{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01694915254237288, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.074766355140187, '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}}
Logic, ethics, and rhetoric of research on rape: a reply to Mosher and Bond.

Mosher and Bond (this issue) suggest experimental designs that are not appropriate for the research purposes they criticize. In defending their own research, they make contradictory statements about the realism of their guided imagery procedure for simulating rape. They present data that we believe provide evidence for the possibility that wrongful harm occurred in their previous research. We assert our right to study the ethics of research and object to specious charges of having threatened sexual freedom and being associated with ideologues of the right and left.