Donating Blood (merged)

[Duncan]

Donating blood has always been a part of my adult life. The Red Cross -- I thought -- pretty much had the monopoly on blood donations. These days I give at the hospital in which I work. What annoys me is the questionnaire that is asked with regards to a person's sexual activity. Blood can be screened for disease, however if you admit to having had sex with someone of the same gender (even once) your blood becomes permanently disqualified.

I find this very disturbing because I don't like having to lie about something like this.

[SkeeterVT]

Donating blood has always been a part of my adult life. The Red Cross -- I thought -- pretty much had the monopoly on blood donations. These days I give at the hospital in which I work. What annoys me is the questionnaire that is asked with regards to a person's sexual activity. Blood can be screened for disease, however if you admit to having had sex with someone of the same gender (even once) your blood becomes permanently disqualified.

I find this very disturbing because I don't like having to lie about something like this.
Unfortunately, federal regulations prohibit acceptance of blood donations from ANY male who has had sex with other males. The questionnaire you objected to is required by the FDA. If you refused to answer the relevant question, your blood donation will be thrown out.

These regulations have been in effect since 1985, under an executive order by then-President Ronald Reagan. The obscenity of this is that gay and bisexual men are the ONLY people who are permanently barred from donating blood. No such ban exists for people with a history of illicit drug use -- the fastest-growing segment of new HIV cases in the U.S. since 1995.

It galls me that, to date, no legal challenge has been made to this patently discriminatory ban.

-- Skeeter

[txbarefooter]

well, even if I hadn't had sex with another guy, I still couldn't give blood because I was stationed in England. Why, you ask ? Mad cow disease. I was last in Engand in 1988, thats 17 years ago, you'd think that by now if there WAS something wrong it shoulda shown it's ugly head by now. the block out date is somthing like jan 1, 1980 to dec 31, 1997.

that is unless I lie about it.

also, I have a genetic condition called Neurofibromatosis and that prevents me from being on the organ and bone marrow donor list. I am in great shape otherwise. so my organs will just get cooked when I die (being cremated)

[ydnim]

mad cow can lay dormant for a very long time before it comes up.

[PhotoGra1]

I find this very disturbing because I don't like having to lie about something like this.

This IS very disturbing! I refuse to lie. Obviously, they don't need blood too badly.

If they don't want my blood, I'll keep it. Simple as that.

[Exodus's Loki]

i donate plasma and have to lie twice a week, i have regular tests done to check fro std's so i don't worry about it, at the same time i'm not having sex with anyone at the moment, so i dn't feel bad whatsoever in lying to them

[jungee]

I don't want to lie either, but it's strange that the Red cross expects people to be forthcoming about their sexual preference yet it's used against them in the end...but they need to be aware of the fact most people who've had gay experiences will not admit to it to their best friend, so how will they put a yes check mark in a questionnaire that is handed back to an agency that may or may not have ties with the government?

Plus I can't see how they can justify turning down "gay blood" and take donations from straights who have had dozens of partners in the months previous. How could they possibly feel confident about it?

[honeyhannah]

Are you serious? That is totally crazy. Someone should sue. This is really dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[feministhippy]

I'm sure people have. People still connect male homosexuality with AIDS. Of course, even if that was true, they test the blood for AIDS anyway. It's bad enough that they bar off a group of people based on a stereotype, it's much worse that it's something that they were going to test anyway.

It saddens me that society wants to stop a group of people from helping people. Man, you dare you be nice.

[Mui]

wow thats some crazy bullshit.

[Snowdancer]

I worked in corporate world then :eek: & the place I worked had the Red Cross come in regularly for blood drives. Being the good, caring, citizen I am I stopped in there after eating lunch & filled out their form & sat down in the waiting area. The gentleman who read it called me over to his table with a dirty look on his face. He just openly told me that because of the danggers of AIDS they will no longer accept donations from men who have engaged in homosexual activities. No concern for privacy, no regard for the obvious discrimination. I wasn't out at all there so I was at that point in a panic. Fortunately no one who actually knew me was there. I quickly said something like OK & got up & left. All the while knowing that they test the stuff anyhow. I wouldn't have even bothered if I didn't think that it was going to be tested. I have been tested regularly but as I said I did feel as if I dodged the bullet, having a former sex partner die. There was still the what if it's somehow lying dormant thing in my mind.

On the other hand in a scewed sort of way I do understand their point. Sure it seems like overreaction & obviously put in place by an ignorant administration. Remember the "advice" from that same administration that gays should follow anal intercourse with a bleach enema? The people who had contracted HIV from transfussions were still fairly in fresh memory. If they screwed up & missed some blood that did have HIV it would be at that time a death sentance for someone.

[SkeeterVT]

Are you serious? That is totally crazy. Someone should sue. This is really dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Indeed, someone should sue. But it's a federal regulation -- and there's no federal law prohibiting anti-gay discrimination. Until the homophobic theo-fascists who control the Republican Party are ousted from Congress, no such law will be forthcoming.

-- Skeeter

[PhotoGra1]

a bleach enema?

A BLEACH ENEMA! What a horrible idea!

HIV is undetectable, but still present, for up to 6 months after you contract it. That is the theory behind this ban. The populations with the fastest growing rate of HIV infection are the elderly and African-American women. I wonder if they will ban thim too?

I doubt it.

[jungee]

I understand the ban...but it doesn't mean it's right

The problem is that it excludes a large group of people without making any types of nuances between individuals (if that's not discrimination then I don't know what is). The teen from rural SC who had one gay experience with his best friend is treated the exact same way as a promiscious guy from SF who's been with 1,000 partners. They're excluded with no questions asked. Meanwhile, the straight who slept with 1,000 people is in, everytime.

[mystical_shroom]

however if you admit to having had sex with someone of the same gender (even once) your blood becomes permanently disqualified.


i think thats just beyond horrible...blood is blood, people need to step away from the idea that homosexuality=AIDS... and what doesnt help is when things like this happen..

[SlickyPants]

So, I was out with a friend today and she went to go donate blood. I decided to give it a go for the first time. The process started smoothly with the iron test. I filled out the questionnaire and one thing caught my mind. If I had any sexual relations with another man I was automatically indefinitely deferred from donating blood.
I'm still a virgin at the moment so it doesn't affect me for the time being but whenever the time comes when me and some other guy get together and do the bad thing then my blood is considered unsafe due to high risk behaviour that could expose it to certain STDs. Even if I was in a stable monogamous relationship they will still not accept it. Even if they test my blood for STDs and I turn out clean they will still not accept it.

I understand the need to protect the blood recipients but this is borderline discrimination. "Statistics this!" and "statistics that!" Sure there are a higher number of cases of STDs in men who've had sexual relations with other men but it doesn't mean that heterosexual sex is free from the hazards of STDs. I don't think it is fair to whitewash all gay men as being walking hives of disease.

People in this world are dying all the time because there is a shortage of their particular blood type and they are not even given the option of accepting 'the potential risks' of being the recipient of a gay man's blood because we are rejected right from the get-go.

I just found that particular filter to be outrageous and I needed a place to vent about it.

Post your comments or opinions on this matter.

[Peace-Phoenix]

It's not just gay men that are prevented from giving blood, at least not in the UK. Here, I think, heterosexuals are also prevented from giving blood if they've had sex in Africa, as well as intravenous drug users. It's not discrimination in the sense of homophobia. It fits a very real demographic, that the highest concentrations of HIV are amongst heterosexuals in many Third World countries and homosexual males and IV drug users in the West. In principle, I'd be in favour of loosening the restrictions. You can, after all, screen for HIV - though only three months after infection. In practice, however, they are trying to cover all possible angles and make blood transfusions as safe as humanly possible. It's not a flawless process, and one might charge it as being discriminatory, but it may, unfortunately, be necessary....

[ihmurria]

also if you've had sex with a man who's had sex with a man. Ie if your boyfriend is bi, you aren't allowed to give blood. Ridiculousness... but I heard they were starting to review the laws in Canada... may've just been a rumour though

[washingtonirving]

that's rather absurd. and prejudiced. and just stupid.

i mean, obviously gay people are all diseased and have bad blood.

[Peace-Phoenix]

I think it would be a mistake to see it as prejudiced. Whilst I disagree with the practice, I sincerely doubt that there is an irrational discriminatory element behind it. Rather it is rationality itself which has led to a form of discrimination. This is not an issue of sexuality, it is an issue of public health. There are, I would argue, much more pressing issues to be concerned with. Giving blood is a responsibility, not a right. Marriage and children, on the other hand, could be seen as rights. The right for homosexual couples to equality in marriage and adoption law is far more important, and a very real persisting area of discrimination that needs to be addressed. Giving blood is not an issue on the same level, nor is discrimination on this level motivated by the same homophobic factors....

[Samhain]

I don't get this, they must test all the blood anyway, because not everyone would tell the truth and their might be poeple with hiv who might not know about it
S

[Peace-Phoenix]

That is one of the inconsistiencies of the policy. There is, however, a three month period over which people may be infected with HIV, but will not test positive because tests look for antibodies in the blood which take time to be produced. This would seem to suggest that their policy, by removing the most high risk groups, is aimed at minimising the risk factor whereby something may slip by undetected. Mistakes do happen, and they're covering their backs....

[LuckyStripe]

I thought the same things about it... I also found out that if you are a gay man whos in a stable relationship and check "yes" to that question.... well, you will still get to talk to the screening person (at least where I give blood) and it's not a definate NO.. but I agree it's whacked out in many ways.

And the female that has had sex with a man that has had sex with another man is a seven year thing but still messed up. If you were tested and negative I don't see the point.

[mushie18]

I still give blood.

However, my boyfriend does not for this reason.

[LuckyStripe]

Yeah, if you know you are clean you can lie. It's not the people needing blood that make the rules but I understand people not wanting to lie because it could be ... well... upsetting...

[fountains of nay]

It's not just gay men that are prevented from giving blood, at least not in the UK. Here, I think, heterosexuals are also prevented from giving blood if they've had sex in Africa, as well as intravenous drug users. It's not discrimination in the sense of homophobia. It fits a very real demographic, that the highest concentrations of HIV are amongst heterosexuals in many Third World countries and homosexual males and IV drug users in the West. In principle, I'd be in favour of loosening the restrictions. You can, after all, screen for HIV - though only three months after infection. In practice, however, they are trying to cover all possible angles and make blood transfusions as safe as humanly possible. It's not a flawless process, and one might charge it as being discriminatory, but it may, unfortunately, be necessary....
I couldn't agree with you more Peace.
At the end of the day, they made such a cock-up with blood transfusions in the 70s/80s resulting in many people contracting the HIV/AIDS virus. It is for people's safety.

[SlickyPants]

I understand it is a matter of public safety and I know they aren't doing it because they hate gay people. It just bothered me a tad.

Sure homosexual men are a high risk group but so are those that are promiscuous and I didn't see any provision regarding that in the papers I filled out.

I agree that there are more important issues to worry about but I just bothered me that I wouldn't be allowed to donate blood because of me having sex with a man even if I had used protection which would signifigantly decrease the risk.

[fountains of nay]

Yes, but it does not take the risk away 100%. HIV can take up to 6 months just to be noticed. The whole point of blood donation is so that it can be used immediately, if necessary. Which, if you have a risk of being HIV positive, is not practical and very dangerous.

[drumminmama]

in the US, a person who lived in the UK during the BSE years (as I did) cannot EVER donate.
the rub. I have been vegetarian 26 years. I never had British beef.

oh, but I'm fine as a marrow donor...wtf?
marrow MAKES blood.

[Peace-Phoenix]

Yeah I'd heard about that. Probably a wise precaution given the widespread panic over the BSE crisis. As it turns out, it was a much smaller issue than previously thought....

[txbarefooter]

I'm in that same boat, I was stationed in England from 84-88 and can't give blood because of BSE, it has been 19 years and there is nothing wrong with me.

I was told I can't donate marrow because I'm gay.

[SelfControl]

Personally, I'd just lie. I know that's really wrong and just allows discrimination to continue, but they REALLY need the blood.

Does anyone wonder if AIDS is a bit of an excuse, and that maybe it's just some residual fear that homosexuality might be contagious?

Because I don't.

[fountains of nay]

That is not the issue and you should know that. At the end of the day, it's people's lives and safety vs your pride.

Get over it.

[SelfControl]

Suppose you know you don't have any blood diseases? Like you said, it's people's lives, surely they need as much blood as they can get.

[fountains of nay]

I understand what you're saying dude, but I also have to agree with the restrictions. They're there for a reason at the end of the day. You know that our government isn't homophobic...if they were, the gay marriage bill and gay rights etc wouldn't even exist.

It's like if you spend some time in Africa or whatever... you won't be able to give blood due to Malaria, Scarlet Fever etc etc

Prevention is better than cure.

[SlickyPants]

Perhaps I'm drifting a bit off topic, but why are gays statistically known to spread STDs more than straight people? To my knowledge there is no technical reason for it. If you have unprotected sex with someone with a disease then you will get it regardless of your sexual orientation.

My theory is that most sex education does not concern anal sex. To be honest, when I was younger I had no idea that STDs could be spread through anal sex. Fortunately I was a curious lad and I learned much about sex on my own through reading various books and through the internet. I quickly learned that anal sex was not a safe alternative. I guess this brings me to the thread titled "Discrimination in a school near here (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219037)." I think it is important for homosexuality to be talked about in school. Not only is it good to inform our children about it and make them comfortable with it so they don't grow up as biggots but it will also teach those that are gay (and those that aren't) that anal sex does not make them immune to STDs.

I don't know but I think that if people are properly informed about these things at a young age there will be a lot less disease being spread through sex. Maybe one day homosexuals won't be seen as disease-infested members of society.


I can definitely see why they are doing it and though I don't like it I can live with it. Maybe one day though statistics will balance out and things will change.

[SelfControl]

I understand what you're saying dude, but I also have to agree with the restrictions. They're there for a reason at the end of the day. You know that our government isn't homophobic...if they were, the gay marriage bill and gay rights etc wouldn't even exist.

It's like if you spend some time in Africa or whatever... you won't be able to give blood due to Malaria, Scarlet Fever etc etc

Prevention is better than cure.


True up to a point, however, as Africa shows, AIDS is far from just a gay plague. And while I know our government isn't homophobic, it's been born into a country that has been, and many of the old prejudices still exist. The idea that someone is likely to have AIDS just because they're an active homosexual is just as silly as the idea that someone won't have it just because they're heterosexual and haven't had sex in Africa.

[Peace-Phoenix]

Perhaps I'm drifting a bit off topic, but why are gays statistically known to spread STDs more than straight people? To my knowledge there is no technical reason for it. If you have unprotected sex with someone with a disease then you will get it regardless of your sexual orientation.
.
Actually that's wrong, anal sex does carry an empirically observed higher risk of spreading STDs. It's because the method of transmission is from semen coming into direct contact with blood due to the high concentration of capilliaries in the anus. This, of course, goes for heterosexuals participating in anal sex too. It's not just a gay issue, though homosexual males are proportionately more affected by it. It is also roughly four times more likely that a woman will contract HIV through heterosexual intercourse than a man. Alas, these are the facts....

[*Andy*]

I think it would be a mistake to see it as prejudiced. Whilst I disagree with the practice, I sincerely doubt that there is an irrational discriminatory element behind it. Rather it is rationality itself which has led to a form of discrimination. This is not an issue of sexuality, it is an issue of public health.
Thats rubbish! Blood is tested before it is transfused into someone. Why should blood from a gay person, that is disease free still not be able to be used!? Thats bullshit quite honestly. If the blood is fine, why should they not use it?

[Peace-Phoenix]

I've explained my point quite clearly already. It is justified internally as a precautionary measure given that HIV is not detectable for several months after initial infection. Do you really believe that health services are inherently homophobic and that they would actively wish to act on their prejudices to discriminate against homosexual males? Don't get angry with me for presenting a logical argument. Unless you think I'm homophobic too?

[SelfControl]

Reiterating the same point ignoring anything else put to you is pretty damn logical.

[Samhain]

can I just nip something in the bud here
Peace-Phoenix is NOT homophobic, he may be presenting some points that may make some people angry, but I know him and he's not doing it from an anti gay view point.
I am making this point because i've seen people who have views that the majority of other people don't agree with, being jumped on, its not happened on this thread yet, but by the same token I don't want it too
S

[crud3w4re]

I will never donate blood, I need my blood. :) The only thing I'll donate is my cum to a girls pussy.

[Peace-Phoenix]

Reiterating the same point ignoring anything else put to you is pretty damn logical.
What else do you expect? No point was put to me. I was simply accused of spouting 'rubbish' and 'bullshit', which in the context of a rational debate is a pretty cheap tactic. I never once claimed to support the position of the NHS, in fact I have passionately argued the opposite case against people in favour of the ban. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise the reasoning behind the ban and, although I disagree with it, I don't see any sense in claiming that the health service as an institution is homophobic considering the overwhelming wealth of countervailing evidence....

[Coyote Says]

Personally, if they don't want my gay blood I don't want to give it. I give the same speech to military recruiters.

(I live in the U.S., possibly the most uncivilized western country ever)

[SelfControl]

I will never donate blood, I need my blood. :) The only thing I'll donate is my cum to a girls pussy.


Grunge might be a word born out of commercialism - But how else do you explain the greatness of what it was?

:rolleyes:

[Aesthete]

Really, it's not up to any of us to decide the criteria for acceptable blood. That's the job of the medical community. It's immoral to lie just to do something like giving blood out of spite and in order to satisfy your own sense of justice. Sure, it's discriminatory--by its very nature. But the notion that there's lurking bigotry in the policy is absurd.

[tcboogiedown]

I know that the need for blood donations is at an all time high. I give blood when I have the time. Recently I was a manager at a retail outlet and invited the blood mobile to the store on several occasions. I encouraged my employees to give and offered a discount to any customers who also did.
My point is that the stipulations have been put in place for a reason. But how long ago was this? Regulations should be evaluated and updated.

[SelfControl]

Really, it's not up to any of us to decide the criteria for acceptable blood. That's the job of the medical community. It's immoral to lie just to do something like giving blood out of spite and in order to satisfy your own sense of justice. Sure, it's discriminatory--by its very nature. But the notion that there's lurking bigotry in the policy is absurd.


The thing about legislature is that, unlike people, it doesn't change gradually over time. If bigotry was involved when it was put in place, it'll be inherent there until it's changed. You don't have to be pinning blame on those in charge now to want to see it change.

And so what if it's amoral? They need my blood, but they won't take it unless I lie to them. Spite and justice have nothing to do with it.

[Samhain]

The thing about legislature is that, unlike people, it doesn't change gradually over time. If bigotry was involved when it was put in place, it'll be inherent there until it's changed. You don't have to be pinning blame on those in charge now to want to see it change.

And so what if it's amoral? They need my blood, but they won't take it unless I lie to them. Spite and justice have nothing to do with it.
if your really proud of your sexuality, even if you believe they are wrong personnally I wouldn't lie, I'm not about to pretend I'm straight for anyone, too many of us lie and it just buys into the myth that there is something wrong with us.
besides if all gay people lie they will never change it
S

[SelfControl]

Nothing will change if they don't lie. You say "I'm gay", they say "sorry, you can't give blood". Nothing changes.

I just figure if I can make a difference then I should. If I'm going along to give blood, my sexuality shouldn't even be in my mind. I'm not ashamed any more than I'm overtly "proud", I just don't see how anyone has the right to ask me my sexuality unless they're asking for a fuck.

[Samhain]

Nothing will change if they don't lie. You say "I'm gay", they say "sorry, you can't give blood". Nothing changes.

I just figure if I can make a difference then I should. If I'm going along to give blood, my sexuality shouldn't even be in my mind. I'm not ashamed any more than I'm overtly "proud", I just don't see how anyone has the right to ask me my sexuality unless they're asking for a fuck.
if people lie they will figure its working out fine the way it is.
by giving blood your doing them a favour, but your not doing the gay movement any favours, its about weighing up whats more important to you
S

[SelfControl]

I see your point, I really do, but at the same time, are those who are protesting in favour of gay rights going to stop just because I lied about it? I wouldn't think so. Am I personally going to achieve anything by refusing to give my blood until they change the law? Probably not.

I know it's profoundly unprincipled, but so are most people, and they get to give their blood. To me, it's more important that I am able to live my life the way anyone else takes for granted, rather than being unable to do so for the sake of a fight I stand no chance of winning.

[Samhain]

I see your point, I really do, but at the same time, are those who are protesting in favour of gay rights going to stop just because I lied about it? I wouldn't think so. Am I personally going to achieve anything by refusing to give my blood until they change the law? Probably not.

I know it's profoundly unprincipled, but so are most people, and they get to give their blood. To me, it's more important that I am able to live my life the way anyone else takes for granted, rather than being unable to do so for the sake of a fight I stand no chance of winning.
thats fine, providing you remember when the nurse takes the blood, you are only able to take so many things in your life for granted because of all the people that where hurt and died fighting for gay rights

if where you live you are able to express your homosexuality without the fear of being killed you are still proundly lucky
S

[SelfControl]

So it's only okay to hide your homosexuality if you're in a liberal utopia?

(semi-joking)

I'd be a lot more peeved if I got queerbashed and there wasn't any blood to transfuse into me than I would from having to lie a bit.

[Samhain]

So it's only okay to hide your homosexuality if you're in a liberal utopia?

(semi-joking)

I'd be a lot more peeved if I got queerbashed and there wasn't any blood to transfuse into me than I would from having to lie a bit.
I don't know
if a persons sexuality only amounts to a quick fuck at the weekends, then I guess it would be acceptable to lie.
however for people who have life partners, adopted children and have fought for gay rights they are denying all of that every time they lie about their sexuality.
there are other ways of fighting this other than lieing, however it doesn't seem like your that bothered about gay rights, more your own right in this case, to have something that you see everyone else has.

I would also be careful, I don't know wether lieing in this case would be classed as breaking the law
S

[SelfControl]

It would hardly be the first time I'd broken the law.

there are other ways of fighting this other than lieing, however it doesn't seem like your that bothered about gay rights, more your own right in this case, to have something that you see everyone else has.

What's the difference? If everyone else did what I did there wouldn't be a problem. I mean, we could all arrange to jump up a few years later and say "AHA, WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU AIDS!", but I don't know, why bother?

Again, I really do see your point, but Jeeeeeeesus, it's a chioce. Gay rights is great, I just don't see that, because I don't want my sexuality to intrude into something that has nothing at all to do with who I am attracted to/dating/whatever, I'm obviously a shallow cunt who has no interest in equality as long as he can get his balls sucked every Friday. Because to be quite honest, it's been a good 8 months since I've had my balls sucked anywhere!

Seriously man, it's great being on the moral highground and all, but I'm quite surprised that you're willing to make like I'm "part of the problem" (and thus open season for any accusation you care to level). It must be nice to be able to separate the world into "gay rights" people and "self-absorbed assholes". (Hyperbole, but that is what you're doing).

[Samhain]

It would hardly be the first time I'd broken the law.



What's the difference? If everyone else did what I did there wouldn't be a problem. I mean, we could all arrange to jump up a few years later and say "AHA, WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU AIDS!", but I don't know, why bother?

Again, I really do see your point, but Jeeeeeeesus, it's a chioce. Gay rights is great, I just don't see that, because I don't want my sexuality to intrude into something that has nothing at all to do with who I am attracted to/dating/whatever, I'm obviously a shallow cunt who has no interest in equality as long as he can get his balls sucked every Friday. Because to be quite honest, it's been a good 8 months since I've had my balls sucked anywhere!

Seriously man, it's great being on the moral highground and all, but I'm quite surprised that you're willing to make like I'm "part of the problem" (and thus open season for any accusation you care to level). It must be nice to be able to separate the world into "gay rights" people and "self-absorbed assholes". (Hyperbole, but that is what you're doing).
I do think your being short sighted when it comes to this issue, does that make your an asshole in my way of thinking?
no it doesn't

and if you where a friend of mine believe it or not i wouldn't advise you not to do it, I would advise you to think about it, which you have now done
S

[SelfControl]

I've thought about it a lot, to be honest, and I'm aware that you have to balance your personal rights against a wider social obligation. But in this instance, I don't think anything is gained by stating your sexuality knowing that it will exclude you from giving blood. You're not "raising awareness" because everyone knows that it's the rules. To make a change, you'd need a public platform, and that's something I don't have.

I do also believe that my right to reveal/conceal my sexuality overrides anyone else's right to know about it. That's not to say that I don't shout it loud that I am gay and also proud, but on principle, knowing someone else's sexual preference is a privilege, not a right. No government office is allowed to use data regarding my sexuality (all HR employee monitoring forms are anonymous; has anyone ever tested this by putting in deliberately false information?), so I don't see why it should apply to the health service either.

PS I didn't even know I had a Guestbook until just now. CHEERS.

[Duncan]

I'm a regular donor. It's one of the few blatant lies I make. I know that my blood is clean and free of disease. I resent that this is their method of screening... as if m4m sex is going to contaminate blood regardless... PERIOD.
I shrug it off as just the way things are in the US of A.

[SelfControl]

It's more frustrating maybe here because, apart from the blood thing, that mostly isn't the way things are in the UK. It's a blip in a country that is, for the most part, at least heading in the right direction, and it just seems ridiculous that it's not been fixed already.

[crud3w4re]

I like my blood in my veins.

[spooner]

Somehow I think practicality overrides your feelings of hurt self-worth.

[crud3w4re]

I hate needles, don't you? :P

[SR21]

It's more frustrating maybe here because, apart from the blood thing, that mostly isn't the way things are in the UK. It's a blip in a country that is, for the most part, at least heading in the right direction, and it just seems ridiculous that it's not been fixed already.
Very true. I was genuinely shocked the first time I went to give blood, and the form said I couldn't just because I've had sex with another man. It's not the kind of thing I expected to encounter in the slightest.

[Coyote Says]

I see good points on both sides. There are valid moral reasons for choosing to lie or choosing not to give blood. It really is up to the individual on this one, IMO.

On the one hand, people need blood all the time, and it's kinda selfish to withhold something just so you don't have to feel bad about lying. At one time I used to lie and give blood anyway, because I felt that was the correct moral choice. I still kinda feel that way in some ways.

But I have a life partner and children and family now. I denied being gay for years and was semi in the closet for awhile, and I've lost my taste for hiding. When I got fired from my job 3 days after coming out to the boss, I decided I was never going to deny it or try to hide it again to anybody for any reason. If I have any questions at all about how I would fit into a company as an openly gay man, I will bring it up myself in the job interview. I'd rather not get the job than go through that humiliation again.

So even though it's kinda messed up, I'd rather not lie and not give blood. I just don't even try, so I don't have to see the form in the first place.

And Sam's got a point. You could be putting yourself at risk for legal action by lying, though it's probably not likely.

[SelfControl]

I guess if you have a family you can always give your kids' blood.

[LuckyStripe]

Suppose you know you don't have any blood diseases? Like you said, it's people's lives, surely they need as much blood as they can get.
I apologize in advance for not reading the rest of the thread before replying to this.. I just had a comment I didn't want ot forget. It had to do with the comment to self control about "your pride vs. safety"- I agree with self control here.... and I don't think it has anything to do with pride. The only good reason I could see to lie is if you are 100 percent sure your blood is safe. And yes, many gay people can say that. I mean, there is such a blood shortage... they NEED blood- if you have used protection, had limited sexual partners, been tested, etc.- what is it really their business your sexual orientation? I'm sorry but I don't think it has to do with pride so much, but really has to do with wanting to help and knowing yourself and your situation and knowing if your blood is safe. It's not rocket science and if everyone was responsible, maybe it wouldnt be an issue.

Anyways I'll read the rest of the thread now...

[LuckyStripe]

Okay... sam, first it's not so much about gay rights vs. pride but more "these people need blood. is my blood defiantly clean?" PERIOD. That's all there is to it.

I mean I'm a bi female who's been with a male and female this year and I give blood every two to three months. I, for obvious reasons, don't have the same restrictions as gay males but I have lied before when I gave blood, about the question "are you a female who has had sex in the last seven years with a male that has had sex with another male?" (that would disqualify me)

Well, yes, I did. I also has tested twice for hiv and other blood-borne diseases-once and then 8 months later with no sexual contact other then my husband during that time.

Know what? I don't feel bad. My blood is and was clean and I knew that. It's not about LYING or GAY RIGHTS... not to me. I give blood because there are people out there dying that NEED blood and so many people that can give blood and don't do it for one reason or another, mainly not really caring.

So, just tell me why I should feel bad for helping someone when I knew I was safe to help? Many of us can police ourselves. :)


ps- I agree that giving blood isn't about gay rights- it has NOTHING to do with sexuality at all. It has to do with helping others if you have blood that is clean. Period.

[Peace-Phoenix]

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous debate. Pride is irrelevent. It's not even a matter of putting pride before public safety. After all, screening does exist. But it is neither the individual's right, nor responsibility, to determine what the health services need, could do or should do. Are we doctors? If the need for blood necessitates a relaxation of the law, then the law should be relaxed. This isn't even a matter for homosexual men anymore. What makes one individual feel that their personal situation is above that of society? It seems to me, Self Control, that you're intent to lie to give blood to prove a point, rather than for the sake of giving blood itself. It's not the way to make change. Change happens partly through collective action and mobilisation. As Samhain said, going under the radar is not going to help anything - except to make you feel a little better about yourself. But is that really the right reason to be doing it?

[SelfControl]

EDITED I can't give blood without lying, so I've got the option of lying or not giving blood. My collossal ego isn't any more of a factor than anyone else's would be.

EDIT: And this: But it is neither the individual's right, nor responsibility, to determine what the health services need
is ridiculous. It's not arrogant to assume that, if the health service is holding a blood drive, it's because they need blood.

EDITED BY Samhain due to personnal attacks

[Peace-Phoenix]

Please conduct yourself with due decorum. If you disagree with me, fine. If you want to debate with me, all the better. I would welcome that. But saying 'Fuck you' and 'dick' are not the way to go about it. I'm not your enemy, I'm sympathetic to your cause. Insulting me just cheapens your argument. You move from attacking my position, which is a legitimate thing to do, to attacking me. In doing so, you've already broken two forum guidelines. So here, I'm appealing for calm and reason....

[SelfControl]

It doesn't cheapen it any more than your complete failure to offer any kind of rebuttal cheapens yours. You can insist that I'm a self-obsessed asshole for wanting to donate blood as long as you like, you'll just look 10% more EDITED each time.

[Samhain]

I have sent out a warning to anyone that I feel is attacking anyone else on this thread, its fine to disagree, but stop the flaming.
further more if this continues, I will just assume that people are incapable of discussing this subject in an adult manner and I'll just close the thread
S

[Samhain]

You can insist that I'm a self-obsessed asshole
unless I've missed something, the only person that is useing those kinds of terms to describe you is yourself.
people may strongly disagree with you but no ones been insulting you
S

[gardener]

I don't get this, they must test all the blood anyway, because not everyone would tell the truth and their might be poeple with hiv who might not know about it
S
The fact is blood banks cut corners. I also think there is a little perverse mentality out there that thinks if they receive homo blood they'll change over. Says a lot for their personal identity and how secure they feel with it doesn't it?

[SelfControl]

unless I've missed something, the only person that is useing those kinds of terms to describe you is yourself.
people may strongly disagree with you but no ones been insulting you
S


The implication was that I wanted to give blood through my own selfish desire to prove a point. The fact that it was made repeatedly, without any kind of actual explanation or evidence... it's kinda like if I accused you of only being interested in gay rights to get laid, you know?

[Samhain]

The implication was that I wanted to give blood through my own selfish desire to prove a point. The fact that it was made repeatedly, without any kind of actual explanation or evidence... it's kinda like if I accused you of only being interested in gay rights to get laid, you know?
so why didn't you just say what you just did in the first place, the way you have responded on this thread the last couple of times is unaccpetable
S

[Peace-Phoenix]

The implication was that I wanted to give blood through my own selfish desire to prove a point. The fact that it was made repeatedly, without any kind of actual explanation or evidence... it's kinda like if I accused you of only being interested in gay rights to get laid, you know?
It was made once, though I never accused you of arrogance or egotism. I was assessing your argument from what you have presented here. Please, if you feel it's an unfair assessment, feel free to elaborate your position.

[Samhain]

selfcontrol, I apologise if you feel that any of my remarks that have been directed at you on this thread caused you any offense.
I would also point out that while people where judging you on what you have said about this issue, I don't believe anyone was making any judgements about your personality, we can't because we don't know you
S

[Peace-Phoenix]

Indeed, I would like to echo Samhain's apology for any offence caused. Self Control, I was not judging you as a person, to do so from a few sentences on a computer screen would be foolish. All my comments addressed to you were directed specifically at the argument you presented.

[mushie18]

:rolleyes:

I stand behind SelfControl...

[SelfControl]

:rolleyes:

I stand behind SelfControl...


There's a world of gay joke potential right there, isn't there.

I don't know, maybe I was rash to assume that suggesting an ulterior motive to giving blood implied some kind of personality problem. We're all supposed to at least kid ourselves that we give to charity altruistically, but really, we've all doing it for the endorphines we get primarily. It seems odd to pillory someone for doing it out of "pride", when no-one can really state pure motives. I don't see any real advantage to anyone in homosexuals being meek little victims immobilised by some arcane notion that letting ourselves be subjugated will get us into heaven (it's not like any of us are getting in anyway, at least by those same old-fashioned standards).

I'd liken it to marajuana legalisation, really. The arguments being made for legalising it and for keeping it illegal are both pretty patchy, but change is taking place as a result of mass action/inaction on the part of the public and those in authority respectively. Using marajuana is still considered illegal, but is effectively unpunished in this country. Gradually, the law has been slackened, because it has turned out to be unpoliceable.

Honestly, I don't see how I can further elaborate on my position. I've said everything about it, really. I don't claim that it's perfect. I just encountered a grey area, where lying or being lied to (denied a right on the basis of predjudice) was pretty much a 50-50 choice, and I just choose action rather than inertia. It seems Samhain and Phoenix prefer inertia. That's their perogative, this is mine.

[Samhain]

and I just choose action rather than inertia. It seems Samhain and Phoenix prefer inertia. That's their perogative, this is mine.
I think this is a really unfair statement, you don't like it when we speak our mind and feel like we're attacking you, but then you come out with a statement like this, that seems baited to get the arguement going again.
I think its very clear from our past statements that both myself and Peace Phoenix, don't feel this way and that there are ways of going about this and taking action that don't involue lying, this seems far from the inertia that would be involued in decieveing, where the organistion think that less gay people are bothering to go so they don't need to change anything.
but anyway unfortuantly we don't agree we you, which you take as a personnal slant, so i suggest you ethier do what you say you where going to do and let this one rest or carrying on making statements like the above, however if you do you need to stop being so sensitive when comments are directed at disagreeing with you
you can't have it both ways, we have explained that abusive language is not permitted, we have apologised for any offensive caused that may have prompted you to use the language, what more do you want, because we're not going to agree with you on this issue. My apology to you would have been the last post I had made on this thread that would have been directed to you, because I thought we had reached some sort of understanding but after this you seem determined to twist the meaning of my message and not let the arguement go

S

[SelfControl]

To be honest, I was interested in discussing it, and it bothered me that the two of your were fixating on this being my "pride" issue, and didn't seem willing to listen to any other explanation for it.

I felt justified in the statement you quoted though. Without wishing to sound self-aggrandising, Rosa Parks wouldn't have provided nearly as much of an impetus to the Civil Rights movement if she'd been too afraid of causing trouble to flaunt the rules of the day. If unjust laws are adhered to, they don't change.

[Samhain]

To be honest, I was interested in discussing it, and it bothered me that the two of your were fixating on this being my "pride" issue, and didn't seem willing to listen to any other explanation for it.

I felt justified in the statement you quoted though. Without wishing to sound self-aggrandising, Rosa Parks wouldn't have provided nearly as much of an impetus to the Civil Rights movement if she'd been too afraid of causing trouble to flaunt the rules of the day. If unjust laws are adhered to, they don't change.
my question still stands, do you want to continue argueing this, if you do stop being sensitive when we are speaking our minds and abusing us, we don't agree with you or think that you are doing the right thing, or at least I will speak for myself, i don't, if you want to get involued in a discussion thats the risk you take, that people won't agree with you if you don't like that, then you need to take a step back from it.

"i do not agree with what you are saying on this thread" if thats uncomfortable for you to hear then you need to stop continuing this debate, because its not personnal its people responding to statements you have said
S

[SelfControl]

Maybe this is just me continuing to be a dork, but I can't help but feel that we could've been continuing this debate for quite a while instead of going down this road. So I swore, big deal. If I hadn't, would it have been okay for me to have hurt feelings at someone accusing me of being motivated solely by my own pride?

I mean, you guys can wait for an apology and refuse to go anywhere else with this debate if you want, but I for one won't respect you any more for holding the thread up as I imagine you do me.

[Samhain]

Maybe this is just me continuing to be a dork, but I can't help but feel that we could've been continuing this debate for quite a while. I have been smacked on the wrist and am deeply profoundly apologetic for using naughty words. If I'd had more sense, I would've expressed my hostility without using naughty words. I didn't think, and for that I apologise.

I don't really, but I'm getting the sense that this is just going to go on and on until I apologise. But it's totally just me that has hurt feelings here.
I don't think you get where i'm coming from at all.
I don't agree with you lieing and having blood taken, its as simple as that, you can't expect everyone to agree with you on an issue and soemtimes people have to agree to differ without people taking it to heart or people trying to get other people to change their minds.

the other issue is you breaking forum rules and becoming abusive, if your not sorry don't apologise, but don't break forum rules again, its unfortuante you have got into a discussion with two moderators that are going to remind members of forum rules if you break them
S

[SelfControl]

I think you know me well enough from this forum to know that I don't take other people disagreeing with me personally. But I don't see it as a reason not to debate something either. What would be the point in debating place if we all agreed? The fact that neither of you agree isn't a major stumbling block for me, and I'm pretty sure that I was not the one who claimed otherwise.

The whole purpose of a forum is to discuss. What could possibly be served by "agreeing to differ"? Suppose everyone did that.

[Samhain]

I think you know me well enough from this forum to know that I don't take other people disagreeing with me personally. But I don't see it as a reason not to debate something either. What would be the point in debating place if we all agreed? The fact that neither of you agree isn't a major stumbling block for me, and I'm pretty sure that I was not the one who claimed otherwise.

The whole purpose of a forum is to discuss. What could possibly be served by "agreeing to differ"? Suppose everyone did that.
at some point people have to, when its just got nasty and this is what I'm going to do now, because this is going round in circles.
if you feel confused about what I have said reread what I said about flamming people on this thread.
S

[SelfControl]

Meh, call it flaming if you want. Do you actually want to talk about this anymore? I hate to talk in terms of "winning" debates.

[Peace-Phoenix]

Without wishing to sound self-aggrandising, Rosa Parks wouldn't have provided nearly as much of an impetus to the Civil Rights movement if she'd been too afraid of causing trouble to flaunt the rules of the day. If unjust laws are adhered to, they don't change.
Well this is the central issue of contention for me. Whilst I do not agree with the ban on homosexual men giving blood, neither do I think that this issue is fundamentally comparable with that of Rosa Parks or the Civil Rights movement. I think if you're going to mobilise action and protest against the ban, you have to go into it knowing what it is for. I think it would be a stretch of the imagination too far to assume that the ban is an explicitly homophobic one. The ban was justified internally for practical reasons, and targets a great many other higher risk groups than homosexual males. For instance, it would probably be sensible to continue to ban blood donations from intravenous drug users. Even if the ban is unfair, it would be difficult to see it as homophobic. And for that reason, I really don't think lying to the health services to give blood is the best way to change things....

[Faerie Jane]

So, I was out with a friend today and she went to go donate blood. I decided to give it a go for the first time. The process started smoothly with the iron test. I filled out the questionnaire and one thing caught my mind. If I had any sexual relations with another man I was automatically indefinitely deferred from donating blood.
I'm still a virgin at the moment so it doesn't affect me for the time being but whenever the time comes when me and some other guy get together and do the bad thing then my blood is considered unsafe due to high risk behaviour that could expose it to certain STDs. Even if I was in a stable monogamous relationship they will still not accept it. Even if they test my blood for STDs and I turn out clean they will still not accept it.

I understand the need to protect the blood recipients but this is borderline discrimination. "Statistics this!" and "statistics that!" Sure there are a higher number of cases of STDs in men who've had sexual relations with other men but it doesn't mean that heterosexual sex is free from the hazards of STDs. I don't think it is fair to whitewash all gay men as being walking hives of disease.

People in this world are dying all the time because there is a shortage of their particular blood type and they are not even given the option of accepting 'the potential risks' of being the recipient of a gay man's blood because we are rejected right from the get-go.

I just found that particular filter to be outrageous and I needed a place to vent about it.

Post your comments or opinions on this matter.

Did mommy and daddy forget to teach you life isn't fair and lying is wrong? You are all worked up because you cannot donate blood???? Get over yourself! There are more important things in life to be upset about. How is it Discrimination? As a person who has had many, many blood transfusions do you think it is fair to me that you lie and possibly one day give an innocent person a disease? Do you think it's fair that my sister contracted Hep C from tainted blood because the donor lied about his life? You are a foolish little boy that needs to put this situation into perspective.

If you don't like the rules you can either not give blood or do something constructive to change the rules instead of playing the victim on a message board. You really need to stop playing the victim and grow up. There will always be something in our lives that prevents us as individuals to participate in everything we want to do. That's life.


FYI: more people die from AIDS than waiting for blood products.

[Airic]

"Gradually, the law has been slackened, because it has turned out to be unpoliceable."

i'm pretty sure people are getting arrested this very minute for marijuana possession. i don't know what your talking about.

[Aesthete]

"Gradually, the law has been slackened, because it has turned out to be unpoliceable."

i'm pretty sure people are getting arrested this very minute for marijuana possession. i don't know what your talking about.
Maybe in the US. Maybe not in the UK.

[AfricaUnite]

I gave blood last week, I dont see how it makes a difference, homosexual or not, it all gets tested for HIV. At least this is what I was told at the clinic. Homosexuals blood without HIV is the same as my blood without HIV.

[SelfControl]

Well this is the central issue of contention for me. Whilst I do not agree with the ban on homosexual men giving blood, neither do I think that this issue is fundamentally comparable with that of Rosa Parks or the Civil Rights movement. I think if you're going to mobilise action and protest against the ban, you have to go into it knowing what it is for. I think it would be a stretch of the imagination too far to assume that the ban is an explicitly homophobic one. The ban was justified internally for practical reasons, and targets a great many other higher risk groups than homosexual males. For instance, it would probably be sensible to continue to ban blood donations from intravenous drug users. Even if the ban is unfair, it would be difficult to see it as homophobic. And for that reason, I really don't think lying to the health services to give blood is the best way to change things....


The gap in HIV risk between homosexuals and heterosexuals is shrinking by the day. Whether it's implicitly homophobic or not, there is an injustice in that the reason to exclude homosexuals is reducing over time, yet the law remains the same.

I compare it to Rosa Parks for that reason only; that there was not, and is not, any reason for the segregation, that it exists because it is ingrained in habit, especially if the samples are, as has been said, screened for blood diseases anyway. I don't see the logic in filtering out "high-risk" groups if the risk is presumed in all donors already.

[mushie18]

the other issue is you breaking forum rules and becoming abusive, if your not sorry don't apologise, but don't break forum rules again, its unfortuante you have got into a discussion with two moderators that are going to remind members of forum rules if you break them
S

It is unfortunate.

Twas very different in here when there were no mods.

[Samhain]

It is unfortunate.

Twas very different in here when there were no mods.
well things change, we all have to adjust and get used to it
S

[mushie18]

well things change, we all have to adjust and get used to it
S

Indeed!

[Peace-Phoenix]

I reckon Samhain and Erzebet have done a great job. You'd have found a lot more trolls and flamers in here before; the real homophobes who come here just to stir up trouble. That sort of crap needs dealing with as soon as possible, or else it just drags the whole forum down....

[SelfControl]

Yeah, I for one am a terrible influence on this place.

[bkcmar]

This policy was in effect in the early days of the AIDS crisis in the early 1980's. I was not aware that this blantently discriminatory practice still occurred 26/27 years after the virus emerged.

[squawkers7]

everyone is asked if they have been in a same sex situation and/or any of their partners have been in a same sex event. So even if you would never think of being gay..if someone you had been with, has had bi/gay-sex then you can't donate.
They also ask if you have been with anyone from Africa or if you have even traveled to any african country. Also if you have ever spent the night (just 1 night is all it takes) in jail then u can't donate.

Even though my blood is fine...I'm not supposed to donate.

[bkcmar]

everyone is asked if they have been in a same sex situation and/or any of their partners have been in a same sex event. So even if you would never think of being gay..if someone you had been with, has had bi/gay-sex then you can't donate.
They also ask if you have been with anyone from Africa or if you have even traveled to any african country. Also if you have ever spent the night (just 1 night is all it takes) in jail then u can't donate.

Even though my blood is fine...I'm not supposed to donate. O.K. if these questions are still asked in 2007, don't you think this is a bit arbitrary? Granted, a gay male may be more likely to have been exposed to the AIDS virus. However, lets evaluate each of these statements. How do we know the sexual behavior of our partners? How do you know the travel history of any of your partners? How do you assure an individual donating blood is honest in answering the above questions? That why I feel this is an arbitrarily discriminatory policy. You cannot assume someone has HIV positive because of criteria used in the 1980's. This disease has impacted every aspect of the population. That's why I feel this is an inappropriate policy in this day and age.

[SelfControl]

Indeed. We're constantly told that it only takes one unprotected sex act to spread a venereal. We are increasingly living in a world where sexual experimentation is not discouraged. Fact is, someone can be straight as you like, but if he's had one buttsex ever he could still be a carrier, and anyone he's been with could be infected.

What I don't understand here is, if the blood is tested for HIV anyway, why is it not easier to just give anyone who asks an AIDS test before they give blood? I assumed it was not cost-effective, but if they're testing it all anyway, I don't see how it can not be.

[Stella_Drives]

Many students are protesting the Red Cross Blood Drive at my school tomorrow because gay men who have had sex from 1975 to current date are banned to donate blood FOR LIFE. This ban was established during the peak of the American AIDS epidemic when fear was rampant across the country.

I think it is wrong for this rule to exist, but it has little to do with the Red Cross. It's ridiculous to discourage others donating blood by harassing them and staging a protest outside of the drive. These rules were instated by the FDA not the Red Cross nor it's volunteers.

I really think these rules need to be changed, but not by protesting blood drives.

[DirtyVibe]

What I don't understand here is, if the blood is tested for HIV anyway, why is it not easier to just give anyone who asks an AIDS test before they give blood? I assumed it was not cost-effective, but if they're testing it all anyway, I don't see how it can not be.B/C I think HIV can only be detected after 3 months of the initial infection- that means for 3 months it's undetectable but still spreadable. By removing the highest risk demographics for that 3 month window, they are lessening the chances of people dying from getting infected blood.

Like someone said earlier, they're not discriminating based on sexuality. They're discriminating based on numbers; any demographics with similar HIV infection rates are also discluded from being able to donate blood, among them: people that have been to Africa within a certain time frame, heterosexual (and bi for that matter) women that have had sex with a gay man in a certain time frame, etc.

[DirtyVibe]

Many students are protesting the Red Cross Blood Drive at my school tomorrow because gay men who have had sex from 1975 to current date are banned to donate blood FOR LIFE. This ban was established during the peak of the American AIDS epidemic when fear was rampant across the country.

Don't forget that there are false negatives in HIV blood tests sometimes. Also, many people infected don't know that they have it. The Red Cross isn't exactly the most discriminatory organization on the planet. If these rules are in place then they're probably there for a good reason: to save lives.

[SelfControl]

B/C I think HIV can only be detected after 3 months of the initial infection- that means for 3 months it's undetectable but still spreadable. By removing the highest risk demographics for that 3 month window, they are lessening the chances of people dying from getting infected blood.

Like someone said earlier, they're not discriminating based on sexuality. They're discriminating based on numbers; any demographics with similar HIV infection rates are also discluded from being able to donate blood, among them: people that have been to Africa within a certain time frame, heterosexual (and bi for that matter) women that have had sex with a gay man in a certain time frame, etc.


Yeah, I don't want to keep going on about this, but it's on the same level as racial profiling. The fact that many suicide bombers are Muslims does not mean that most Muslims are suicide bombers. The fact that many AIDS patients are gay does not mean that most gays are AIDS patients. It does not follow.

[DirtyVibe]

Yeah, I don't want to keep going on about this, but it's on the same level as racial profiling. The fact that many suicide bombers are Muslims does not mean that most Muslims are suicide bombers. The fact that many AIDS patients are gay does not mean that most gays are AIDS patients. It does not follow.
The rate of gay people and Africans having HIV/ AIDs is much higher than the rate of Muslims being terrorists.

[SelfControl]

It's still not a massive percentage in either instance, yet it seems okay to assume the worst in all cases.

[LuckyStripe]

everyone is asked if they have been in a same sex situation and/or any of their partners have been in a same sex event. So even if you would never think of being gay..if someone you had been with, has had bi/gay-sex then you can't donate.
They also ask if you have been with anyone from Africa or if you have even traveled to any african country. Also if you have ever spent the night (just 1 night is all it takes) in jail then u can't donate.

Even though my blood is fine...I'm not supposed to donate.
Just wanted to make a correction- the night in jail thing is either "in the past year" or "in the past two years"- not ever... The woman who's slept with a man who's slept with another man is in the past seven years I do believe but otherwise, yeah, they do still ask those things and many more.

All I can say is... for someone like me who's blood has been tested more then once after having sex with anyone but my husband and being married for quite a few years, I will give blood because I'm 110 percent sure my blood is clean. I know that for a fact and that's all that matters.

[LuckyStripe]

B/C I think HIV can only be detected after 3 months of the initial infection- that means for 3 months it's undetectable but still spreadable. By removing the highest risk demographics for that 3 month window, they are lessening the chances of people dying from getting infected blood.

Like someone said earlier, they're not discriminating based on sexuality. They're discriminating based on numbers; any demographics with similar HIV infection rates are also discluded from being able to donate blood, among them: people that have been to Africa within a certain time frame, heterosexual (and bi for that matter) women that have had sex with a gay man in a certain time frame, etc.Fine. Good points... to an extent. But why not then rephrase the questions "have you had whatever kind of sex with whoever within the past 3 months... shit, year, two years?"- that would be so much more understandable then stamping on criterea such as "seven years" or "ten years" or "EVER"!

There HAS to be some difference between someone who (for example) has been tested repeatly and has been in a long term relationship exclusivly for years compared to someone having more casual, risky sex.

[TerrapinRose]

heterosexual people can get HIV from heterosexual sex with infected heterosexual people who got it from having heterosexual sex with other hiv positive straight people. If you somehow think HIV comes from gay people or from somebody straight doing it with gay people you could be putting yourself at risk. ignorance isn't bliss, it's just ignorance.

[LuckyStripe]

^I don't think anyone was saying hetereosexual people can't and don't get hiv though.

[SelfControl]

No, just that it's not okay to assume that straight people have HIV/AIDS.

[DirtyVibe]

Oh and another thing you have to remember is that blood is a product. If allowed precursors to HIV risk go up, demand for that blood goes down and it sells less. In that case, another organization or company will sell blood without those precursors and the Red Cross will lose business.

[DirtyVibe]

No, just that it's not okay to assume that straight people have HIV/AIDS.Mate this isn't a political statement about whether gay people are OK or morally bad.

It's a safety device.

[doom876]

The gay community is so small that any disease outbrake will show up big time. It's still racism, streight people still get aids, and the blood should ALL be tested periodicly and set asside for several months for extensive testing anyway! I'm gay, and if they wont let me give blood at the school drive, I'm making a scene.
I might as well say, if I need blood "hay, I don't want some streight bastered's blood", see what they say.
The whole deal pisses me off. You can say fag and gay all you want as insults, but you can't say nigger(even saying it as an example is libal to get some hate thrown at me), and technically that isn't even racist (it has been adopted as such though), and people have even been sued for saying it. It's only fashionable to hate gay people is the point I was making, and it's pretty fucking stupid.
Just to clarify, I don't like racism in any form.

[BattleMoose]

Oh well, probably going to get flamed for this but going to say it anyway.

I'm 24 and only recently started having fun with boyz. ;) One thing that immideatly was noticable about the gay community is just how, promsicious and slutty it is, its just what i've noticed. The number of one nite stands i've turned down, and, well, taken apart in a few, well, its quite large, alot more than when I was in the hetrosexual dating scene.

Point is, more sexual partners and the chances of catching something nasty goes up, if they could test the blood 100% for HIV then thats fine, but if your in the window period, your going to give HIV to someone. :-(

Are all gay people promiscious, HELL NO! I know alot of gay guys out there who are in very stable and loyal relathionships, and I get why your pissed off about this.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, I'll prefer hetrosexual blood, its just risk aversion, its less likely to have soemthing nasty in it. If i could know that any blood is clean, i wouldnt care where it comes from. And if you know your clean, you can always lie on the form neway.

[Aesthete]

Not this thread again.

I'm for the autonomy of the medical establishment to set its own standards--perfectly free from political inroads--and to decide when, if ever, some standards become obsolete. I'm also for legal action against those who fail to tell the truth about their personal history when seeking to donate blood.

[doom876]

Oh well, probably going to get flamed for this but going to say it anyway.

I'm 24 and only recently started having fun with boyz. ;) One thing that immideatly was noticable about the gay community is just how, promsicious and slutty it is, its just what i've noticed. The number of one nite stands i've turned down, and, well, taken apart in a few, well, its quite large, alot more than when I was in the hetrosexual dating scene.

Point is, more sexual partners and the chances of catching something nasty goes up, if they could test the blood 100% for HIV then thats fine, but if your in the window period, your going to give HIV to someone. :-(

Are all gay people promiscious, HELL NO! I know alot of gay guys out there who are in very stable and loyal relathionships, and I get why your pissed off about this.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, I'll prefer hetrosexual blood, its just risk aversion, its less likely to have soemthing nasty in it. If i could know that any blood is clean, i wouldnt care where it comes from. And if you know your clean, you can always lie on the form neway.First, the HIV pop. in black women is growing faster then any other group. Should we not allow them to donate? I know few gays, but many streight people. The streights at the school are really slutty, like, near no virgins. Where I am is one place, and where you are is another. They are never the same, so we can't really judge by these little pieces of the total population. They do test the blood, we know that. Weather more gays have it or not, if we let streights only do it we'll get HIV posetive doners anyway, because it is not orientation specific. It's political, and it sadens me that a gay person is less comfertable with gay blood. Guess propeganda eats all brains.

[Canucker]

Its illegal in Canada too...

I can understand why the gov. would make it harder, but if gay people get tested, and are AIDS/STD free then they should be able to give blood...

[BattleMoose]

it sadens me that a gay person is less comfertable with gay blood. Guess propeganda
I am not against gay blood, I am against HIV positive blood.

[Puzuzzu]

They don't want my blood because im gay. They can die from blood loss.

[soundsystem]

Can a mod please ban this bigoted little shit?

[stalk]

I wonder what caused that person to be so mean.

[GLENGLEN]

Hi...I HATE FAGGETS.....Yes I Have Received Your Threatening P.M.s Thank You....http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif.However I Will Not Be Responding To You Through The P.M. Network.....Only On Open Threads....Where All Can Read And Appreciate.....What A Truly...Sad...Deranged..41 Year Old Loser You Are....http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/sad.gif





Yours........Hoping At 41 Years ...You Can Still Get Professional ..Medical Assistance.....Wherever You Live....

Cheers Glen.

[Puzuzzu]

Can a mod please ban this bigoted little shit?Oh sorry!!! When a gay is insulted it ok, but when we try to defend ourselves than we are bigotted?!?!?!?! Last time i checked they are the ones rejecting my blood, if they don't want it then it's their problem.

[GLENGLEN]

Dear Puzuzzu...That Comment Was Not Aimed At You Mate......It Was Aimed At A Troll Who's Post Was Removed......Please Be Patient Whilst "SKIP" Sorts Out This Unholy Mess...


Cheers Glen.http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

P.S.....I'm Going To Give It Another Hour To Sort Itself Out.......Then I'll Systematically Go Through All "My" Recent Posts In The Gay Threads..........And Personally Remove (edit) The Lot..http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif.....You May Wish To Do The Same....? By Only Editing..Half Of The Posts..Mods Have Only Suceeded In Making The Genuine Posters Look Stupid (like they are fighting with each other)...http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/newicons/crazy.gif

[soundsystem]

Oh sorry!!! When a gay is insulted it ok, but when we try to defend ourselves than we are bigotted?!?!?!?! Last time i checked they are the ones rejecting my blood, if they don't want it then it's their problem.I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to "I_HATE_FAGGETS", a troll who's since been banned (so his posts have gone).

I agree with you, they reject my blood for the same (non) reason.

[Puzuzzu]

sorryhttp://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/embarassed.gif

[SelfControl]

Oh well, probably going to get flamed for this but going to say it anyway.

I'm 24 and only recently started having fun with boyz. ;) One thing that immideatly was noticable about the gay community is just how, promsicious and slutty it is, its just what i've noticed. The number of one nite stands i've turned down, and, well, taken apart in a few, well, its quite large, alot more than when I was in the hetrosexual dating scene.

Wanted to comment on this: being a massive slut might increase your chances of getting an STD, but ultimately, it doesn't ever guarantee it. You could sleep with 100 people without protection and never catch anything, and you could sleep with one person and just get really really unlucky.

[BattleMoose]

Argh, dont u get it, its a statistical argument purely, purely based on statistics, completely......

[mushie18]

Argh, dont u get it, its a statistical argument purely, purely based on statistics, completely......

Yes, if you believe what was told to you in the 1980s, when it was called the "gay cancer." Times have changed, and if you want to get into statistics, in the United States, black women are the highest percentage carrying the virus.

Should we ban them from giving blood, "based on the statistics?"

"I'd rather have hetero blood" :rolleyes: That's pathetic.

[SelfControl]

Argh, dont u get it, its a statistical argument purely, purely based on statistics, completely......


No, I understood that. What I'm saying, and what mushie I think is saying, is that it's a problem if you assess people's suitability purely on statistics, especially when we have the capacity to actually test blood rather than just calculate risk. As mushie pointed out, black women are statistically a higher risk than gay men. What I think he is implying is that it would not be politically acceptable for blood banks to discriminate based on race, but there's still enough people believing that sexuality is a choice and that homosexuality is inseparable from "the lifestyle" for it to be okay for them to discriminate against homosexuals on that basis.

[mushie18]

SelfControl summed it up very well.

[lostdazedintime]

Last time I tried to donate blood they told me they couldn't take my blood for the plethora of residual chemicals would probubly give some guy a heart attack, but on the flip side I was hiv- , I was down with that explaination.

[Shale]

I stumbled across this thread and have not read every post, but it brought back my thoughts expressed in an article that was published in 2000. Gad it has been that long and the US is still discriminating against gay men who are no more at risk these days than black and Hispanic women who get to donate blood without lying.

Yes, I said lie. If "you are a man who has had sex with even one man since 1977" and know you have not done any risky behavior then don't tell them about it. It is their absurdity - don'tg buy into it. BTW, I am an AIDS educator and HIV- even after intimacy with a few guys with AIDS. The disease is transmitted by specific body fluid risk factors and has nothing to do with the gender or sexual orientation of people (except heterosexual women are more at risk due to physiology)

HONORABLE LIES
Roberto Sangrebuena

July 14, 2000
(Published: Express Gay News, July 31, 2000)

"Everyone suspects himself of at least one of the cardinal virtues, and this is mine: I am one of the few honest people that I have ever known."
Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald


OK, so I'm honest enough to tell you that I have lied, for mostly noble reasons, and perhaps once or twice to get my ass out of a crack. Besides, those who do attain total honesty are derided for being tactless. But, I do strive for honesty. It is a pursuit that seems out of place in, if not counter to, the American way of life.

We expect crooks and con artists to lie. This has been a problem in Western society since forever, and was specifically addressed in one of our earliest morality laws: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Still, this edict goes widely ignored by most everyone from the lowest petty rip-off to the highest officials in our government. Nixon with "Watergate," Reagan and Bush with "Iran/Contra," and Slick Willy with his ..uh.. "slick willy." We seem to expect people to lie. We catch them at it and then blow it off. So, we are basically a dishonest culture where hypocrites are exposed but after a little finger wagging nobody cares.

We've even incorporated lying into official government policy. "Don't ask, don't tell," says that homosexuals can't serve in the U.S. military. But, as long as they conceal their true sexuality and appear straight, nobody's supposed to mess with them. So, if you are a homosexual in the U.S. military you are forced to bear false witness by omission.

As for me, I undertake to observe the rule to abstain from false speech. That is one of the five Buddhist precepts, and unfortunately I have been forced by the U.S. government to suspend it six times last year and three times this year for the greater good.

I just donated my third pint of blood this year. Last year I donated six pints, just part of the several gallons I've donated over the years. No telling how many people are alive today because of my regular blood donations.

Not a very large percentage of people donate blood, which is the only source of this life giving fluid. There are always shortage crises, and it is projected to get worse as we baby boomers age. So everyone thanks me for my civic responsibility, and yet each and every time I get drained of a pint, I am forced to speak falsely. This bothers me, but I rationalize it as civil disobedience because of the absurdity of the government rules that elicit my untruth.

The Food and Drug Administration insists on keeping an anachronism on its prescreening questionnaire, one that defers from donating, any man who has "had sex with a man, even once, since 1977." This pretty much covers all homosexual and bisexual men of the past quarter century, even those of us who are disease-free and do not engage in high risk behavior for contracting any sexually transmitted diseases. This is, pure and simple, discrimination based on sexual orientation.

As an AIDS educator who knows which specific sexual behaviors are actually high risk, the exclusion of any and all men who have had sex with another man since 1977 is so ludicrous that I have learned to ignore it. It may be a rationalization, but since the question is under the heading of "High Risk Behavior" - which it isn't - I can dismiss it for the absurdity that it is, and check the "NO" box. If I engaged in high risk behavior, I should have been infected years ago.

For one thing, high risk sexual behaviors are the specific sexual practices, not the gender of the partners. A man and woman can engage in high risk behavior, and the statistics bear this out with the high incidence of newly infected women, mostly black and Hispanic. And yet, the questionnaire still targets men who've had sex with a man as long ago as 1977. The questionnaire allows a man to have had sex with a woman with AIDS 13 months ago, but not with a disease free man 23 years ago. These questions are so arbitrary and contradictory that they should be scrapped altogether. They are indefensible, and yet the bureaucrats at the FDA still defend them.

Being a gay man does not necessarily mean one is infected with HIV or hepatitis, just as being straight does not preclude one from these infections. The prescreening questionnaire can eliminate some obvious people who are actually at risk, but infections do occur in people who thought they were risk free. If you are sexually active and don't use barrier protection, your risk is determined by the honesty and prior behavior of your sex partner. It doesn't matter whether you are a gay man or a heterosexual woman.

The prescreening questionnaire, if continued at all, should reflect actual high risk behavior, not some outdated statistical model that now serves only to discriminate against a class of people. The fact is, the new gene test (nucleic acid testing) that is now being used to screen blood, is the real safeguard to the blood supply. Modern science is where we need to concentrate our efforts in blood donations, not ancient prejudice.

I have been complaining about this for the past two years, since my divorce has put me back in circulation among male sex partners. I am not the only one. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, a group of physicians have also been complaining about this bit of senseless discrimination, but are likewise ignored by the bureaucrats in charge of the FDA.

The irrationality of the set of questions that says I can have sex with a person with AIDS over a year ago, but not with any man for the past two decades is beyond belief. Which is why I decided to just ignore the ignorant questions about "high risk behavior" and check "no" on the form. I've read op-ed letters from other gay men who said that they also ignore the ludicrous question and lie. I would suggest that more gay men who know that they are disease free, and who do not engage in high risk behavior, should also pursue this worthy civil disobedience. Maybe a lie to a lie can create a truth.

(Roberto Sangrebuena is a pseudonym (lie) for a bisexual man who wishes to continue donating his disease-free blood)

[sushiosoyum]

Just lie on these forms, who cares? This government is beyond fucked up.

[nowhereboy]

The really "wrong" thing about disqualifying blood donations from any man who has had sex with another even once since 1977 is that this policy is based on homophobia rather than science. As a gay male who has been in a monogomous relationship for the last six years, never have butt sex (and frankly we barely have any sex at all), my blood is way safer than that of most college students, single hetero men, and let's be real: most hetero married men--since most cheat once in a while. But where do all those blood drives go? Fraternities, corporations with young people, etc.. And they are trying to ensure the safety of the blood supply? Please! Why is it easier for a former prostitute/heroin addict to give blood than gay men in decades long monogomous relationships? It's all about public perception, not real statistics and science.

What needs to happen? Well, for one thing they could ask realistic questions, like: How many different people have you had sex with in the last two years? Did you use protection during all of those encounters? etc.

Second, if the Red Cross told the government that they wanted the rules altered, the government would comply. But the Red Cross continues to use the government rules as an excuse, rather than voicing objections. I'm not saying the Red Cross should break the rules or stop taking blood, but they should advocate for sensible rules.

What can you do? Don't donate blood OR MONEY to the red cross, and tell them why. Second, whenever you hear that there is a "critically low" shortage of blood, you can reply that that is a bunch of BS. If there were ever an actual danger of running out of blood, they would accept it from every dirty-needle user in Detroit -- remember that the blood IS tested for diseases after it is taken. If there were a REAL blood shortage they would take the 1 in a million risk of a contaminated sample making it through rather than be in a situation where there were truly no blood available. Those "critically low" blood shortages simply mean they are below the level of comfort for their antiquated beaurocratic procedures to deal with. Don't trouble yourself with blood donations... trust me they have more than enough blood supply... if they were really a need they would lose the hate-based rules and switch to ones based on sense and science.

[drew172]

...and let's be real: most hetero married men--since most cheat once in a while

Interesting, discrimination against heterosexuals by a homosexual in a thread where homosexuals are complaining about discrimination....

Okay, so y'all don't like their rules. Get off your fucking asses then....I honestly can't believe you will all sit here and complain and do nothing about it. Write a letter, talk to a politician, protest... But sitting and complaining and LYING about your situation is no way to go about changing or dealing with the problem. In fact, lying about who you are, just as Samhain pointed it, is a very pathetic way of dealing with the problem...

Did mommy and daddy forget to teach you life isn't fair and lying is wrong? You are all worked up because you cannot donate blood???? Get over yourself! There are more important things in life to be upset about. How is it Discrimination? As a person who has had many, many blood transfusions do you think it is fair to me that you lie and possibly one day give an innocent person a disease? Do you think it's fair that my sister contracted Hep C from tainted blood because the donor lied about his life? You are a foolish little boy that needs to put this situation into perspective.

If you don't like the rules you can either not give blood or do something constructive to change the rules instead of playing the victim on a message board. You really need to stop playing the victim and grow up. There will always be something in our lives that prevents us as individuals to participate in everything we want to do. That's life.


This poster, unfortunately was ignored, but pretty much had a really good point.

You might as well be creating more stereotypes about gays by lying in order to feel like a do-gooder blood donor. Stand up for yourself and others if you don't agree with an organizations policies. Don't be a sneaky bugger who does nobody but himself any good when he lies. There is always a need for blood, yes, but honestly, you know, and you know you know, that they're not freaking out about a shortage. It's not necessary to play a charade about who you are in order to do something that makes you feel good about yourself.

Rules are in place for a reason. Maybe that reason eludes you or maybe you don't agree with the principles, whatever. The fact is, your stance does NOT matter. Not unless you decide to fight it and actually fight it. Lying and sneaking is not fighting something you don't believe in. Forget the lying. Be who you are and accept the rules and go on with your life, or be who you are and fight the rules in a good, honest way.

[justCHILL]

yes its not good to lye and not tell the truth, but you failed to see the people are are dyeing because they do not have a particular blood type in the hospital in time or they contract a disease which yes, could have come from a gay person who has lied and given blood, but it ALSO could have come from a strait person that had sex with a gay person and gotten a disease, or just from a strait person who has has MANY partners recently and didn't have to tell about it, or lied about it. and i am NOT discriminating against strait people by only mentioning them, but homosexuals are already out of the picture! if a gay person is in a monogamous relationship, always uses protection, and consistently gets checked for STD's, they STILL can not give blood, while the strait "collage student" with multiple partners with people who have Also had multiple partner and so on and so forth, somewhere down the line with someone who could have had aids from doing heroin with a dirty needle and anything else, can give blood...its WRONG AND NEEDS TO CHANGE.

[nowhereboy]

There is no one dying because of lack of blood donations.

The way to protest against the poorly constructed and discrimanatory rules is NOT to lie so that you can donate blood. That is completely counterproductive, besides unethical.

The way to protest is to keep telling people that they are not getting your perfectly good blood, and also for supporters to tell the Red Cross vampires to say that they aren't donating their blood either until the rules are changed to be based on science and sense. If there ever were a REAL blood shortage--I mean one where there was actually a danger of running out of blood, not just a situation where the idiots in healthcare were uncomfortable with their poorly handles supply--then the rules would change in a hearbeat.

In the meantime, do not bother donating blood. It's just a waste of time. Yes, yes, if no one dontated blood it would be a problem, but that is not the situation, and it's an oppotunity to protest against discrimination by the government.