While the above phenomenon is not to be confused with "panspermia," (although "which came first" wisecracks do cum come to mind), I keep seeing the above catchy term, and it certainly does describe the reproductive practices of certain men. Then again, it seems more likely to be used in describing the selection practices of certain women.

Dr. Helen touched on the phenomenon in her Pajamas Media post on altruism:

....perhaps it is some combination of low self-esteem on the part of the woman who feels she doesn't quite measure up and yet, if she gets this man who has shown himself to be a serial breeder to want to be with just her, she will feel that she is the winner she thinks that she should be deep down.

Of course, it could be that the chase of the serial sperm donor is less about getting the man and more about beating the competition. It is in the woman's self-interest to get the guy to commit to her, even if she does not really want him. Why? Because she can then feel that she has beaten out the other women vying for this guy's attention and won the challenge. My guess is that if he did commit to her, she might not want him for long.

....If a male is reproductively successful, it's advantageous to mate with him because he should produce sons who are also reproductively successful. "Sexy sons actually give their mothers more grandchildren," she says. These women are making a trade-off so their genes "can hijack a ride along with his and spread through the population."

Dr Helen also links Jules Crittenden, who adds that primitivism might be implicated:

Chicks dig manly studs for messing around, breeding with, but don’t much expect them to put an apron on, wash the dishes, change diapers or wear one of these. Most of the reporting on this important study focused on the superficial finding that women see fem-men as more likely to stick around, help raise the kids and give backrubs. Media femiman bias? All red-blooded blokes out there know what is more important is whether you’re getting some tonight and won’t have to chew your arm off in the a.m., and this study, for lantern-jaws, says yes. Deeper social implications of these findings? None. Cavemen will continue to drag willing women off by their hair. Chinless wonders will still have to plod down the same old well-trodden path of flowers, chick-flick endurance and begging.

While I don't know how common this practice is (and I am by no means generalizing about mothers on child support, nor do I mean to slander any dutiful unmarried dads), I used to witness it firsthand. It always struck me as unfair -- as if it adds insult to injury. It is precisely the opposite of what is supposed to happen in theory, and the fact that it goes on at all in the modern era of child support enforcement efforts directed towards "deadbeat dads" makes a mockery of the system.

Real sperm donors simply don't practice extortion. They don't need to.

But am I being fair to the men? Is the term "sperm donor" accurate? If I wanted to donate sperm (which is moot, because for one thing I'm past the age of the type of donor the clinics want), I'd just go down to my local sperm bank, fill out their questionnaire, leave my deposit, and they'd pay me whatever the going fee is these days. It was $35.00 when I was in college, then enough to motivate many a young man to "donate." I guess you could argue that paid sperm donors are not "real" donors, but the point is, there's absolutely no obligation of any sort after the sperm is left behind -- assuming the paperwork is done correctly.

If not, there can be problems. Being listed as the father on a birth certificate can lead to many years of financial obligation -- especially if the mother ends up on AFDC. Whether this automatic obligation is right or wrong is not as easy a question as it might appear. Putting the legalities aside for the moment, I don't see a whole lot of moral difference between a woman who decides to get pregnant by visiting a fertility clinic and a woman who selects an attractive stud at a bar for the sole purpose of getting pregnant, assuming she never wants to have anything else to do with the man. Society -- and lawyers -- have declared that the man selected at the bar is obligated, whereas the man selected in the catalog is not. Suppose the woman thought sex was "icky" and told the guy from the bar to just deposit his sperm in the measuring cup, and that she would take care of the rest with a kitchen turkey baster. The obligation is the same, because there's no army of clinicians with the right paperwork insulating him from the identical consequences of his actions.

His actions, right? Or are we talking about the woman's actions? This is why the term "serial sperm donor" so intrigues me. It's as if there are two systems of sperm donation -- one for the rich (or the politically and medically sophisticated), and another for the rest.

What are the implications for the old saying that it takes two?

In the biological sense (absent human cloning), it certainly does takes two to make a pregnancy. But the undeniable reality is that only the woman is pregnant. This makes the equation tend to weigh heavily on the side of the woman, who gets to call all the shots, and who is considered to have earned quasi-victim status.

Unless he is a true donor, the man -- "serial sperm donor" though he may well be -- is considered the primary holder of the legal burden.

Famous feminist and N.O.W. president Eleanor Smeal declared in a television interview:

"You can't have someone pregnant against her will."

If it takes two, then what does this suggest about the obligations for men? Smeal's remarks prompted the following response:

...would it be logical to also expect feminists to agree that "no man should have to become a father against his will?"

Would someone explain the logic and fairness of this? Seriously, I ask as a certified feminist. I'm all confused. I can't even figure out what a sperm donor truly is.

If it does take two, then why are only the men obligated to compensate the state for AFDC payments to women? Why aren't women equally obligated?

I don't know what the numbers are, but this pay-for-AFDC system seems to have created quite a large class of men (in government bureaucratese, they're known as "non-custodial parents"), who simply owe, and owe, and owe, for the rest of their lives, without hope of paying. These people are not allowed to travel outside the United States (they're not eligible for passports, naturally, because they're "deadbeat dads"), cannot obtain drivers licenses (as well as various professional licenses) in many jurisdictions, and as to work, forget it! Because, as a practical matter, if they do find an employer willing to go through the mandatory bureaucratic rigmarole of wage garnishment, there'd be so little left for the guy that he'd probably regard the job as little more than slavery.

Hmmmm.....

Maybe that's the idea. A serial sperm donor slave caste!

But what about the old-fashioned idea that it takes two?