My Fiancee Can't give Blood

Eh... you people take too much offense to it imo. If you are tested regularly and know you are free of any infection then just lie on the application - you'll be doing the red cross or etc a favor.

To me I don't see this as any different than charging a teenager more money for car insurance - they are more likely to be in a wreck.

Most of the rules are probably a hangover from the AIDs scares during the 80's don't ya think?

Just blatantly denying a donor based on male homosexual acts is definitely stupid though.

Realize that it's easy to pick apart a law or rule for it's flaws but in the complete absence of any rules or screening they probably just tried to come up with the best thing they could without actually doing a test due to cost/time...

Althought I guess they test the blood after the fact anyways, huh? Maybe there are certain things they dont' test for?

 

The fact of the matter though is that they wouldn't take her blood because I was molested. And the question is so vague. What if the partner engaged in mutual masturbation with a friend when they were a child or teenager. Hey that was still sexual contact.

Peace Out,
Rev J

 

no and no... :leaving:

 

In that PDF you referenced, notice there is a disclaimer as a footnote, The MSM catergory - Men who have Sex with Men is calculated from the most likely behaviour to cause the infection as listed by the consulting physician and the CDC, NOT on how the subject self identifies

And there is a big difference. The OP as an example, if thanks to his cousin had contracted HIV, he would be placed in the MSM category, even though he is obviously not gay. Just as you can have an openly gay male added to the IDU category if that was the reported most likely cause.

And the MSM category doesnt distinguish between consensual and non consensual. You'll note there is a disproportionate number of MSM black males compared to the rest of their population, but there is also a disproportionate number of black males in the prison system.

Same PDF, it says the CDC estimates 4% of the population is MSM. This estimate is calculated through HIV data compared to sample groups, and as its based on behaviour, they really mean that 4% are Males that have penetrative sex with Males in a fashion thats going to increase their risk to HIV - unprotected or unconsensual. Doesnt include gay or bi males that dont have penetrative sex, would include heterosexual males that do, or that have been raped. It doesnt mean they think the total % of gay and bi males is only 4%

The heterosexual categories are made up from those whose most likely cause as reported by the physician is from contact with a prostitute or recent overseas trip or contact from someone from overseas. Same kind of thing, doesnt necessarily mean they are heterosexual. And of course doesnt mean the person that infected them was.

And back to that MSM group, they can be married to a women with a bunch of kids, contract HIV through unprotected penetrative sex with a guy, and because its classed on behaviour, would be added to that MSM group not the heterosexual one.


I say all this, because this kind of stuff is why the rhetoric was changed a decade or so ago to MSM. Why the question is 'Have you had sex with a man since 1977?' and not 'Are you gay or bisexual?', the hope being given a guarantee of privacy and or anonymity it catches all exposed to the high risk behaviour, including those that have been raped, molested or as Shale says, are on the downlow. Especially that last one, as those on the downlow, is most probably a bigger group than openly gay and bisexual combined

 

Therein lies one of the discriminatory problems with the questions. I have had sex with men. I am not a bottom - the highest risk behavior. They haven't conclusively found out if there is that much risk with oral. So, I am a MSM who likely has very little risk of infection (empirically proven by my current negative status after all these years of playing around with guys).

In fact, back in the '90s when they were testing an HIV vaccine, I went to volunteer. After taking my sex history they determined I was too vanilla for their study.

They wanted rent boys and such that they knew were at high risk so they would get an accurate count that the vaccine worked.

 

There's also the problem with the time frame. Technically, if I had sex one time with a guy who had sex once with one guy in 1978, I would forever be ineligible for blood donation. That's just stupid. He'd certainly know by now if he had HIV or AIDS. They also don't differentiate between protected and unprotected sex. Condoms aren't perfect, but they make a huge difference. I have been with a man who has had sex with a man. It has been years since it happened and we've both been tested regularly since then. We're 100% clean. And yet if we tell the truth, we're both barred from giving blood.

I lie. I know a lot of people who refuse to give blood in protest, but the people who are getting the blood need it to survive, period. I'm not letting someone die because homophobic jackasses made the rules about who can donate and refuse to reevaluate them. I will, however, continue to speak out about the ridiculousness of these rules.

 

I have gave blood after smoking weed. They didn't say anything. They just sent me a thank you letter and a card.

 

My ex cheated on me with dudes, and I found out later, after giving blood several times. I think I'm safe. I lie, though I don't give blood anymore. Last time I had a hypoglycaemic episode. Ick.

And Shale, you look almost exactly like my uncle, who lives in Florida. I know you're not him, he's in no way hippie, but it's kind of freaky. Lol.

 

I just lie on that question. I test myself for STDs often in any case. They need the blood (desperately in some cities) more than they need the truth.