is no general entitlement to a perfectly written statute, but only to a statute that gives fair warning of the offense. See Duncantell, 230 S.W.3d at 845. Further, the statute must be sufficiently definite to avoid the possibility of arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Id. Nyabwa points to no words of the statute that would confuse a person of ordinary intelligence. He makes an argument that the portion of the statute requiring that the photograph be taken “with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person” is subjective. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.15(b)(1)(B). However, we previously have considered and rejected the argument that this phrase is unconstitutionally vague. See Byrum v. State, 762 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Lo v. State, — S.W3d - at -, 2011 WL
holding that sexual contact unambiguously encompasses the touching of oneself holding that 18 usc  2422b which prohibited using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the united states to knowingly persuaden induce entice or eoerce any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity is not impermissibly vague holding that the first charging phrase of section 505 is unconstitutionally vague as applied where it was not clear whether touching a minors genitals through her pants constituted sexual conduct as defined by the statute holding that statute which defined sexual contact as any touching of the anus breast or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person was not vague holding that touching anus and touching genitals are separate offenses under penal code section 2211a1