Choreographies of sperm donations: Dilemmas of intimacy in lesbian couple donor conception

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 73, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1661-1668

  Nordqvist, Petra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Donor insemination; Intimacy; Lesbian; Medicalisation; Purification; Sperm donation; United Kingdom

Indexed keywords

FERTILITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; SPERM;

ADULT; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION; CLINICAL CONCEPTION; CONCEPTION; EMPIRICISM; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN RELATION; INFERTILITY; INTERVIEW; INTIMACY; LESBIAN; PARENTHOOD; PRIVACY; SELF ARRANGED CONCEPTION; SEXUALITY; SPERM DONOR; SPERM RETRIEVAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HOMOSEXUALITY, FEMALE; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; MALE; NEGOTIATING; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; SPERMATOZOA; TISSUE DONORS;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 81055155877     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.033     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Barney S. Accessing medicalised donor sperm in the US and Britain: an historical narrative. Sexualities 2005, 8(2):205-220.
2. Becker G. The elusive embryo. How women and men approach new reproductive technologies 2000, University of California Press, Berkeley.
3. Burr J. Fear, fascination and the sperm donor as 'abjection' in interviews with heterosexual recipients of donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness 2009, 31(5):705-718.
4. Clarke A. Modernity, postmodernity, and reproductive processes ca. 1890-1990 or 'mommy, where do cyborgs come from anyway?'. The cyborg handbook 1995, 139-155. Routledge, New York. C.H. Gray (Ed.).
5. Clarke A., et al. Biomedicalisation: technoscientific transformations of health, illness and U.S biomedicine. American Sociological Review 2003, 68(2):161-194.
6. Donor insemination. International social science perspectives 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K. Daniels, E. Haimes (Eds.).
7. Donovan C. Genetics, fathers and families: exploring the implications of changing the law in favour of identifying sperm donors. Social and Legal Studies 2006, 15(4):494-510.
8. Donovan C., Wilson A. Imagination and integrity: decision-making among lesbian couples to use medically provided donor insemination. Culture, Health and Sexuality 2008, 10(7):649-665.
9. Douglas M. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo 1966, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
10. Edwards J. Born and bred: Idioms of kinship and new reproductive technologies in England 2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
11. Emerson J. Behavior in private places: sustaining definitions of reality in gynecological examinations. Recent Sociology 1970, 2:74-97.
12. Franklin S. Embodied progress. A cultural account of assisted conception 1997, Routledge, London.
13. Grace V., Daniels K., Gillett W. The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: parents' constructions in the case of donor insemination. Social Science & Medicine 2008, 66(2):301-314.
14. Graham H. Unequal lives: Health and socio-economic inequalities 2007, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
15. Hargreaves K. Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness 2006, 28(3):261-283.
16. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Licence renewal inspection report for treatment and storage centres James Cook 2006, Available at, Accessed 09.12.10. http://guide.hfea.gov.uk/guide/ShowPDF.aspx?ID=3447.
17. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Code of practice 2009, Available at, Accessed 09.12.10. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/code.html, 8th ed.
18. Kirkman M. Saviours and satyrs: ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provisions. Culture, Health and Sexuality 2004, 6(4):319-335.
19. Kirkman M. Going home and forgetting about it. Donor insemination and the secrecy debate. Sperm wars 2005, 153-169. ABC Books, Sydney. H.G. Jones, M. Kirkman (Eds.).
20. Latour B. We have never been modern 1993, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
21. Lieblich A., et al. Narrative research. Reading, analysis and interpretation 1998, Sage, London.
22. Luce J. Beyond expectation. Lesbian/Bi/Queer women and assisted conception 2010, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
23. Mamo L. Queering reproduction. Achieving pregnancy in the age of technoscience 2007, Duke University Press, Durham.
24. Martin E. The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs 1991, 16(3):485-501.
25. Mason J. Qualitative researching 1996, Sage Publications, London.
26. Michelle C. Transgressive technologies? Strategies of discursive containment in the representation and regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Women's Studies International Forum 2006, 29(2):109-124.
27. Miles M., Huberman A. Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook 1994, Sage Publications, London. 2nd ed.
28. Morgan D. Family connections. An introduction to family studies 1996, Polity Press, Cambridge.
29. Murray C., Golombok S. To tell or not to tell: the decision-making process of egg-donation parents. Human Fertility 2003, 6(2):89-95.
30. Nordqvist P. Dealing with sperm: comparing lesbians' clinical and non-clinical donor conception processes. Sociology of Health and Illness 2011, 33(1):114-129.
31. Nordqvist, P. (in press). Origins and originators: lesbian couples negotiating parental identities and sperm donor conception. Culture, Health and Sexuality. pp. 22.
32. Ryan-Flood R. Lesbian motherhood. Gender, families and sexual citizenship 2009, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
33. Strathern M. Reproducing the future. Essays on anthropology, kinship and the new reproductive technologies 1992, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
34. Thompson C. Making parents. The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies 2005, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
35. Weeks J., et al. Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments 2001, Routledge, New York.