Analysis of 30 studies shows online sperm donation attracts older donors, marginalized recipients, and creates power dynamics favoring donors

What are the characteristics, motivations and experiences of people who use online sperm donation platforms? A systematic review and thematic synthesis. (Taylor-Phillips, 2025)

Oct 16, 2025

Taylor-Phillips, F., Forshall, G., Jones, G., & Turner-Moore, R. (2025). What are the characteristics, motivations and experiences of people who use online sperm donation platforms? A systematic review and thematic synthesis. Human Fertility, 28(1), 2553529. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2025.2553529

Geographic Region: Global, with the majority from the UK, USA, Australia, and Canada

Research Question: What are the characteristics, motivations, and experiences of people who use online sperm donation platforms to connect with potential sperm donors or recipients outside of regulated clinical settings?

Design: Systematic review across ten academic and grey literature databases and search engines. Initial searches were conducted in December 2019 and updated in June 2024. The review included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies of any design published in English.

Sample: 30 reports describing 23 unique studies published between 2010 and 2024. Studies comprised 19 qualitative studies (primarily using interviews, with some employing netnography, ethnography, and content analysis of online advertisements), 7 quantitative studies (mostly using online surveys, with one coding data from online profiles), and 4 mixed methods studies (all using online surveys with multiple choice and open-ended questions). Sample sizes for qualitative studies ranged from 5 to 290 participants with a median of 19, while quantitative and mixed methods studies ranged from 9 to 429 participants with a median of 102. The samples included 13 studies of donors, 9 of recipients, 5 of both donors and recipients, and 3 of co-parents. Donor ages ranged from 18 to 67 years, with most identifying as heterosexual, white, and single. Recipient ages ranged from 18 to 56 years, with most identifying as lesbian and in same-gender relationships, followed by single heterosexual women. Co-parent ages ranged from 18 to 54 years, including both men and women of varying sexual orientations, though among heterosexual recipients seeking co-parenting arrangements, most were single. Only one study explicitly focused on trans/masculine and non-binary recipients.

Key Findings

Online sperm donation lacks established norms and structure, requiring both donors and recipients to improvise throughout the process including finding and meeting potential matches, orchestrating the donation itself, and negotiating post-donation contact arrangements.
Recipients in particular struggle with improvisation as they navigate logistical challenges, such as one lesbian couple who described inseminating in a supermarket car park after their car broke down while traveling to collect sperm from a donor located 60-70 miles away.
Inexperienced donors initially feel confused and worried about the process, with some expressing concern about potentially committing illegal acts, though experienced donors develop guiding practices and principles for conducting donations over time.
Lack of initial agreements means relationships remain in constant flux, with donors sometimes renegotiating their desired level of involvement after conception occurs, leading to conflicts when expectations differ.
Donors expressed that online sperm donation has “a bad rap, especially on the internet” and anticipated that those outside the online sperm donation network would not understand their motivations. They avoid discussing their participation with family and friends due to fear of judgment.
The stigmatization and secrecy surrounding online sperm donation contradicts the broader movement toward openness in donor conception and may isolate participants from seeking support during what research shows can be a stressful process.
Donors control the supply of sperm and choose online sperm donation specifically because it affords them more control over the donation process compared to regulated clinical settings, with one donor observing that other donors “realized that they’ve got something that women want and they can use it to get what they want.”
Recipients demonstrate awareness of power imbalances and express concerns about them, with inexperienced recipients at particular disadvantage due to lack of knowledge about online sperm donation terminology and norms.
Recipients described feeling “desperate” and doing “things like never in a million years would you do” because online sperm donation represented their only affordable option after being priced out of clinical treatment, constraining their freedom to consent to donor demands.
Some donors abuse their power through trolling, stalking, catfishing, homophobia, racism, sexual assault, rape, and coercive tactics to pressure recipients into “natural insemination” (penile-vaginal intercourse) despite prior agreements for artificial insemination.
Donors exercise control by deciding who deserves their sperm based on discriminatory ideas about mothering, with preferences for women with “natural beauty”. Some donors refuse or advise recipients they perceive as overweight to lose weight and become “healthier” before donation, despite body size having no bearing on parenting ability.
Donor gatekeeping based on appearance and lifestyle has particular implications for poor, single, LGBTQþ and Black and minority ethnic people who may choose online sperm donation due to restrictive policies in regulated settings, extending discrimination from clinical to online contexts.
Recipients attempt to mitigate risks and regain control through strategies including choosing geographically distant donors, withholding personal details, meeting in public places, stating artificial insemination preferences in advance, and working to establish trust with donors.
Recipients prioritize inner values like reliability, openness, and kindness over physical traits when selecting donors, with reliability ranked as most important, reflecting efforts to create an “economy of trust” by making stranger donors more known to them.
Both donors and recipients gain something from the transaction, with recipients primarily seeking pregnancy and offspring but also valuing knowing the donor, co-parenting opportunities, and sharing parenting costs.
Donor motivations extend beyond altruism to include continuing genetic lineage and bloodline, achieving a sense of accomplishment, validating fertility and virility, competing with other donors, seeking thrills and fame, exercising control, and pursuing sexual encounters.

Initial co-parenting arrangements characterized by mutual respect and friendship shifted after childbirth toward traditional gendered roles, with mothers becoming primary caregivers and fathers taking secondary supporting roles due to beliefs about maternal instinct and special bonds developed through pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Limitations: Most study participants were recruited from western, high-income countries resulting in samples that were predominantly white, limiting understanding of experiences across diverse ethnic and cultural contexts. Several studies recruited all participants from a single online platform with LGBTQþ focus, potentially leading to overrepresentation of LGBTQþ people in the overall review findings.

Applications: The lack of centralized record-keeping in online sperm donation means donor-conceived people may face significant challenges in accessing information about their genetic origins and identifying donor siblings. Mental health professionals need training to understand the unique stressors of online sperm donation including improvisation requirements, power imbalances, stigma, and potential for exploitation and trauma.

Funding Source: This research was supported by Leeds Beckett University as part of a part-funded Ph.D. studentship.

Lead Author: Francesca Taylor-Phillips is a doctoral student in Psychology at Leeds Beckett University, UK, whose research focuses on online sperm donation. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.

Regulatory Context: Online donation is largely unregulated across the globe.

Related Posts

Donor Conception Journal Club

Comments