Ovulation monitoring and reproductive heterosex: living the conceptive imperative?

References

• AkrichM.1992. “The De-Scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology Building Society, edited by W. E.Bijker and J.Law, 204–224. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• BeasleyC.2011. “Libidinous Politics: Heterosex, ‘Transgression’ and Social Change.” Australian Feminist Studies26 (67): 25–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BeasleyC., H.Brook, and M.Holmes. 2012. Heterosexuality in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• BillingsE., and A.Westmore. 1980. The Billings Method: Every Woman's Guide to Her Reproductive System. New York: Ballantine Books.
   Google Scholar
• BrownN., and A.Webster. 2004. New Medical Technologies and Society: Reordering Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christin-MaitreS.2013. “History of Oral Contraceptive Drugs and their Worldwide Use.” Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism27 (1): 3–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClarkeE. A.1998. Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences and the Problems of Sex. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• CookH.2005. “The English Sexual Revolution: Technology and Social Change.” History Workshop Journal59 (1): 109–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FranklinS.1997. Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• GiddensA.1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• HineC.2000. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• HollwayW.1984. “Women's Power in Heterosexual Sex.” Women's Studies International Forum7 (1): 63–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2014. “For Patients and their Supporters.” Accessed August 12. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/fertility.html.
   Google Scholar
• LeyB.2007. “Vive Les Roses!: The Architecture of Commitment in an Online Pregnancy and Mothering Group.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12 (4): 1388–1408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoeM.2001. “Fixing Broken Masculinity: Viagra as a Technology for the Reproduction of Gender and Sexuality.” Sexuality and Culture5 (3): 97–125.
   Google Scholar
• LoeM.2004. “Sex and the Senior Woman: Pleasure and Danger in the Viagra Era.” Sexualities7 (3): 303–326.
   Google Scholar
• LuptonD.2013. “Quantifying the Body: Monitoring and Measuring Health in the Age of mHealth Technologies.” Critical Public Health23 (4): 392–403.
   Google Scholar
• MarciR. R., A. A.Graziano, I.Piva, G.Lo Monte, I.Soave, E. E.Giugliano, S. S.Mazzoni, et al. 2012. “Procreative sex in infertile couples: the decay of pleasure?.” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes10 (1): 140–147, http://www.hqlo.com/content/10/1/140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MarshallL. B.2002. “‘Hard Science’: Gendered Constructions of Sexual Dysfunction in the ‘Viagra Age’.” Sexualities5 (2): 131–158.
   Google Scholar
• MarshallL. B.2010. “Science, Medicine and Virility Surveillance: ‘Sexy Seniors’ in the Pharmaceutical Imagination.” Sociology of Health & Illness32 (2): 211–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MarshallH., and A.Woollett. 2000. “Fit to Reproduce? The Regulative Role of Pregnancy Texts.” Feminism & Psychology10 (3): 351–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNairB.2002. Striptease Culture: Sex, Media and the Democratisation of Desire. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McPhillipsK., V.Braun, and N.Gavey. 2001. “Defining (Hetero) Sex: How Imperative is the “Coital Imperative”?” Women’s Studies International Forum24 (2): 229–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MorrowR. P.2006. “Telling about Problems and Giving Advice in an Internet Discussion Forum: Some Discourse Features.” Discourse Studies8 (4): 531–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MortM., and A.Smith. 2009. “Beyond Information: Intimate Relations in Sociotechnical Practice.” Sociology43 (2): 215–231.
   Google Scholar
• MuehlenhardL. C., and Z. D.Peterson. 2005. “III. Wanting and Not Wanting Sex: The Missing Discourse of Ambivalence.” Feminism & Psychology15 (1): 15–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NafusD.2013. “The Data Economy of Biosensors.” In Sensor Technologies: Healthcare, Wellness and Environmental Applications, edited by M. J.McGrath and C. N.Scanaill, 137–156. New York: Apress Media Online.
   Google Scholar
• OudshoornN.1994. Beyond the Natural Body: An Archaeology of Sex Hormones. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• OudshoornN.2005. How Users Come to Matter: The Co-Constriction of Users and Technology. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• PedersenS., and J.Smithson. 2013. “Mothers with Attitude – How the Mumsnet Parenting Forum Offers Space for New Forms of Femininity to Emerge Online.” Women's Studies International Forum38: 97–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PottsA.2005. “Cyborg Masculinity in the Viagra Era.” Sexualities, Evolution & Gender7 (1): 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• PreeceJ.2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• RubinS. G.1984. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” In Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, edited by C. S.Vance, 267–319. Boston, MA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• SengooptaC.2000. “The Modern Ovary: Constructions, Meanings, Uses.” The History of Science; An Annual Review of Literature, Research and Teaching38: 252–488.
   Google Scholar
• StopesM.1940. Wise Parenthood: A Practical Sequel to Married Love. 23rd ed.London: Putnam.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., and J.Corbin, eds. 1997. Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• TaoP., R.Coates, and B.Maycock. 2011. “The impact of infertility on sexuality.” Australasian Medical Journal4 (12): 620–627.
   Google Scholar
• ThomlinsonR.1972. “Prevented Births, Naturalness, and Roman Catholic Doctrine.” The Journal of Sex Research8 (2): 73–100, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3811345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ThompsonC.2005. Making Parents. The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technnologies. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• WilkinsonJ.2012. “Matter of Bits: Articulations of Reproduction through Ovulation Technologies.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the society of social studies of sciences, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 17–20.
   Google Scholar
• WoolgarS.1991. “Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials.” In A Sociology of Monsters, edited by J.Law, 57–102. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar