Online sperm donation creates new family-building pathways while presenting unique challenges

Using online platforms to offer or seek sperm donation: A systematised narrative review of donor and recipient experiences. (Côté, 2025)

Feb 16, 2026

Côté, I., Fournier, C., Bouffard, E., Lavoie, K., & Greenbaum, M. (2025). Using online platforms to offer or seek sperm donation: A systematised narrative review of donor and recipient experiences. Human Fertility, 28(1), 2571093. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2025.2571093

Geographic Region: United Kingdom (8 studies), Australia (5 studies), and Canada (3 studies), with single studies from the Netherlands and Russia.

Research Question: How do sperm donors’ and recipients’ motivations and perceptions compare across different stages of the online sperm donation process?

Design: The study used a systematised narrative approach (Booth et al., 2016) in which researchers systematically searched for all relevant studies on online sperm donation, then summarized what these studies found. To compare donor and recipient experiences, findings were structured into four key themes: (1) motivations, expectations, and alternatives; (2) the dynamics of donor-recipient interactions and risk management; (3) the practical, emotional, and power-related aspects of donation; and (4) the evolving role of donors beyond conception.

Sample: The review included 18 English and French language articles published between 2011 and late 2024. Thirteen articles included data from sperm donors, and six had data from recipients. The studies had different sample sizes - 8 quantitative studies had between 56 and 1,428 participants, while 10 qualitative studies had between 5 and 45 participants. Most donors were mostly white heterosexual men (64-89% across studies), ranging in age from 18 to 67 years. Most recipients were mostly white lesbian women (66% in one large study) and predominantly white (84%), with three-quarters in relationships. Some studies used overlapping samples but were considered distinct due to differing findings.

Key Findings

Motivations, Expectations, and Alternatives
- Both donors and recipients used online sperm donation to be able to meet each other directly, exchange information, maintain contact, and sometimes create relationships between donors and children.
- Donors mainly wanted to help people have children and pass on their genes, while recipients mainly wanted an affordable and more accessible way to get pregnant compared to fertility clinics.
- Many donors appreciated having control over recipient selection, considering factors like health, relationship status, and financial stability.
- Recipients cared most about whether donors were reliable and trustworthy, even more than physical appearance, because they needed donors to show up on schedule and keep them safe.
- Donor and recipient expectations around the number of offspring per donor existed but were largely implicit, self-imposed, or retrospective rather than the result of any formal negotiation or pre-donation discussion between parties.
- Several studies reported that recipients had already explored or were simultaneously pursuing other paths to parenthood, including known donors from their personal networks or medically assisted reproduction.
- Many donors also had experience donating outside of online platforms, with estimates of those who had donated in other contexts ranging from roughly 40% to 90%, including through sperm banks, to personal acquaintances, or across multiple connection sites.
Dynamics of Donor-Recipient Interactions and Risk Management
- Donors and recipients commonly engaged in discussions covering the terms and implications of the donation arrangement, including key topics such as insemination method and the donor's future relationship with the child, as well as practical logistics like menstrual cycle timing to optimize the chances of conception.
- Pre-donation discussions also served as a common risk-management strategy, covering topics such as legal parentage expectations and sexual and general health history. Recipients reported taking practical steps to screen out donors seeking sexual contact, such as meeting in public, bringing a companion, or explicitly requesting self-insemination.
- Many recipients said their first online contacts with donors went well, but some experienced sexual advances they didn’t want, verbal abuse, poor communication, or donors who suddenly stopped responding (”ghosting”). Donors reported few negative experiences. The authors note that two of the articles intentionally focused on negative experiences.
Practical, Emotional, and Power-related Aspects of Donation
- Studies indicated that most donations involve artificial insemination, though many donors reported using multiple methods over time. One study found that ~95% of online donors reported self-insemination, ~30% “natural” insemination (sexual intercourse), and nearly 6% directed donation (through a clinic). Heterosexual donors were more likely to prefer “natural” insemination than gay/bisexual donors (48% vs. 26%).
- Online donors consistently ranked financial incentives lower than sperm bank donors. Some donors accepted travel reimbursement, though views on acceptable compensation varied.
- Donors generally found the process positive, but could find it stressful when multiple attempts were needed. Recipients experienced greater stress and anxiety due to uncertainty around conception and the need for repeated attempts. In one study, recipients (women in same-sex couples) reported discomfort handling semen and preferred distance from the donor during the process.
- Who has more control changes during the process. Before getting pregnant, recipients depend on donors and can feel vulnerable. After pregnancy, recipients have more power to decide how involved the donor will be, which sometimes frustrates donors.
- Some studies documented instances of donors sexually harassing recipients by pressuring them toward sexual contact or misrepresenting “natural” insemination as more effective. Recipients felt unable to refuse due to investment in the process or fear of losing the arrangement.
Evolving Role of Donors Beyond Conception
- Preferences regarding donor identity disclosure varied among both donors and recipients, with studies reporting broadly similar levels of preference for known identity, open identity, and anonymous donation. The authors note that these findings draw on fertility clinic terminology and should be interpreted with caution, as online donors and recipients inherently engage in some degree of direct contact.
- Preferences regarding the donor's role in the child's life varied considerably across both parties. Many recipients prioritize their child having access to information about their genetic origins and the donor's identity - either before or after age 18 - without necessarily expecting an ongoing relationship, though some do welcome a more active donor presence. Donor preferences show even greater variation, ranging from no contact at all to periodic updates, openness to answering the child's questions, or in some cases an active parental role, with preferences for no contact appearing more common in some studies than others.
- Post-conception interactions between donors and recipients were also well documented, including sharing updates or photos, in-person meetings, and agreements for future donations.
- Pre-conception agreements often evolved over time. For example, recipients limited or withdrew contact, sometimes leaving donors frustrated at being unable to maintain the level of involvement they had anticipated or agreed upon.

Limitations: The review did not formally assess the quality of included studies. Research on online gamete and embryo donations may become quickly outdated given the rapid evolution of digital platforms and shifting legal landscapes. Studies predominantly focused on heterosexual male donors and white cisgender lesbian recipients, leaving experiences of trans, non-binary, and racially diverse individuals largely unexplored. Most included studies focused on one platform (Pride Angel), meaning findings may not apply to users of other websites, apps, or Facebook groups.

Applications: Recipients should implement safety strategies, including holding meetings in public places, being accompanied during initial encounters, and clearly stating preferences for self-insemination upfront to screen out donors seeking sexual relationships. All parties should be aware of legal parentage regulations in their jurisdiction and establish clear agreements regarding parental rights. Clinic-directed donation — where a recipient brings their chosen known donor to a clinic for assisted insemination — is an option that combines the relational and intentional qualities of online sperm donation with clinical support and legal documentation. Making this pathway more accessible could be useful for families who want both.

Funding Source: Secretariat à la condition féminine, Québec, Canada

Lead Author: Isabel Côté is a professor in the Department of Social Work at the Université du Québec en Outaouais in Gatineau, Canada, who researches LGBTQ+ families and donor conception. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.

Regulatory Context: The studies reviewed were conducted across multiple jurisdictions with varying regulatory frameworks. The absence of regulation governing online sperm donation creates uncertainties around parental rights, donor involvement, health screening, and offspring tracking across all jurisdictions studied.

Related Posts

Donor Conception Journal Club

Comments

Ready for more?