You never know what's next in this job, which is one of the many things I love about it.

Certainly I never imagined myself being introduced at the start of a broadcast segment as "our sex cave correspondent" but here we are. Twice last week I was live on the radio trying desperately not to say anything that might have me reported to Ofsted by listeners choking on their cornflakes.

The topic? It was, of course, the now-infamous decision by Creative Scotland to award £110,000 in funds to an artist with plans to create an explicit movie, filmed outdoors and involving "non-simulated sex".

Cue headlines decrying "taxpayer-funded porn". I think very fondly back to my early days at The Herald and the stewardship of one Barclay McBain, a fierce defender of house style and moral standards. That we have, in the past week, run phrases such as "bare-arsed lovers frolicking in long grass" and "a secret cave sex party" in this once-douce organ would give Mr McBain conniptions.

But it is changed days and, very rapidly, changing days. Would, 10 years ago, a government body have awarded funding to an artist looking to make a blue movie? Highly doubt it.

CATRIONA STEWART: Why does my father's death from alcoholism cause me so much shame?

There has, though, been a shift in public mood that has brought with it both positives and negatives.

Creative Scotland's decision to grant money to the artist Leonie Rae Gasson has generated condemnation from the SNP's Angus Robertson; Meghan Gallacher, the deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, and Scottish Labour's Neil Bibby. The movie, Rein, is about the only topic generating cross-party support in politics.

Yet Ms Gasson's voice is the only one missing from the furore, now everyone else has had their say. Creative Scotland is asking for its cash back, claiming the artist's initial grant application left out the finer details of what her film would include.

Did it? We don't know - Ms Gasson has so far declined to comment, which is a great pity, and the arts quango has not, as has been called for, published her submission for public scrutiny.

The unseemly incident raises questions over transparency and clarity around the allocation of public funds, particularly at a time when those public funds are so sparse. Creative Scotland has long faced criticism that it does not nurture working-class artists; there have been complaints about previous funding decisions, albeit usually the decision not to grant funds.

It's simply not sufficient to cock things up and then promise to investigate after the damage is done, particularly not in the arts sector, which has struggled to recover from the trauma of the covid lockdowns and has suffered badly from cuts caused by the straitened economy.

Two previous chief executives - Andrew Dixon in 2012 and Janet Archer in 2018 - stepped down following controversy over funding allocations. It's long overdue time that Creative Scotland faced scrutiny of its decision-making processes.

But again to this question of changing social mores. High-profile and heated public debates in the past 10 years have opened up discussion about women's lives and the lives of LGBT+ communities.

So much of this has been positive - we have greater understanding of different ways people live, more inclusivity, more tolerance. Not enough tolerance, and not enough understanding or empathy, but certainly a move in the right direction.

With this, we have also had to grapple with the complexities of competing rights and the balance of competing needs. Buffer zones outside medical settings where terminations are offered, as one current example, aim to protect women accessing necessary healthcare but supporters are left countering allegations they are undermining the rights of those with religious objections to abortion.

CATRIONA STEWART: Caution is needed in the debate over decriminalising abortion

Opening up spaces to be more inclusive of trans women and non-binary people has the knock-on effect of opening up spaces to men - unisex toilets, for example - which negatively affects all women.

Rightly, there is a desire from organisations to be seen to be inclusive, often above and beyond the legal statutory. Sometimes in contravention of the legal statutory.

A knock-on effect of this has been the curious development of a mood that makes safeguarding uncomfortable to discuss. No one wants to be viewed as a joyless prude or a bigot.

So women who don't want to share toilets with men are reluctant to say so because they worry about appearing transphobic. Parents with concerns about sex education in schools worry about sharing those concerns in case they appear homophobic.

We are in a position now where Scotland is the only part of the UK allowing the prescribing of puberty blockers to young people. Whether you are pro or anti giving under-18s access to these drugs, there remains the question of safeguarding.

It should be absolutely without question that experimental medical treatments on children is a matter open to - and vitally in need of - public discussion but this hasn't been the case because of an overwhelming push to be kind, rather than be sensible.

Ms Gasson's film ticks multiple positive boxes - it is queer, sex-positive and inclusive of people with disabilities. It's not difficult to imagine a Creative Scotland decision-maker reading the application form and reaching immediately for a literal stamp of approval without considering the ramifications and the protections that might be needed before employing actors to take part in a sexually explicit movie.

Controversy is a cornerstone of art. It exists to push boundaries and create discomfort. That, too, will have helped the project get the green funding light without the necessary probing questions on what exactly the artwork entailed and its knock-on effects.

While there might be a bit of tittering about an art project that promises "Daddies lurking in the woods", the incident is a serious one, prompting questions about good governance, allocation of public money and this question of the need to be able to adequately discuss safeguarding.

CATRIONA STEWART: Glasgow's misogynistic artwork opened the wrong conversation

There has to be a way of balancing being kind with critical thought; of embracing inclusivity alongside intellectual interrogation.

Perhaps ironically, art and creative spaces are where these discussions around rights and safeguarding can and should be had - making the responsible apportioning of public funding all the more important.