Two women from separate cases have come forward with allegations against Peter Lewis, a prolific Facebook sperm donor who claims to have fathered over 100 children. Both women described disturbing experiences of coercion and abuse during arrangements intended for conception, shedding light on concerns about the conduct of serial sperm donors operating through social media.

Georgia East, a 40-year-old events manager, initially sought a sperm donor outside traditional fertility clinics to establish a biological connection between her child and donor. She was attracted to Lewis because of his public image as an altruistic donor and his willingness to provide sperm either through artificial insemination or natural insemination—sexual intercourse intended for conception. After helping Georgia become pregnant in 2022, Lewis allegedly subjected her to degrading and coercive sexual behavior. She described incidents of forced oral sex during which he used abusive language, leaving her feeling violated and manipulated. Georgia also discovered that Lewis openly admitted to being a carrier of Familial Dysautonomia (FD), a rare genetic disorder affecting the nervous system, raising concerns about genetic risks to offspring. Though Georgia herself is not a carrier, the revelation prompted her to question continuing the pregnancy. She gave birth to a daughter in 2023.

Similarly, Chloe Brown, 31, recounted her experience with Lewis, whom she contacted through Facebook donor groups in mid-2023. She described Lewis as initially charming but later exhibiting forceful and aggressive behavior during sexual encounters intended for conception. Chloe reported feeling discomfort when Lewis behaved without clear consent boundaries, including physical pressure on her neck. She also expressed unease about Lewis’s comments regarding other donor-conceived children and women he aimed to impregnate. Chloe’s son was born in late 2023. She declined Lewis’s requests to recognize paternity on the birth certificate due to concerns over his behavior and intentions. Like Georgia, Chloe raised questions about Lewis’s disclosure of his genetic carrier status and criticized the lack of transparency within online donor communities.

Both women reported efforts to warn others within Facebook sperm donor groups about Lewis’s conduct but were reportedly blocked or excluded from these communities after speaking out. They described these groups as dominated by serial donors whose motivations may include a desire for control or dominance, rather than purely altruistic intentions. Activists against fertility fraud characterize such behavior as a form of reproductive coercion and abuse, emphasizing the psychological impact on donor-conceived children and their families.

Lewis has acknowledged using natural insemination with some partners and maintains that he seeks to help women desperate to conceive. He has reportedly created a private group for women he impregnated to share concerns about potential risks, including the genetic disorder. However, critics say his actions reflect a pattern of manipulation and control, pointing to a broader issue involving prolific social media donors who bypass regulated clinics, raising legal, ethical, and health-related questions.

The cases highlight the challenges women face when accessing sperm donation through unregulated online platforms, where affordability and perceived personal connection may overshadow safety measures. Legal experts note that prosecuting such cases can be difficult, as some actions may fall under civil rather than criminal law, particularly concerning issues like “rape by deception.” The rise in social media sperm donations underscores the need for clearer protections and transparency to safeguard all parties involved.