What women want in their sperm donor: A study of more than 1000 women’s sperm donor selections

Whyte, Stephen; Torgler, Benno; Harrison, K.

doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2016.06.001

Cited by 23 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We know that when people use donor sperm to reproduce, they often have diverse preferences for certain donor characteristics. One example of this is educational level 18. A further example is appearance 19.…”

Section: The Case For Postmortem Sperm Donationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethical case for non-directed postmortem sperm donation

Hodson

Parker

2020

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we outline and defend the concept of voluntary non-directed postmortem sperm donation. This approach offers a potential means of increasing the quantity and heterogeneity of donor sperm. This is pertinent given the present context of a donor sperm shortage in the UK. Beyond making the case that it is technically feasible for dead men to donate their sperm for use in reproduction, we argue that this is ethically permissible. The inability to access donor sperm and the suffering this causes, we argue, justifies allowing access to sperm donated after death. Moreover, it is known that individuals and couples have desires for certain sperm donor characteristics which may not be fulfilled when numbers of sperm donors are low. Enacting these preferences contributes significantly to the well-being of intended parents, so we argue that this provides a pro tanto reason for respecting them. Finally, we explore the benefits and possible disadvantages of such a system for the various parties affected.

show abstract

Section: The Case For Postmortem Sperm Donationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethical case for non-directed postmortem sperm donation

Hodson

Parker

2020

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among these, the donor's age and level of education were found to be the most important to couples in one study. 21 Some "open" donors allow for contact from the child after the child is 18 years old and online familyinitiated donor sibling registries are facilitating connection between siblings from the same donor. 22 Donors' concerns regarding future contact from children conceived from donation is poorly studied; however, one study from the United Kingdom found that the majority of donors supported moves to increase release of information, but felt a strong need for control over their involvement.…”

Section: Preconception Counselingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lesbian Pregnancy: Care and Considerations

Bushe

Romero

2017

Semin Reprod Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The constructs and the provision of preconception and obstetrical care have historically been based on the assumption of heterosexuality, and have often excluded lesbian women. However, due to significant strides in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) civil rights, more lesbian women desire to create and expand their families, and lesbian parented families are increasing. This places obstetrical care providers at the forefront of the movement to build inclusive health care environments. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those of us who work in obstetrics to understand, recognize, and respect the unique cultural considerations that pertain to lesbian women and couples seeking parenthood. This review seeks to provide culturally sensitive guidance on the specific concerns and challenges lesbians face, from preconception care to postpartum care, and briefly addresses legal issues and considerations for the nonbiologic mother. The recommendations outlined here are drawn from studies of the experiences of lesbian women with pregnancy. However, the scientific literature is very limited, and there is a clear need for additional obstetrical research focused on this patient group. As professionals committed to assuring optimal outcomes for all obstetrical patients, it is crucial that we promote the inclusion of sexual minority women in our clinical practices and research endeavors.

show abstract

“…They could 655 consider certain preferences undesirable or shameful from an ethical point of view or incompatible with their 656 private or shared intragroup ideological orientation (for instance, the discussed preference for rich partners or 657 the lack of preference for masculine and dominant one-night stand partners). A more reliable set of information 658 can be obtained by using other behavioural methods, which do not rely on the subjects' opinions or declarations, 659 but observe what kinds of properties participants actually consider attractive in life or one-night stand partners 660 (Millar, 2013;Whyte, Torgler, & Harrison, 2016). Our method -which relies on calculating the mean correlation 661 between attractiveness (proxy for the presence of properties preferred in one-night stand partners) or niceness 662 (proxy for the presence of properties preferred in life partners) scores and focal property scores allocated by one 663 subject to individual photos -represents a simple, participant-friendly, high-throughput option.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of the phase of the menstrual cycle, hormonal contraception, pregnancy, and the marital and the parenthood status on partner preferences.

Flegr

Kroupa

Nekola

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 12 ,* Corresponding author. 13 14 15 16Bacground. The issue with most studies concerned with mate selection preferences in humans is that they rely on 17 declarations and rational actions of experimental subjects, which are affected by their pre-conceived opinions and 18 prejudices. Moreover, current research suggests that subcortical structures and processes, rather than the 19 neocortex, play the principal role in actual partner choice behaviour. Consequently, we have only limited 20 information on how relevant our current knowledge is in relation to real-life human ethology. 21Methods. To address these issues, we surveyed 2,718 women and 4,073 men between the ages of 16-50 and 22 compared their declared and observed preferences for various properties in short-term and long-term partners. 23Results. We found differences between what the subjects declared to prefer and what they preferred in reality: 24 for example, men declared that wealth was the second least desirable property out of eleven in short-term 25 partners, but we observed that in reality, they considered wealth the third most important factor after charisma 26 and sense of humour. Similarly, while women declared that dominance and masculinity were desirable properties 27 in short-term partners, in the observational part of the study, they showed little preference for these traits. 28Furthermore, we investigated the effects of the phase of the menstrual cycle, hormonal contraception, pregnancy, 29 and partnership and parenthood status on these preferences. 30We found some support for the good parents hypothesis and no support for the good genes and the 31 immunocompetence handicap hypotheses when observed, rather than declared preferences were considered. 32We also detected that hormonal contraception, and parenthood and partnership status influenced declared 33 preferences in considerable ways, but had only a small, if any, impact on observed preferences. 34Discussion. We suggest interpreting the results of studies reliant on declarations and rational actions of 35 experimental subjects with great caution. 36 37

show abstract

What women want in their sperm donor: A study of more than 1000 women’s sperm donor selections

Cited by 23 publications

References 33 publications

The ethical case for non-directed postmortem sperm donation

The ethical case for non-directed postmortem sperm donation

Lesbian Pregnancy: Care and Considerations

The effects of the phase of the menstrual cycle, hormonal contraception, pregnancy, and the marital and the parenthood status on partner preferences.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About