LETTER:One man's pornography could be another man's erotica - and who's to judge?

I FOUND Blake Morrison's article one of the most sane responses I've encountered to the hysteria invoked by pornography ("Big sister is watching us", Review, 28 January).

Who is Louise Hunter, or feminism in general, to lay down the law on what sexuality is and is not? Hunter writes: "Feminism denies the notion that pornography equates to sexuality ... pornography is a product designed for personal gain, by men for men." Aftershave is also a product designed for personal gain by men for men - is this enough to make us disapprove of it? Who said that women can't have pornography if they want it? Such a prohibition really would be a feminist issue.

I don't feel degraded by some stranger appearing to degrade himself in a film just because he happens to be the same sex as me. How are women who wouldn't go near pornography similarly degraded? And if they are, then so are we all - which begs the question of personal choice. Maybe some people want to feel degraded. Who are we to deny them?

John Hardy

Bristol