Donating Blood (merged)

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

I am not against gay blood, I am against HIV positive blood.

 

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

 

Can a mod please ban this bigoted little shit?

 

I wonder what caused that person to be so mean.

 

Hi...I HATE FAGGETS.....Yes I Have Received Your Threatening P.M.s Thank You.....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....





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

Cheers Glen.

 

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.

 

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.

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.......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)...

 

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.

 

sorry

 

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.

 

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" That's pathetic.

 

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.

 

SelfControl summed it up very well.

 

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.

 

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

(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)