VB Accuses Gail Dines of Profiteering, or Pot Calls Kettle...

Internet barker for all things pro-porn Violet Blue just attacked the "profiteering" of anti-porn activist and academic Gail Dines for her work. Reading Blue's piece, my only thought was, Are you kidding?

In the same piece, to her credit, Blue also questions the recent anti-porn hysteria regarding female porn addicts and the many faith-based, often quite costly, programs that have sprung up in the wake of said "epidemic." These programs, while supplanting secular therapies, also purport to cure women of dreadful afflictions such as masturbation and sexual arousal. I am NOT arguing with Blue on the questionable nature of these groups' claims or the sleaziness of profiting from fearmongering.

But Gail Dines is, as previously pointed out, a sociologist, not a Web celebrity. She is an academic who studies pornography. Yes, she has adopted an anti-porn stance because she claims pornography has various deleterious effects on our culture.

And does Dines profit from that anti-porn work? Sure. Why shouldn't she? As a respected academic, she is also a paid speaker and author. Many other academics do the same thing. And although Dines's work is more widely disseminated than many other academics', I doubt she's making as much money as Blue intimates. Most academics would kill to publish titles that would make the kind of bank Blue speculates Dines is making with her latest book, Pornland. If Dines gets rich from academic work, props to her, as she will be joining a very elite club.

But regarding Blue, who herself profiteers by further contributing to, defending, and aggrandizing the zillion-dollar porn industry, I cannot believe she has the nerve to condemn. As I have said in previous posts, being pro-porn is popular and cool--and profitable, because pro-porn voices (like Blue) can always benefit from the scraps being tossed from the porn table.

Being an anti-porn academic is one profession. Being a Webutante is another. And yes, BOTH should profit from their work in their respective areas. But don't criticize the opposition just for making money when you still represent the more mainstream, popular, cool, and far, far more economically enviable position in the debate.