Fewer.
All those gorgeous women in the lab (plus Marisol 
) and he has to resort to this.
P.S. Uncanny accuracy - are you one of the scriptwriters?!
This could be a great new catchphrase for use on inanimate objects which have indirectly caused you annoyance.
Ex.:
Overzealous holiday shopper pulls her SUV into the parking space you were clearly waiting for. As she gets out, you shout “I’m going to sexually molest your Escalade!”
Ex.#2:
LDS missionaries show up at your house offering to send you a book of Mormon. You invite them in for herbal tea and accept their offer with a gracious smile. As they are heading out the door you casually mention “I’m going to sexually molest your Book of Mormon.” Bonus points if they send it anyway.
Ex.#3:
Poster on the Dope makes obnoxious claim, for which a cite is quickly called. Poster provides a “cite” of questionable integrity, possibly from an online tabloid and/or a Wiki article which they wrote themselves. At this point multiple Dopers tell poster “I’m going to sexually molest your cite.”
Yes, I see a future in this phrase.
It is a bit interesting that regardless of it literally having been a beautiful movie actress to have done this, and not just some thought experiment, no one can keep with the idea that it’s not a male dog molester.
Was it a weiner dog?
This reminds me that a doper in the last year posted seeing the neighbor masterbate his pet dog.
Oh, I am glad.
Well OK, but less contains fewer syllables than fewer.
I’d expect this kind of comment from a user named Bill the Cat, but not from you, young man.
I’m beginning to have sinister thoughts about why Woodstock has been visiting the “Psychiatrist, 5 cents” booth so often…
Absolutely perfect.
All these replies, and not one Doper is appalled by the use of the split infinitive? I’m horrified. Any person of the slightest taste would have said “going to molest your dog sexually.” Honestly!
I burning for your dog.
One of our (crackhead) tenants use to regularly accuse us of forcing her to have sex with dogs.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
Or maybe in this case I should say get laid.
[QUOTE=The Weird One]
People, people! You’re losing track of the facts here: this was not some creepy guy threatening to molest the dog, it was a beautiful movie actress. /QUOTE]
Nice.
Woodstock hasn’t complained one bit! And I doubt he would even if I took the ball gag out of his mouth.
(He sure does look cute in his leather slave outfit.)
I know it was an actress wanting to molest her ex-lovers dog. What says she still loves him more than “I want to molest your dog.”?
I’m going to sexually molest nonsensical grammar rules, then I’m going to sexually molest dead Romance languages. All of them. Even the ones I have to reconstruct first.
You’ll have to pass on English, Derleth. Walt Whitman has already raped our language.
Does anyone else doubt the veracity of the phrase “sexually molest”? It sounds cleaned up (by the neighbor) to me, and I suspect it was probably something like “fuck” that she said.
Who cares? It’s so much more fun to believe that she actually said “sexually molest”. 
Enough with the truthiness, eh?