Public discourses commonly frame gamete, organ and other forms of bodily donation as altruistic 'gifts'. However, despite on-going debates about the ethics of payments to donors, few studies have examined the views of donors themselves regarding the meaning of payments and their compatibility (or not) with understandings of these practices as gifts. This article addresses this issue, analysing 24 in-depth interviews with UK identity-release gamete donors. It was crucial to all participants that their donation be viewed as fundamentally other-oriented, motivated by the desire to help others. However, whilst egg donors often accommodated payment within this narrative, male participants explained that any money would taint the gift they had given. I argue that sperm donors faced particular challenges to incorporating payment within a gift narrative for two key reasons: first, sperm donors relied on a discourse of 'pure altruism', including absolute opposition between gifts and market exchange, in order to present their donation as other-oriented. In contrast, egg donors were also able to mobilise a discourse of relational giving to present their donations as a personal gift. Second, according to a continued stereotype of sperm donors as financially motivated students, their payments have already been culturally earmarked as side-line earnings.

No abstract

No abstract

This article draws on an interview study with UK ‘identity-release’ sperm and egg donors, exploring how, in the context of a new ethic of openness around donor conception, they articulate their role in relation to offspring. I show that participants neither dismissed, nor straightforwardly activated, the relational significance of the ‘biological’ substance they donated. Instead, they renegotiated its meaning in ways which do not map straightforwardly on to established kinship roles. Building on a conception of personal lives and selves as fundamentally relational (Mason, 2004; Smart, 2007; May, 2013), I show how donors managed the conflicting demands of identity-release donation by tracing their relatedness to offspring along particular pathways (while diminishing others); the inherent connectedness of their own lives and selves enabled them to construct indirect non-parental connections with offspring as the siblings of their own children or the children of their friends or sisters.

Multiple sociological studies have demonstrated how talk of ‘good’ motives enables people to maintain the presentation of a moral self in the context of stigmatised behaviours. Far fewer have examined why people sometimes describe acting for the ‘wrong reasons’ or choose to qualify, or reject, assumptions that they are motivated by a desire to ‘do good’. In this article, I analyse one such situation: sperm donors who describe being partially motivated by a ‘selfish’ desire to procreate, a motive which these same men frame as morally questionable. I argue that such accounts are explicable if we consider the (gendered) interactional and cultural contexts in which they are produced, particularly the way interactive contexts shape the desirability and achievability of plausibility and authenticity. I suggest that analysis of similar social phenomena can support sociologists in better understanding the complex ways in which moral practices are woven into social interactions.