FDA Keeps Ban On Gay Men As Blood Donors

[Gabu]

My point, however, was that you don't get HIV from being gay.  You get HIV from being sexually promiscuous.

Actually that's incorrect.  It is the precise nature of the sex act that matters as well, Gabu.  For example to be 'sexually promiscuous' and use the condom does not lead to hiv.  In the same way, a sexually promiscuous male who takes the penetrative role and does not use condoms may in fact be far less 'at risk' then the less promiscuous receiver of the Evil Jism (particularly the Anal Receiver).

Promiscuity and hedonism in general is of course the target of the aids myth hyped by the christian/rightwing/antisex media.

I suppose what I meant was "you expose yourself to the possibility of getting HIV by being sexually promiscuous".  I didn't mean that you're 100% guaranteed to get it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I support banning blood from prostitutes, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users.  I would also support a blood-giving ban against the sexually promiscuous.

But the ban should be a 10-year ban, and not a life-time ban

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I support banning blood from prostitutes, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users.  I would also support a blood-giving ban against the sexually promiscuous.

Those are all banned, except for promiscuous.

The problem is, how to define "promiscuous".

BTW, opebo is also banned, as he has had sex with prostitutes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

BTW, opebo is also banned.

more proof that the FDA guidelines are sane

[opebo]

Well, obviously I would never give blood, though I am occasionally bitten by mosquitos.

[Gabu]

I support banning blood from prostitutes, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users.  I would also support a blood-giving ban against the sexually promiscuous.

Those are all banned, except for promiscuous.

Which I have always personally found ridiculous.  Sexual promiscuity, especially sexual promiscuity without using adequate protection every time, is by far the #1 thing that leads to HIV.  To not screen for sexual promiscuity while screening for something like homosexuality is just stupid.

[Verily]

I support banning blood from prostitutes, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users.  I would also support a blood-giving ban against the sexually promiscuous.

Those are all banned, except for promiscuous.

Which I have always personally found ridiculous.  Sexual promiscuity, especially sexual promiscuity without using adequate protection every time, is by far the #1 thing that leads to HIV.  To not screen for sexual promiscuity while screening for something like homosexuality is just stupid.

But how do you measure sexual promiscuity? At least homosexuality and intravenous drug use are simple questions.

[Gabu]

I support banning blood from prostitutes, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users.  I would also support a blood-giving ban against the sexually promiscuous.

Those are all banned, except for promiscuous.

Which I have always personally found ridiculous.  Sexual promiscuity, especially sexual promiscuity without using adequate protection every time, is by far the #1 thing that leads to HIV.  To not screen for sexual promiscuity while screening for something like homosexuality is just stupid.

But how do you measure sexual promiscuity? At least homosexuality and intravenous drug use are simple questions.

Determine how many different sexual partners a person's had in the past year or so.  Or determine how often the person uses protection when having sex.  Or something along these lines.

The fact that it's harder to do doesn't make not doing it any more sensical.  If you screened for sexual promiscuity, that would eliminate the need for screening for a lot of other things.  As I said before, banning all gay people from donating blood makes as much sense as banning all black people from donating blood.

[2952-0-0]

Perhaps requiring people to wear chastity belts for the past 20 years before they can give blood will ensure better safety? Dunno...just a suggestion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Perhaps requiring people to wear chastity belts for the past 20 years before they can give blood will ensure better safety? Dunno...just a suggestion.

chastity isn't an issue here, risky behavior that endangers others is

[Speed of Sound]

Tskt tsk tsk. We never will get over mass, blatant discrimination. I never wished to eliminate it, but I figured that it wouldnt happen on this scale anymore. Tis a shame, really.

J00r G4Y n tHARE-f0UR HAvE t3h AIDS!!!!!!!!!

[opebo]

I support banning blood from prostitutes, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users.  I would also support a blood-giving ban against the sexually promiscuous.

Those are all banned, except for promiscuous.

Which I have always personally found ridiculous.  Sexual promiscuity, especially sexual promiscuity without using adequate protection every time, is by far the #1 thing that leads to HIV.  To not screen for sexual promiscuity while screening for something like homosexuality is just stupid.

No, as we have established, promiscuity alone is not a factor.  For example, a penetratively inclined male is much less likely to get hiv during one year if he has sex with 100 different women, 10 of which are hiv positive, than if he has sex 100 times monogamously with the 'wrong woman'.

[Bono]

I support banning blood from prostitutes, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users.  I would also support a blood-giving ban against the sexually promiscuous.

Those are all banned, except for promiscuous.

Which I have always personally found ridiculous.  Sexual promiscuity, especially sexual promiscuity without using adequate protection every time, is by far the #1 thing that leads to HIV.  To not screen for sexual promiscuity while screening for something like homosexuality is just stupid.

No, as we have established, promiscuity alone is not a factor.  For example, a penetratively inclined male is much less likely to get hiv during one year if he has sex with 100 different women, 10 of which are hiv positive, than if he has sex 100 times monogamously with the 'wrong woman'.

"less likely" isn't enough in blood donation cases.

[Joe Republic]

What's to stop somebody from simply lying when answering if they've ever had sex with a man?  Given that some of them may even feel ashamed about it, no doubt it already happens a great deal.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No, if there blood is clean we need more blood.  Just don't tell people that the blood is from a gay person b/c they might freak out

[Alcon]

Just don't tell people that the blood is from a gay person b/c they might freak out

Because they will catch gay from it?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Just don't tell people that the blood is from a gay person b/c they might freak out

Because they will catch gay from it?

Let's be honest, this would freak of a lot of people out

[Ebowed]

Just don't tell people that the blood is from a gay person b/c they might freak out

Because they will catch gay from it?

Let's be honest, this would freak of a lot of people out

Good thing blood donors are anonymous

[Gabu]

Just don't tell people that the blood is from a gay person b/c they might freak out

Because they will catch gay from it?

Let's be honest, this would freak of a lot of people out

I think a lot of people would be freaked out just at the thought alone of having someone else's blood in their body.

[2952-0-0]

By the way, this is another reason why more funding for stem cells research is needed. So that in the future we can just grow blood like crops and not rely on donations.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

By the way, this is another reason why more funding for stem cells research is needed. So that in the future we can just grow blood like crops and not rely on donations.

agree

[DownWithTheLeft]

By the way, this is another reason why more funding for stem cells research is needed. So that in the future we can just grow blood like crops and not rely on donations.

Which would imply you are growing babies like you grow crops.

[2952-0-0]

That goes straight to the comedy goldmine. Gracias por tu ayunda.

[Joe Republic]

By the way, this is another reason why more funding for stem cells research is needed. So that in the future we can just grow blood like crops and not rely on donations.

Which would imply you are growing babies like you grow crops.

What on earth are you talking about?

[DownWithTheLeft]

By the way, this is another reason why more funding for stem cells research is needed. So that in the future we can just grow blood like crops and not rely on donations.

Which would imply you are growing babies like you grow crops.

I assume Dean is implying embryonic stem cell research, which is creating life to destroy it in my opinion.  Why is this hard to understand?
What on earth are you talking about?