seemingly harmless concepts when stated -- such as "we already protect against lewdness and sexual acts in public" or "we already define private spaces".
Yet go into any convenience store -- look near the counter at the vista any five year old sees -- naked and near-naked men and women in provocative pose on many a magazine. Do the concepts work there? NO! Or consider the misfortune and aggravation had in many a nieghborhood once a lap-dancer bar moves in -- why that's a private space -- the bar itself, in some places, or a okay under a relaxed intrepretation of public decency and modesty in others. I'll even exempt and allow for long established red-light districts off the usual school-age kid and families day-to-day business path -- still you have fierce and contentious battles every day about what constitutes lewdness, nakedness, a sex act, and a private space. That is a common sense, a known warning, yet good folks miss it at the time some down-sliding, yet amiable, gaffer says "We we already a have provision for that aspect of it. Let us remove this ancient marker in the law, let us be more modern."
Again, Karsus -- show us the facts, the as-it-really-is, the survey, the comprehensive researched narrative that shows how adequately modest "private areas" are already defined in the law so that removing a far more clear ban on sodomy, no innocent child would suffer entering a park restroom to see a 69 in progress, or no family on the beach would have to leave to avoid having kid chance to glimpse under the boardwalk were those two men are actively engaging under a big-enough-for the-local-court blanket.