More than one flavour: University students’ specific sexual fantasies, interests, and experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual fantasies, interests, and experiences are three important aspects of human sexual expression that likely are related yet distinct. Updated and comprehensive information on patterns in these three areas of sexual expression is important for developing knowledge on the extent to which fantasies are distinct from interests and experiences as well as whether social sexual norms are changing. Thus, the overall goal of this study was to explore patterns in university students’ sexual expression. Participants (N = 236; 65 men, 171 women) completed a background questionnaire and a measure of 43 specific sexual fantasies, interests, and experiences. We used Joyal, Cossette, and Lapierre’s (2015) categories to determine which specific fantasies, interests, and experiences were typical, common, uncommon, unusual, and rare. The results suggested that typical and common fantasies, interests, and experiences are those that fit with sexual norms and evolutionary pressures. However, some activities that fall outside of social norms, or evolutionary benefits, may be common or uncommon, rather than unusual or rare. For the most part, the prevalence and diversity of sexual fantasies aligned closely with sexual interests. We found more gender similarities than differences; when men and women differed, it was in specific sexual fantasies and interests rather than sexual experiences. Our findings suggest that young men and women fantasize about, are interested in, and engage in diverse sexual activities that are somewhat guided by social norms and evolutionary pressures. These findings provide novel, contemporary information on social norms, gender similarities, and diversity in young adults’ sexual expression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".