Onanists across the EU will be relieved to know that MEPs have voted against a proposal suggesting a blanket ban on internet pornography. The move was part of a wider remit to stop the sexualisation of women in advertising and media. While most people would praise any move to reduce the amount of eroticised images of women used to sell all manner of stuff, the definition of pornography was worryingly vague. It felt as if Kartika Liotard (the Dutch MEP responsible for the motion on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU) either hadn't watched enough porn or was attempting to let her own prejudice slip in unnoticed.

Although it would have been a long way off from being made law even if the proposal had been passed, there was a previous move to ban porn in 1997 and it's that which Liotard was attempting to resuscitate. On top of that, Iceland and Finland are already looking at blocking anything vaguely defined as sexually "violent", so it's clear anti-porn suspicion is on the rise despite this week's outcome.

If we're going to criticise or attempt to regulate online content, let's have someone with some knowledge of the topic make the decisions for us – as opposed to a proponent of vague pseudo-feminist rubbish of what porn is or isn't. Getting someone who knows nothing about pornography to govern our online sexual behaviour is as backwards as roping in someone who knows nothing of poverty to make vital decisions on welfare policy. And we'd never allow that.

Article 16 of Liotard's report talked about "the importance of promoting the representation of the female image in a way that respects women's dignity … while fully respecting freedom of expression". Isn't it negative stereotyping to assume women can't have dignity and be sexual?

Liotard and her Scandinavian peers might be attempting to eliminate one set of stereotypes – women as constantly sexually available to heterosexual men – but their well-intentioned moves are unwittingly introducing another set that are equally as damaging. As former sex blogger Dr Brooke Magnanti put it, "Yet again the assumption is that … all women are meek sub-adults who must be protected from the clutches of sexy, sexy evil".

I'm tired of women being told what they want sexually. If anything, the freedoms we have on the internet go some way towards undoing years of mainstream media telling women how to look and be looked at, how to behave through articles like "What Men DON'T Want In Bed!".

Further, I've lost count of the number of times I've had to switch porno off because I've felt it was misogynistic or formulaic, but that doesn't mean I want my consumption of porn to be regulated. Blow job scenes, for example, are overly long in almost all mainstream content. With the exception of a smattering of offerings from women directors such as Anna Span, female viewers are constantly reminded that this stuff isn't for them. Yet shouldn't that mean we'd be better off striving for greater equality within pornographic images, not hastily writing off all sexual expression on film as sexist?

We need better lesbian scenes, not ones that blatantly pander to men, with heterosexual actresses looking vaguely nauseated as they gingerly trail their fake nails across each others' breast implants. Speaking of which, Liotard's proposal conveniently glossed over the world of gay, lesbian and trans porn, probably because it would draw unwanted attention to the fact her argument only considers gender stereotypes from the blinkered perspective of heterosexual men and women.

Instead of being squeamish and reluctant to discuss porn, it would be more productive if people could focus on asking why there isn't more readily available porn that caters to all sexes and, crucially, understand why this is important in reflecting gender equality. Perhaps then Liotard and her colleagues can devote more time to looking at the real issues, instead of picking on the most obvious targets.