I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the misrepresentation of my views in an article published by the Telegraph on the 6th November, written by Nisha Diu and entitled ‘Porn: Why Women Want What Men Have’.
Diu implies that I regard the pornography of twenty years ago acceptable, that my objection to current pornography is simply that it’s not feminist enough, and that I’m waiting for a new form of feminist pornography to be produced. I did not express these views and my words have been twisted to give them a meaning that could not be further from my real position.
I regard all heterosexual pornography as sexualized sexism and I think it is currently and always has been completely unacceptable in a democratic society that purports to give women equality of opportunity and value. As a scholar, not as a consumer, I have researched feminist pornography for evidence that it is substantively different from mainstream heterosexual pornography and I have found none. When asked by Diu whether I objected to pornography per se, I said yes I did and that it would only be possible to re-visit the question if patriarchy as a system of sexualized discrimination ends (something I did not expect to happen any time soon).
I ask for a printed apology in the Telegraph for defamation both of my reputation as an anti-pornography scholar and of the organization Resist Porn Culture (RPC) of which I am a founder member
Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans
In response to our complaint to the Telegraph, we have received this: ‘As a gesture of goodwill, we would be willing to add a distinct ‘Clarification’ at the bottom of the article:
“Clarification: Dr Brunskell-Evans has asked us to make clear that she regards all heterosexual pornography as sexualized sexism. Porn is unacceptable, in her view, in a democratic society that purports to give women equality of opportunity and value.”
We are happy to make this clear.’