Understanding Attitudes and Psychological Characteristics of Zoophilic Fantasy Endorsers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are growing bodies of literature on both zoophilia/bestiality and sexual fantasies, there is very little information available on individuals who fantasize about zoophilic behaviors. Thus, the current study explored potential differences between individuals who reported zoophilic fantasies and those who did not. Participants completed a series of questionnaires that measured constructs such as multiple perpetrator rape interest (M-PRIS), loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale), rape myth acceptance (SRMA-II), and psychopathy (SRP-III Short Form;). The results were then compared with participants’ responses to item 13 (“sex with an animal”) on the Sexual Fantasy Questionnaire (SFQ). The results indicated that 46% (n = 140) of participants reported having at least some zoophilic fantasies. Additionally, those with zoophilic fantasies scored higher than participants without zoophilic fantasies on interest in multiple perpetrator rape, rape myth acceptance, and self-reported psychopathy. Conversely, participants without zoophilic fantasies scored marginally higher on loneliness. This study was largely preliminary and exploratory, so more work needs to be done to investigate correlates of zoophilic fantasies in order to determine potential correlated problematic attitudes and treatment targets for clinicians.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".