Clinical vs. exclusively online sperm donors: what’s the difference?

ABSTRACT

Background/objectives: As the growth of the internet and commercial connection websites increasingly facilitates sperm donation outside of clinical (formal) settings, studies looking into informal (online) donor psychology and behaviour are both extremely warranted and currently under-researched. This study’s aim was to identify key differences between informal donor males with a history of clinical donation, and those who exclusively participate in the informal market.

Methods: The study utilises (N = 112) current informal sperm donors’ demographics and personality traits taken from registered members of the connection website PrideAngel (Nov–Dec 2016). This study conducts probit multivariate and interaction analysis of socioeconomic and personality factors to explore key differences in males who have chosen to exclusively donate through connection websites and those with a clinical history.

Results: Results from this sample show that exclusively informal donors are more likely to be in some form of committed relationship. Exclusively informal males are also more likely to identify as a sexuality other than heterosexual (e.g. gay, bisexual or asexual). Also, exclusively informal participants exhibit higher average scores for the personality trait agreeableness.

Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrates key differences in the relationship status, sexuality and personality traits of a new and burgeoning group of males and their reproductive psychology and behaviour.

KEYWORDS:

• Exclusively online sperm donor
• psychology
• personality
• sexuality
• agreeableness

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Erika Tranfield for both her generosity and willingness to facilitate this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. This is not to say that clinical donation is not a significant commitment for donors (compliance with donation regulations, as well as abstinence); however, the process does not include any coordination with the recipient.

2. PrideAngel was founded in 2009, and had been in operation for approximately 8 years at the time of the study.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.