Blog

Motivations of Claire McQuoid, the ‘Undercover Sperm Donation Researcher’…

Welcome to the ‘other’ Claire McQuoid ‘Sperm Donor Abuse’ Story. 


A warning for men regarding the perils of having unprotected sex under the guise of ‘sperm donation’, that results in pregnancy. Men offering to donate sperm can become victims of abuse too.

 

sperm-donation-jake

Many women, men, and couples, join Sperm Donation Connections web sites at their own risk, as they do dating web sites. In the case of a Sperm Donation Connections web site both parties understand the ultimate goal; pregnancy. Legally speaking there is no such thing as a ‘sperm donor’ when there is sex involved, in any country. However numerous sites now operate to help women and infertile couples connect with men willing to help them to build a family , or because they, too, wish to build a family, or maintain ties even if not raising the child.

There are numerous web sites that offer this but only two (FSDW and Pride Angel) very clearly state that there should be no sex or money paid, and that a clinic should ideally be used for the insemination, and to protect both parties legally. These were both apparently set up by women wanting to abolish anonymous sperm donations, and facilitate family building so that the child can know of his or her origins from birth (not 18, as with a sperm bank) and maintain biological links from conception. Many also join to Co-Parent.
The sites have been running for years (FSDW for over a decade according to domain registration records) and if there was the wide scale violence against women Claire McQuoid claims in her bogus research paper, apparently about to be published (it wouldn’t be accepted) then the police and media would certainly have caught wind.

Verified Testimonials on both web sites show that this is a fantastic experience for tens of thousands, at a time when family building by going directly to a clinic is impossible. There are less than 10 registered sperm donors in Britain today.Yes, straight women could use a dating site or just go to a bar and pick up a strange man and have unprotected sex, but most women choose not to. So these sites offer a great alternative, and if a woman does not understand the risks she is not in a position to consider being a parent and being responsible for a child, surely.
There is always the option of choosing the sperm donor and then using a clinic for the procedure. Men who want to help women and infertile couples become pregnant without sex or payment generally do this, if not to co-parent, as they do want to know they have children, and want to retain links with them.

So this is the so far untold story of how ‘Baby McQuoid’ was conceived, using one of the web sites clearly stating that this was a connections site set up to allow people to build families, and maintain biological ties. The idea is that the child conceived as a result of this arrangement is able to know of his or her origins and ideally have contact from birth, which is not possible when a sperm bank is used. This is what separates these web sites from those set up like dating sites, with men and women choosing to have sex, knowing the aim is to get pregnant. As with any social web site all parties should be adults, and make themselves aware of the risks of meeting any stranger, for any reason.

Claire McQuoid joined one of these web sites while still married, as her husband was not able to conceive.  She chose a man who was, at the time, a practicing doctor. Both Claire McQuoid and Jake Low-Beer chose to ignore the warnings of the web site and engaged in regular sex as a way for Claire to become pregnant. The agreement was clear from their first meeting, that this was not ‘dating’, and that the aim was that Claire become pregnant. They were successful. The man expected that the sexual relationship would then end. The first meeting took place with her (then) husband who knew that she was seeking alternative methods of becoming a parent. He soon left the meeting, and refused to be involved from that point on, according to court testimony.

After regular consensual sex with the man chosen to be her private ‘sperm donor’ and becoming pregnant, Claire McQuoid realised her husband would not raise or support the resulting child, and so she sued the ‘sperm donor’ Jake Low-Beer for child support. Judge Jackson ruled in the case. McQuoid won the case, and Jake Low-Beer will support the child financially until he turns 18.

She has always, however, refused to allow the man she sued, to be legally recognised as the biological father, to see the child. As she does not mention this part of her story, the media have not covered this angle – women trying to get pregnant, and then refusing to allow the child contact with the biological father, while using the legal system to claim child support. Also that this is one of the main aims of most people who use the web site she chose to find a known sperm donor.  The web sites she constantly refers to seek to maintain biological links. She not only failed to adhere to the web site’s clear stipulation of AI only sperm donations, ideally using a clinic, she also seems unwilling to recognise that she has forced her child to face the same psychological and emotion issues relating to anonymous sperm donations that web sites such as FSDW and Pride Angel seek to avoid. She knows the details of the man she asked to be her ‘sperm donor’ as she receives money from him, but still refuses to allow her child to have a relationship with him, and is now leading a campaign implying that children born in this manner are (50% of the time) victims of rape and abuse.

McQuoid, ironially, makes statements such as this in her blog.  Re Pride Angel…’ Tranfield is essentially claiming that any woman who uses Pride Angel will know the father of her child/children. For the founder of an unregulated sperm donor platform, this is a highly irresponsible message to promote. Surely, it is imperative for women to be educated about the fact that overwhelmingly men hide behind aliases and fictitious biographies, meaning that children born via “donor conception” may never know the true identity of their biological and legal father and who their half siblings may be.’
And yet McQuoid knows full well that in her case she DOES know the father of her child, and yet SHE is choosing to make sure her child never knows the true identify of their biological and legal father and who their half siblings may be.’

She goes on to question this statement  ‘Tranfield asserted, ‘We also have a report abuse system whereby any user can report inappropriate messages or behaviour.
Yes, any woman who is offered sex or asked for money can report a man as he is in violation of the site rules. He is removed on Pride Angel and FSDW. In her own case the man she was having sex with was in violation of the site rules, and yet so was she. Who would be filing a complaint exactly?

Furthermore, Claire McQuoid now seeks money for ‘Training and Consultancy’ work, advising people of the perils of using Sperm Donor Connections web sites, and writes as if women joining these sites are being attacked and abused, despite there being no actual evidence or police reports, other than this youtube clip and internet postings by a man who claimed she had unprotected sex with him knowing she is HIV Positive.
She previously posted under https://girlwithhiv.wordpress.com/ however the validity of this claim cannot be verified as she has since made the page private.

When undertaking this ‘undercover’ research she apparently posts that she is looking for an NI donor (sex). She then seeks to prove that these men want sex.

She claims that  in 2 women are raped or abused, according to her ‘undercover’ research, even though she had an ongoing sexual relationship with her own chosen ‘donor’ until she fell pregnant. Her ‘research’ claims have yet to be published, or verified by anyone.  They actually defy logic.

It is also unclear of how she contacts the women who are reporting this abuse, when most women using these web sites use aliases, and would be unlikely to have continued to be members of such sites after the supposed ‘attacks’ (that they do not report to anyone) and yet Claire McQuoid apparently tracks them down and interviews them.
Or are we to believe that after being raped the victims search the internet for the ‘Sperm Donor Abuse Foundation’ McQuiod has set up, to share their stories there.

Rape is a crime. But one must also wonder at why any woman would agree to go to a hotel room with a complete stranger to begin with. The two web sites McQuoid constantly condemn (and used herself) seem to go out of their way to warn women never to do something like this. Far more so than the web sites she does not attack. Web sites that do not restrict members to agreeing to ‘AI’ only. Why target web sites with moderators who seek to address this, and warn women never to meet strangers alone, let alone go to a hotel room after meeting on a ‘sperm donation’ related web site. Ironically the sites she attacks warn women not to do this and yet she testified in court that this is what she chose to do, herself, in order to conceive?


sda-foundation-sv-campaign-poster-1sv

 

If, in fact, there is the rife ‘sperm donor abuse’ McQuoid speaks of, the simple answer is that women take the same steps they would if meeting any stranger they connected with on the internet.

As for her ‘research’ claims…

dangers

She claims that her research proves that 1 in 2 women using these web sites to find a sperm donor are the victims of some type of abuse.

A quick search of the Pride Angel web site in December 2016 shows that there are over 14,000 recipients looking for a sperm donor in the UK alone. So this means 7000 are being, or will be abused by a ‘sperm donor’ according to McQuoid’s stats. She says, in her blog   I could, of course, just blog for the sake of blogging and avoid discussing my fieldwork and my additional research findings; I could choose instead to blog about the fine details of qualitative data management, coding, or the analysis of a large data-set, but I shall save my readers from that type of boredom as it can make one’s eyes feel pretty numb unless one has a liking for qualitative research and data management.

Some of us do ‘have a liking for qualitative research and data management’ when the claims made are so absurd, yes.

Especially when two web site moderators are named, as if perpetuating violence against women.

pride

 

https://clairemcquoid.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/research-briefing-project-internet-sperm-donors-and-violence-against-women.pdf
This unpublished ‘paper’ has been submitted to various web sites as if it contains valid research. She herself violated the terms of the web site she used to find a man willing to have sex with her, both flouting the web site guidelines, and then attempts to ‘name and shame’ the moderators working hard to maintain ‘safe’ web sites. The evidence from Claire McQuoid’s own experience is, surely, that these moderators can do very little when both parties decide to go against the site rules. She also, conveniently ignores the publically known fact that these were the only two sperm donation connections web sites to BAN Gennedif Raivich. Why? Reports that he suggested NI. As a result of this, in in line with the web site rules, he was immediately banned, from both web sites. He remained on numerous others however.  Web sites that allow men and women to advertise for ‘NI’ (sex)
Claire McQuoid does not seem to target those web sites with such gusto.
Again, why ?

naming_shaming

__________________________________________________________

Background Information – Claire McQuoid’s donor conceived child.

Before joining sites to help build families there are predators that MEN should be aware of.  Predators who will willingly have sex until pregnant, and then use the courts to seek child support, but refuse to let them see their biological child. Be wary of those who shout that men are the abusers, and women the helpless victims. There are two sides to every story. The saddest part of all, is that there is now a child in the world who will pay the highest price of all.At London’s High Court Family Division, Mr Justice Peter Jackson ruled that Mr F faces £300,000 in legal costs as well as paying for the child’s upkeep.

He said the donor and the client had an ‘intense extramarital affair’ in 2010 after they met through a (sperm donation connections) website.The woman had been told the chances of having a baby were ‘pretty grim’ because her husband had had a vasectomy and was 30 years older. In March 2010, they met the donor in a cafe, but the husband was not happy with the plans and left.

Ruling: Justice Peter Jackson called the man and woman ‘untruthful, devious and manipulative’ but agreed her pregnancy was as a result of them becoming lovers

However, three months later Mrs M spent a weekend at Mr F’s flat, where she claimed they had sex. She continued to see him and, according to her, they had sex on a number of occasions.

Her husband – who she divorced in February last year – had been ‘out of his depth and powerless’ as the fling with Mr F developed, the court heard.

The matter came to court when Mrs M claimed their meetings involved ‘15 days of sex’, while Mr F said they involved ‘15 donations by artificial insemination’.

The judge said: ‘I accept that Mr F first became involved in licensed donation altruistically and even now, I do not discount a residual element of altruism in his make-up or forget that there are many much-wanted children alive today as a result of his efforts.

‘However, I am clear that in relation to his website activity his mainspring has been to meet his own needs, at least at a sexual level.’

But his prolific sexual activity with recipients amounted to a ‘brazen flouting’ of the rules of the website, said the judge. Mr F was ‘bound in his professional life by a clear code of ethics’, which made the risks he took ‘the more surprising’, he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2378822/Sperm-donor-fathered-30-children-pay-paternity-costs-court-decides-mother-affair.html

____________________________________________________________

Claire McQuoid, Mother of a Donor Conceived Child.

Claire McQuoid knows the name and location of her child’s biological father as she sued him for child support after admitting in court that she had regular consensual sex with him, with the aim of becoming pregnant.
She will not let him see his child though.
This donor conceive child is being forced to live the same experience as a child conceived through anonymous sperm donation. This practice was banned years ago, in the UK, and for good reason. So who, really, is engaging in criminal, or at the very least, highly unethical behaviour?

claire_mcquoid_jakes_baby

 

 

Claire McQuoid – sperm donation educational campaign.

warning

Yes, there are certainly dangers. This story shows that this is most certainly danger for men willing to have unprotected sex with a woman posting online that she wants to get pregnant.

And as research that follows will show, and as echoed by the presiding judge, there is one person who suffers the most. The child.

claire_mcquoid

This blog was written to speak out for the ‘sperm donor’ who became an unwitting victim, the web site moderators Claire McQuoid implies are knowingly facilitating violence against women, and for the resulting child who is is being kept from the biological father.

Advertisements

The Claire McQuoid Sperm Donor Abuse Story.

Claire McQuoid has ‘invented’ a character online, who seeks to expose the dark side of private sperm donation, in which (she claims) 1 in 2 women ‘experience some form of victimisation/abuse, from sexual orientated violences, physical and emotional abuse, harassment, trolling, stalking, and financial exploitation’

dangers

But as her own sordid story unravels, just who are the real victims? Who really is the abuser? The man who agree to having regular unprotected sex with Claire McQuoid as her (then) husband was infertile, to help her become a mother, and who now pays child support despite being unable to even contact the child? The judge also rules that he   damages
The child who is, in effect, the product of an anonymous sperm donation, even though a web site was used, that was set up to maintain biological ties?
The women who set up sites to help women and infertile couples become pregnant, and for men to find a co-parent, with strict rules against financial rewards or sex, and who Claire McQuoid seeks to publically ‘shame’?

Of all scenarios, Claire McQuoid appears to be the only who has not been the victim of abuse. So why has she created this ‘character’ for herself, and why set up a ‘Sperm Donor Abuse Foundation’ when she could be consider to be the abuser in her own sperm donation story; abusing the trust of a man SHE asked to make her pregnant, through sex, despite the fact that he initially agreed to donate to her for altriuistic reasons as an AI donor…and abusing the right of her biological child to know the father.

As the judge, who presided over the McQuoid / Low-Beer case stated, there was ‘brazen flouting’ of the rules of the website, by both parties.

claire_mcquoid_sperm_donor_abuse

Surely these stories should be explored, and Claire McQuoid’s claims, and motives, explored in a little more depth?  Or is there to be only one side told. The story according to Claire McQuoid? While asking for payment for consultancy, training and support in these matters, do her her potential clients not deserve the whole story? When talking to the media about her ‘Foundation’ and supposed ‘Under Cover Research’ do the media not deserve to understand her own, personal dealings with sperm donation web sites?
And what is her child to think of this ‘story’ ?