Sperm and simulacra: emotional capitalism and sperm donation industry

References

• Adrian, S. W. 2010. “Sperm Stories: Policies and Practices of Sperm Banking in Denmark and Sweden.” European Journal of Women's Studies 17 (4): 393–411. doi: 10.1177/1350506810378078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almeling, R. 2006. “Why Do You Want To Be a Donor? Gender and the Production of Altruism in Egg and Sperm Donation.” New Genetics and Society 25 (2): 143–157. doi: 10.1080/14636770600855184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almeling, R. 2007. “Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks.” American Sociological Review 72 (3): 319–340. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almeling, R. 2011. Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• ASA (American Sociological Association). 2014. “Code of Ethics.” Accessed January 6, 2013. http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Baudrillard, J. 1983. Simulations. New York, NY: Semiotext(e).
   Google Scholar
• Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baudrillard, J. 1996. The Perfect Crime. London: Verso Books.
   Google Scholar
• de Beauvoire, S. 1989. The Second Sex. Translated by H. M. Parshley. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, H. S. 1986. “Photography and Sociology.” In Doing Things Together: Selected Papers, 223–271. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, G., A. Butler, and R. D. Nachtigall. 2005. “Resemblance Talk: A Challenge for Parents Whose Children were Conceived with Donor Gametes in the US.” Social Science & Medicine 61: 1300–1309. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blankenhorn, D. 1995. Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bokek-Cohen, Y. 2014. “Becoming Familiar with Eternal Anonymity: How Sperm Banks Use Relationship Marketing Strategy.” Consumption, Markets & Culture 18 (2): 155–177. doi:10.1080/10253866.2014.935938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brummett, B. 1985. “Electric Literature as Equipment for Living: Haunted House Films.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2 (3): 247–261. doi: 10.1080/15295038509360084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burr-Miller, Allison C. 2011. “What's Your Fantasy? Fantasy Baseball as Equipment for Living.” Southern Communication Journal 76: 443–464. doi: 10.1080/10417941003725299
   Google Scholar
• Burr-Miller, A. C., and E. Aoki. 2008. “Idolators and the Real Girl(s): Males Performing Traditional Femininity for Heterosexuality's Sake.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA National Communication Association, TBA, San Diego, CA, November 21–24.
   Google Scholar
• Cahill, S., and S. Tobias. 2007. Policy Issue Affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Family. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, C. R. 2004. “Commodifying Men: The Science and Politics of Sperm Banking.” In Femininities, Masculinities, and the Politics of Sexual Difference(s): Working Papers from the 2003–2004 Seminar, edited by D. S. Cobble, B. Hutchison, and A. B. Chaloupka, 31–36. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Institute for Research on Women.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, C. R. 2006. Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey, D. 2012. “More Like a Donor or More Like a Father? Gay Men's Concepts of Relatedness to Children.” Sexualities 15 (2): 156–174. doi: 10.1177/1363460711433735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eco, U. 1986. Travels in Hyperreality. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. 2004. “Incorporating Incest: Gamete, Body and Relation in Assisted Conception.” Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 10: 755–774. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2004.00210.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Émon, A. 2012. “The Making of the Sperm Donor: Constructing Science, Managing Identity in Five us Cryobanks.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, K., P. Atkinson, A. Bharadwaj, and A. Clarke. 2006. Risky Relations: Family, Kinship and the New Genetics. Oxford: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Haimes, E. 1993. “Issues of Gender in Gamete Donation.” Social Science and Medicine 36: 85–93. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90308-Q
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, A. F. 2001. “Donor Insemination: Eugenic and Feminist Implications.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15: 287–311. doi: 10.1525/maq.2001.15.3.287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBISWorld. 2012. “ Sperm Banks in the US: Market Research Report.” Accessed March 6, 2013. https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/sperm-banks.html.
   Google Scholar
• Illouz, E. 1997. Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Illouz, E. 2007. Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism. London: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Konrad, M. 1998. “Ova Donation and the Symbols of Substance: Some Variations on the Theme of Sex, Gender and the Partible Body.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4: 643–667. doi: 10.2307/3034826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroløkke, C. 2009. “Click a Donor: Viking Masculinity on the Line.” Journal of Consumer Culture 9: 7–30. doi: 10.1177/1469540508099701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leo, J. 1995. “Promoting No-dad Families: Artificial Insemination and Single Women.” U.S. News and World Report, 118: 26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Linschooten, J. O., N. Verhofstad, K. Gutzkow, A. Olsen, C. Yauk, Y. Oligschläger, G. Brunborg, F. J. van Schooten, R. W. Roger, and W. L. Godschalk. 2013. “Paternal Lifestyle as a Potential Source of Germline Mutations Transmitted to Offspring.” The FASEB Journal 27 (7): 2873–2879. doi: 10.1096/fj.13-227694
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, E. 1991. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male–Female Roles.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16: 485–501. doi: 10.1086/494680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, L. J. 2007. Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man's most Precious Fluid. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, T. 1996. “New Reproductive Technologies and the Family.” In New Ways of Making Babies, edited by C. Cohen, 51–69. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, C. 2004. “Genetic Kinship.” Cultural Studies 18 (1): 1–33. doi: 10.1080/0950238042000181593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuendorf, K. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pennings, G. 2000. “The Right to Choose Your Donor: A Step Towards Commercialization or a Step Towards Empowering the Patient?” Human Reproduction 15: 508–514. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.3.508
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietrzak, A. 2012. “The Price of Sperm: An Economic Analysis of the Current Regulations Surrounding the Gamete Donation Industry.” Journal of Law and Family Studies 14: 121–135.
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, R. 1988. “Chromosomes and Communication: The Discourse of Genetic Counseling.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 2 (2): 143–157. doi: 10.1525/maq.1988.2.2.02a00040
   Google Scholar
• Reineke, S. 2008. “In Vitro Veritas: New Reproductive Genetic Technologies and Women's Rights in Contemporary France.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (1): 91–125. doi: 10.2979/FAB.2008.1.1.91
   Google Scholar
• Riessman, Kohler. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ritzer, G. 1999. Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the New Means of Consumption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ritzer, G. 2000. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ritzer, G., and T. Stillman. 2001. “The Postmodern Ballparks as a Leisure Setting: Enchantment and Simulated de-McDonaldization.” Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal 23: 99–113. doi: 10.1080/014904001300181693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, M., and D. Berkowitz. 2009. “Constructing Gay and Lesbian Families Beyond the Closet.” Qualitative Sociology 32 (2): 153–172. doi: 10.1007/s11133-009-9124-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheib, J. E. 1994. “Sperm Donor Selection and the Psychology of Female Mate Choice.” Ethology and Sociobiology 15: 113–129. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(94)90035-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, J. K. 1979. “Historical Synopsis of Human Semen Cryobanking.” In Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation, edited by G. David and W. Price, 95–105. Paris: International Symposium on Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. 1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text, and Interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Spar, D. L. 2006. The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• The Hasting Center. 1983. “The Birth of a Feminist Sperm Bank: New Social Agendas for AID.” The Hasting Center Report 13 (1): 3–4. doi: 10.2307/3561557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiryakian, E. A. 1992. “Dialectics of Modernity: Reenchantment and Dedifferentiation as Counter-processes.” In Social Change and Modernity, edited by H. Haferkamp and N. J. Smelser, 78–96. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tober, D. M. 2001. “Semen as Gift, Semen as Goods: Reproductive Workers and the Market in Altruism.” Body and Society 7 (2–3): 137–160. doi: 10.1177/1357034X0100700205
   Google Scholar
• United States Census Bureau. 2013. “ State Characteristics: Vintage.” Accessed January 13, 2013. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/asrh/2013/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., F. Elejabarrieta, and I. Lahnsteiner. 1995. “How the Sperm Dominates the Ovum – Objectification by Metaphor in the Social Representation of Conception.” European Journal of Social Psychology 25: 671–688. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420250606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xytex. 2014. “ Become a Donor.” Accessed March 3, 2013. https://www.xytex.com/sperm-donor-bank-become-donor/index.cfm.
   Google Scholar