[There's a] critical distinction between activities one finds distasteful and activities one is forced to participate in. Since I always like to help lost sheep, I offer the following handy pocket-sized guide to consent and coercion.
Taking a photograph of one's own justly acquired religious item in bodily fluids: Highly offensive to many, but no coercion involved. OK from a purely libertarian standpoint.
Holding, say, a born-again Baptist against her will and forcing her to watch you excrete bodily fluids on the Bible: Offensiveness to anyone but the non-consenting party is morally irrelevant—after all, rapists don't find anything icky about rape. Not OK by any decent standard.
Eating pork: OK.
Dousing an Orthodox Jew or Muslim with pig blood: Not OK.
Humiliating oneself as part of a fraternity initiation: OK.
Building nude pyramids at gunpoint: Not OK.
Smoking cigarettes: OK.
Tying a suspect to a chair and putting out cigarettes on his flesh: Not OK.
Physical intimacy with a willing adult of the same sex: OK.
Sodomizing a 17-year-old, then shooting him 11 times: Not OK.
Whole thing, including links to some of the above, here. I'll only add that I for one don't think a good Koran-flushing or coerced Christ-pissing is "torture," and I don't know many people who do. It would seem to be a rather counter-productive activity, unless you used it to successfully defuse one of those non-existent "ticking time bombs" we've heard so much about, but then I've never been a big believer in the quality of information extracted under duress.