Is it true that gay people are not allowed to donate blood?

That's not the reason, and I think you know it.

Truth of the matter is, anal sex does have a higher spread rate of HIV. The question examination does not ask 'are you gay?', it asks something similar to 'have you had anal sex recently within the past 12 months'.

This applies to women too.

If you haven't participated in homosexual intercourse within the past 12 months and you're screened, you can give blood, even if you slap them in the face with your d*ck screaming your gay.

It's not homophobic, it's scientific on a budget. Besides, I usually just conclude 'meh, if they don't want my blood, I don't want them to have my blood'.

 

Heh, yeah I know anal sexers are more susceptible to STD's, but anal aint the only way for gays to have sex. Like ya said, they should ask about ANAL sex not GAy sex. Cuz heteros can be anal sexers too.

But for now, let's just go wtih the "spread gayness to all of man kind" plan! >;p

 

They do ask about anal sex and not gay sex. They deliberately avoid the word gay at all, not gunna lie.

My female friend was rejected from it and told to come back in 12 months because she's had anal sex. Just sayin'

I don't think the intent is homophobic and enforced purely to discriminate against gay people. I think it's simply them trying to maximize the potential of their job on a limited budget.

Edit:

This is the UK anyway. I saw a lesbian member post that she was refused which genuinely shocked me. Lesbians are the most STD-free community going, and in the UK I'm 90% sure that lesbians are *not* refused from blood donating. Only people who participate in anal sex, or gay oral sex (can only conclude that they think straight couples don't do oral sex AND anal sex together, while gay men MUST do oral sex AND anal sex... I'll admit, that ones a silly rule)

 

Ah, well the UK, that's different then. Heh when I donated blood, they asked me if I'd had sex with another male recently and they didn't ask anything about anal.

 

In our country, you are prohibited from ever donating blood, if you (a man) have sex with another man, and then in a case of women, who have sex with a man, that had sex with another man, or did drugs, or any other of those things, it's 12 month period of prohibition. And I agree that it's kind of silly to make such a distinction.

But on the other hand, I read somewhere, that there were some studies made, statistics of which showed, that gay men have a higher chance of being infected with HIV than straight men or women. So I guess they exclude MSM based on statistics, though I don't think the difference is so big, to make such a difference, as to prevent some from ever donating, and just have others wait a bit before donating.

Or maybe they just see gay men as some kind of horn dogs, who can't keep it in their pants, as opposed to straight men, who are completely different. :dry:

 

I am not a medical expert, but this is my best understanding of why MSM populations are at higher risk for HIV:

HIV spreads most easily from an infected man to a receptive partner (male or female), and the highest risk of transmission is if the person "receives" anally. It is much harder to get HIV from a woman than from a man, because women do not normally deposit large amounts of fluid into their partners. There is some sexual transmission of HIV from female partners, but the rate of transmission from male partners is much higher.

Therefore, people who only have sex with women are less likely to contract HIV. And women who only have sex with men who only have sex with women are less likely to contract HIV because their partners are less likely to have it, having only had sex with women. The lower rate of transmission from a female partner greatly reduces the overall rate of transmission in the whole population. It is similar to their argument for why they usually give Guardasil, the HPV vaccine, only to women--the argument is that the men will be protected by extension, because their immune female partners will not contract HPV in order to give it to the men. (Which is why I think it should be considered a heterosexist policy--it does nothing to protect men who have sex with other men.) Among straight populations, one infected man can potentially infect many women, but the women do not pass on the infection as readily. This is why the population of women becoming infected usually grows more rapidly (in non-MSM populations) than the population of men becoming infected.

It's really only among MSM populations that a person who takes the "receiving" position in the highest risk sexual activity has the ability to turn around and take the role that is most likely to transmit HIV to his partner.

The cause of the high rate of transmission from an infected male partner is the large amount of fluid exchanged. Condom use prevents this fluid exchange, and is therefore highly effective at reducing the transmission of HIV.

Anyway, I don't know that I agree with the particulars of the policy--I definitely think there should be a time limit where the blood would test positive if the person were infected. (I also understand that the Red Cross doesn't really want to broaden exclusions any more than they deem absolutely necessary, as it reduces the amount of blood they can take in donations, which is often desperately needed. They want exclusions to be as narrow and specific as safely possible.)

But these are the reasons that MSM are at higher risk for HIV, and I think it's important for queer men to be aware of them. It's not morality, it's just biology--women who have sex exclusively with women are a low risk population for the same reasons.

 

Yep, its purely based on statistics, but its a lot of bullshit really.

The UK has tried to be a little bit better about it, but in the US its still very backwards. The only people that are banned from donating are men who have sex with other men. Whether is safer sex, oral sex or sex in a long-term relationship doesn't matter at all. The same standard doesn't apply to men that have anal sex with women.

Also, in the US, you are banned for life once a man has sex with another man. It doesn't matter if you did it once then never did it again or if you haven't had sex in the last 3 years.

Its all types of outdated shit in the US side.

 

From the medical perspective...

No, that is not true.

The policy (and the question that is asked) is, "Are you a male who has had sex with another male since 1977?"

The rule doesn't specify what sexual activity or what your sexual orientation is. It only asks if you had sex with another guy. So, if you're a straight male who had a few too many beers and did some experimentation, then you cannot donate blood.

It's an FDA policy that was put in place before the HIV antibody test and later, the HIV antigen test, were available. At the time, it was the only way to exclude possible HIV contamination from the blood supply. The problem is that the policy was never updated.

There's also a policy in place that excludes women who have had a male sex partner who had sex with another man.

There has been an effort to change the policy but the FDA has, so far, refused to update what everyone agrees is an outdated rule- and a rule that forced sexually active gay men to lie in order to donate blood.

Some countries have a 1 year exclusion. Most countries consider it a permanent exclusion.

There is hope that finally the US will change the policy. There had been discussion about changing the US policy to a 1-5 year window which would still exclude most sexually active gay men but at least it would be progress in changing a 30 year old rule that everyone agrees is in need of change.

If you want to know your country's policy, there's a table here.

 

Linking to newer threads with updates on the policy:


http://emptyclosets.com/forum/curre...ion-ban-urges-fda-update-outdated-policy.html
http://emptyclosets.com/forum/curre.../95138-blood-donation-ban-lifted-gay-men.html
http://emptyclosets.com/forum/anonymous-discussions/81666-giving-blood-but-i-am-gay.html

 

The ignorance is appalling.

 

Yeah, but you can lie.

 

Answers to not having contracted an std or hiv, CONDOMS Bitch. Unprotected sex= more risk of getting std or hiv, you have 98% more protection, but they won't always protect, so be cautious.

---------- Post added 3rd Aug 2013 at 10:04 PM ----------

But the thing is get a hiv test after sex, i am really afraid of gettin hiv and aids

---------- Post added 3rd Aug 2013 at 10:06 PM ----------

P.s. ive never had sex