What do you fantasize about? An exploratory factor analysis of adults reporting sexual attraction to minors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current knowledge on the sexual fantasies of adults reporting sexual attraction to minors (ASAM) is primarily focused on these individuals' attraction to minors. Furthermore, ASAM's sexual fantasies are often perceived as revolving systematically around scenarios involving a minor. However, this raises the question of whether their sexual fantasies extend beyond minors. To explore this, we analyzed data from 403 ASAM (364 men and 39 women), using a modified Joyal Sexual Fantasy Questionnaire (JSFQ). Our exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed 5 factors: Male Partner Focused Fantasies (α = 0.905), Female Partner Focused Fantasies (α = 0.882), Coercing Focused Fantasies (α = 0.867), Promiscuous/Unattached Focused Fantasies (α = 0.848), and Romantic/Relational Sexual Fantasies (α = 0.650). These results not only highlight the diversity of ASAM's sexual interests of beyond their attraction to minors, paving the way for further research, but also suggest new perspectives for practitioners.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".