I listen to Radio 5 on my way to and from work, which means I get Nicky Campbell's call-in in the morning. Normally, of course, the opinions of people (all people) annoy me, but I remind myself that we live in a pluracracy and it's good to hear debate about important issues and most importantly, by the time I get to work, I've written a blog-post-rant in my head and I'm just sorting out the formatting and capitalisation of important words. Then, I sit down at my desk and remember that I have Paid Employment, so it will have to wait.

Not going to happen this morning, however. I don't know why the issue of choosing a baby's sex is getting some attention this particular week, but it is and that was the topic of the call-in. The point I entered the discussion was with a woman, who had lost a daughter (possibly miscarried) and wanted to have one through a gender selection procedure, and two men, who clearly felt she (and everyone else) shouldn't have that option.

Mentioning the caller's respective genders was intentional, and is probably the reason why I got angry enough to ignore Paid Employment for a few minutes more. The tone of the exchanges sounded (once refined through my brainfilter) very much like: "Okay, WOMEN, we MEN can no longer dictate to you whether you have a child or not. You have taken that power away from us. As a result, we are looking for new and increasingly petty ways to tell you how you may and may not use your body, specifically in the womenparts region."

Nicky Campbell did a decent job directing the debate, particularly when he drew the discussion to a close when it became a lot more aggressive. One caller actually suggested, behind a wall of faux disclaimers, that it was "sick" to attempt to use science in this way to deal with the loss as a kind of therapy. Others made the point that it was just a natural thing, that people didn't always get what they want, that having children was reward in itself, regardless of their sex, and that not all children develop into the gender stereotypes that anyone who wanted one or the other might expect (if you want a boy for the typical reasons, he might not be interested in playing football).

All of which may be fine for the people making those points (some of whom were female). However, it doesn't mean that the lady calling in, or anyone else who felt in a similar position, should be expect to similarly console themselves with it. Gender selection seems to me like a victimless scientific advance. In that I can't think of someone that gets hurt by it. It uses science. And it's an advance (also: a stepforward; an improvement and a conquering of obstacles). As a result, it should be a choice. If you're not fussed either way, or not comfortable with the idea, no-one will force you pick an X or a Y chromosone from a catalogue. If you are, well, now you can.

Final point. One of the later callers (try to guess what parallel he made by the end of this paragraph), who couldn't be cut off soon enough, made me conclude this: Godwin's law and its resulting rules needs to apply to non-Internet discussion as well.

And penalties for violating it should be harsh, just like the Nazis were.

I've read and see a couple of things recently about sex education in schools. One piece was about how progressive teaching methods have failed, according to a recent paper in the BMJ which found that one particular programme actually appeared to raise teen pregnancy rates (or, that the pregnancy rate in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group). I haven't read the paper, but I also haven't read any particular methodological criticisms of it, so I will continue on the assumption that it is a valid contribution to the debate.

There was also a debate on The Wright Stuff yesterday morning about a new form of sex ed which emphasised more positive messages ("Sex is fun", "Sex is good for your health") rather than the more typical negative messages ("Sex will kill you dead if you do it wrong"). The argument made for this trial scheme was that if sex was seen as something to be enjoyed rather than something to be worried about, children would be less susceptible to peer pressure, and would wait rather than just try to get it over with as soon as possible. I'm not sure I get the logic exactly, nor the necessity of pointing out how much fun sex is, but I'm wouldn't write it off out of hand.

The main point I wanted to make, which I think is being missed in this debate is this: when did the goals become preventing young people having sex and reducing teen pregancy? The actual goal should be preventing the spread of sexually transmitted disease, and reducing unwanted pregnancy. Those are the actual social ills, and the only way to combat them is by education, in quantities great enough for everyone to know exactly what could happen if you have sex, including the exact medical risks, financial issues resulting from unexpected pregnancy and legal matters than may arise from negligent parenting.

If, as the critics say, sex education programmes expose more children to the idea of sex (which seems unlikely in given the high sexualised multimedia world we live in) and ends up encouraging more young people to have sex or get pregnant, then this really isn't a problem. Providing those people are fully informed about what they are doing, they have the right to make their own decisions, and the real concern for a government should be making sure everyone is able to make the decisions that are best for themselves.

And why does becoming twenty years old necessarily make your pregnancy better for society? I'm sure there are sixteen year olds who could be better parents than some thirty year olds. Age isn't particularly important, unwantedness is. If you are old enough to fully comprehend a pregnancy and all its implications, then that's enough to take age out of the equation. Would it be better for society if teenagers stayed in school and developed skills and contributed more to the economy? Maybe. But that isn't a decision a government should be involved in. After all, a fully informed person can choose which path makes him or her better off, and such decisions don't just reflect monetary rewards from economic input.

As for society, there are a couple of issues. Let's suppose greater sex education leads to more teen pregnancies, but that these pregnancies are (in general) wanted. It's not clear to me that more children with dedicated parents would do more harm to society than less children, but those who are born are much more likely to be the result of an uninformed mistake. Yes, children create costs for the government through the payment of benefits. But arguing that sex education policy should be designed to minimise the demands placed on the welfare state is ridiculous - if there's a problem with the the benefits system, reform the benefit system. If you think that the benefit system creates distortionary incentives for childbearing over work or further education, then the indirect solution of designing sex education policy to counter this is clearly inferior to changing the incentives directly.

And, on a related point, the dependency ratio (retirees to workers) in the UK is projected to exceed 40% by 2050. It shouldn't inform policy on sex education, but it does help to remember that an ageing population also creates massive problems, and that there could be some benefits to increasing the population at the other end.

Back when Liz Longhurst began here campaign to outlaw violent pornography, I wrote about how such laws were ridiculous. Next week, two years on, those laws will be finally passed. I'm disappointed.

I can understand that Mrs Longhurst lost a child to a man who appeared to be acting out fantasies of sex and violence that he regularly looked at on the Internet. But two things have never been proven to me. Firstly, that looking at images of violent pornography on a screen makes a well-balanced person want to engage in violent, nonconsensual acts in real life. Secondly, that clamping down on violent pornography doesn't provide a much safer outlet for the less well-balanced individuals.

Because here's the thing: you can't help where you get your kicks. It's not a decision or a choice. It's impulsive and subconscious, and also, its entirely natural. This includes people who like violent sex images, and it also includes paedophiles (before its suggested I have an inconsistent double standard). Condemning people for having any sexual kink, socially acceptable or unacceptable, legal or illegal is ludicrous because its not something you can control. What you can control is how you choose to act on it. Actually having sex with a child is reprehensible. Looking at images of people having sex with a child is also wrong, because a child still has to be involved, and most probably, not by choice. Violent rape is also reprehensible. But is looking at images of violent sex? And, for that matter, is engaging in violent, but consensual sex? Photos can be staged, and even if there not, the activities of two (or more) consenting adults are no business of anyone else, especially not the government.

Prohibition has never worked - drug statistics tell us that. And what's going to happen to the urges? It's unlikely they'll disappear because tending to them became less easy. This law won't crackdown on any of the associated crimes which are already illegal, and rightfully so - sex slavery and forced prostitution. The industry will be forced 'underground', which plays right into the hands of the actual criminals.

What it will do is make criminals of individuals that are not, as it were, hurting anyone else, because the people with the power find something distasteful (or even worse they don't, but they think their voters do). We used to say the same thing about homosexuals and mixed racial couples, and really, its just a matter of degrees. If there were a way to allow paedophiles some outlet without compromising the rights of a child, it should be legalised as well, but so far I can't think of one. But the same thing can't be said, univerally, for those that are turned on by, or want to engage in, anything from rough sex and S&M to rape fantasists. But of course, we can't let that get in the way of persecuting the "sick and depraved".

I'm not into this, before you ask. Again.