Michael Brull does a great job here of eviscerating the anti-sex nutjob Gail Dines.
For the record, and bearing in mind how freely defamation suits sometimes flow, let me add that my view that she is viscerally anti-sex - that she finds human sexuality distasteful - is an opinion formed about her personality, based on hearing her on the radio, reading things she has written, and reading Brull's article. Perhaps I am wrong, as with all matters of opinion, but I don't think so. You may judge for yourself if you sample her spoken interviews, etc., and her writings, and read Brull's article, which at a minimum exposes what appears to be a kind of moralised dogmatism.
This leads to me the word "nutjob", which is not to be taken literally - no nuts, as such, are necessarily involved - and is intended mainly as vulgar abuse (though I do also think that there's a certain fanaticism about Dines - my opinion based on similar evidence to the above). In any event, just occasionally, vulgar abuse seems to me to be the way to go.