Gay Blood Donations Likely to be Lifted

Actually, mine may have been a bit under - seems that chart was only people aged 15-59 (which while it's roughly the relevant age group for blood donation, would miss MSM aged 60+).



The 2.6% was the "number who'd had a same sex partner in the past five years". Which would probably do as a working definition of current MSM, I suppose. What I'm not sure about is how the HPA arrived at their rather larger 2007 prevalence estimate:

"The prevalence of HIV (both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections) among MSM aged 15-44 was estimated to be 8.5% (range 7.0-10.5%) within London, 3.7% (range 3.1-4.5%) elsewhere in England and Wales and 5.3% (range 4.7-6.1%) overall."

Given that at the time there were about 30,000 people with HIV in that age group, they're saying that according to their estimates there were only about 570,000 MSM of that age group (30,000/0.053). Which seems a tad on the low side.

The promiscuous point is far from stereotypical/anecdotal when over half of the HIV and AIDs patients come from this small group of people is it? In my estimations gay men who haven't whored about at one point or another are in the minority rather than the other way around. Most studies seem to confirm this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n4_v34/ai_20536043/
2.3% of gay men have only had one partner in this study. Other studies estimate that around 20% of gays have slept with 100-300 men. In particularly gay areas like the Shoreditch area of Chicago surveys indicate that over 40% of gay men have had more than 60 sexual partners in their life time. I am not saying this to criticise, because if straight men could get laid this much they definitely would.

Promiscuity isn't the only think which contributes to the risk factor for gay men. Also, promiscuous is a relative term. What are the stats for straight men?

This suggests that gay men are not as promiscuous as is often made out, when compared with straight men. Still more, but not that much more.

That MSM estimate of 570,000 seems about right if a little high to me. You've got to remember that there are only around 15 million men aged 15-44, and not all of them will be sexually active. 8.5% is still ridiculously high and kind of proves my point don't you think?

It seems too high risk and we have nothing to gain from letting them give blood. I'd consider it if there were massive shortages, but that isn't the case.

They should have kept the ban as anal sex greatly increases the risk of contracting HIV and HIV is very hard to screen for.

The 8.5% statistic was for London; the national one being 5.3%.



On the whole, I'm forced to agree with you, safety wise. Although the change in the rules should be perfectly safe in itself - you really aren't talking about a high-risk group, if you're excluding people who've had sex in the past year.

I know it isn't. There is also the obvious things like why would you wear a condom when the major motivating factor for straight men to do so is the fear of pregnancy? Or that the transmission through anal sex is far more likely because there are more blood vessels up there. I am not aware of the stats for straight men. This promiscuity denial seems rather strange to me. Tell me, are there straight bath houses where you can go any time of the night or day to have free anonymous sex? Like I said there would be a queue around the block for such a place if it existed, but it doesn't because straight men have this thing standing in their way of getting laid frequently called 'women'.

The overwhelming majority of gay men either wear condoms to avoid the risk of STI's, or go through the whole "fluid bonding" thing where they go and get tested together as a precondition for unprotected sex. The anonymous barebacking subculture isn't that big, and is generally fairly isolated by the mainstream. There is a risk of condoms breaking, or of transmission happening through them. There is also a risk of people doing unsafe things that they wouldn't normally do because of drink/drugs, which you find on the gay scene more than many other places.

There was no promiscuity denial. I said that gay men are somewhat more promiscuous. What I'm saying is that it's not so much more as is often assumed.

I have no idea if there are places where straight men can go to get laid. There are certainly enough websites targeting straight people for casual sex though. I also know plenty of women, both straight and gay, who enjoy casual sex.

All I'm saying is that the statistics on sexual partners for gay men do not tell the whole story, especially when considered in isolation. If gay men are on average 20% more promiscuous, but 1000% more likely to be infected with HIV, then that suggests that promiscuity is a relatively minor factor.

Promiscuity isn't the only think which contributes to the risk factor for gay men. Also, promiscuous is a relative term. What are the stats for straight men?

This suggests that gay men are not as promiscuous as is often made out, when compared with straight men. Still more, but not that much more.

Yes they are more promiscuous, don't deny it

Yes they are more promiscuous, don't deny it

You are aware that straight people have anal sex too?

HEY, I KNOW, LET'S BAN EVERYONE THAT'S HAD SEX FROM DONATING BLOOD.

You didn't read what I wrote did you?

Fortunately public policy is not dictated by fundamentalist bigots.

Not that many thus HIV has a lesser chance to be in the hetro sexual environment then the gay community.

Gonna provide any reliable evidence for that?