{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01688048615800135, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006752194463200541, 'mean_word_length': 5.048979591836734, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can Liberals Support a Ban on Violent Pornography?

Proponents of a ban on violent pornography have defended their position in a number of different ways. One type of argument alleges that violent pornography harms women and that banning its production and distribution would prevent much of the harm. For example, some have claimed that it (as well as much nonviolent pornography) defames all women.' Another argument is that the abuse and degradation of women depicted in violent pornography is often real rather than simulated and inflicted on unwilling models or actresses afraid to report their victimization because of their vulnerability to further harm. This argument implies that we should ban violent pornography for more or less the same reasons that we currently ban child pornography. Yet another argument taps the resources of J. L. Austin's speech act theory in an attempt to show that violent (as well as much nonviolent) pornography performs a speech act with the illocutionary force of "subordinating" and the perlocutionary force of reinforcing women's subordinate sociopolitical status.2 There are other harm arguments in addition to these, but perhaps the most popular of them is that violent pornography produces and/or strengthens in its male consumers desires to sexually assault women. Many of these consumers act on the desires, and the end result is an increased number of sexual assaults. Without elaborating on the reasons why, I believe that this last