Less than private parts

I have always wanted to see a vasectomy being performed. In these days of consumer information it is not enough to have the doctor reassure you that "there will be a tiny incision, a snipping of the spermatic cords, and two tiny bows tied to make things neat and tidy". How tiny is tiny? What size scissors do they use? How large is the danger to one's limber part from a slip of the hand, or a nudge of the elbow? There is a lot at stake.

Given that I am unlikely to be invited into a real operating theatre, I welcome the controversial new video of operations. And I certainly do not agree with the idea that having pictures of your nether regions beamed to homes throughout the land is some kind of an invasion of privacy. In the unlikely event that the horrified owner of the incised scrotum is able to recognise his left testicle on screen, or the even more remote circumstance of his neighbours or workmates identifying him from this small sighting ("See that bollock, Mabel? I think it's our Ken's"), then all I can say is, so what? This is 1996! Or, as one of the producers rightly said, "People prefer reality on TV because it's the next best thing to reality. And what is wrong with reality?" The owner of the testicle almost certainly likes peering into the lives of others. So get a life!

Now, of course, there is merry hell being raised because of a video entitled Hookers, which uses close-circuit pictures of prostitutes and their clients in action, so to speak. But are we not entitled to know the truth about how these people operate? How can we be expected to join in the important debate about the control of prostitution, if we cannot be allowed to see what hookers and their men-friends actually do? And, once again, the chances of someone being compromised because his lowered underclothing has a large personal monogram are very slight.

But we find ourselves in the middle of yet another row, just as we did over Disasters (depicting scenes from crashes, quakes and hurricanes), Caught In The Act (close-circuit film of couples having it off in lifts and stock-rooms), and Executions (a film showing the true nature of state violence as practised by Saudi swordsmen, Lebanese firing squads and others). All of these are educational documentaries, aimed at revealing important truths about society today. Some would rather avert their eyes and pretend it isn't happening. But not me!

Indeed I would recommend to producer David Donoghue - who is associated with many of these projects - that there are several other areas of national life that could profit from the same kind of treatment. Should any of these suggestions lead anywhere then a small cheque would be adequate recompense.

Given the terrible consequences to both marriages and children of adultery, Adulterers or On the Side could use film shot by private investigators as they attempt to collect evidence of marital infidelity. For a truly educational effect, the tape could include the reactions of the adulterer's spouse when confronted with the evidence of their partner's wrongdoing.

Exhibitionists could shine the spotlight on those who expose themselves in public. Changing-rooms are often made no-go areas for the shy by those insensitive people who disrobe completely in front of others, or who soap themselves over-scrupulously in the showers. A small wide-angle camera, strategically placed, would easily capture most of the action. So-called "nudist beaches" would also be fair game.

Finally (and best of all) there would be Voyeurs. A hidden lens would be used to explore the secret reactions to tapes like Executions and Hookers of those who purchase them. Their various comments, fumblings and guffaws - all performed in ignorance of the camera's presence - would form the educational backdrop to an important debate on how far we should allow vicarious eavesdropping to become a major form of national entertainment. So how about it David? Can I have my money now?