[JohnJoe]

(Original post by -Haz-)
The ‘gay blood ban’ was introduced in the 1980s when HIV/AIDS became really common in the gay community.
Currently any man who has ever had sex with another man can’t give blood. It also includes any woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man (if that makes sense).

Last sentence. You're kidding, right?
How ****ed up can it get. Protection against AIDS/HIV is all well but.. seriously?

[shyopstv]

(Original post by G50)
I know it might be convenient to ignore concepts which might make you uncomfortable (if they challenge your existing beliefs), but you really shouldn't.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...68M3H220100923

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/

This is not America. The rate is 1 in 7 in London and 1 in 12 in the UK as a whole. Is a 8% rate really enough to ban the other 92% from donating blood when the blood gets tested anyway?

[dandelionseason]

(Original post by *Liana*)
This is true, however there is a window between infection with HIV and it being detectable in the blood (but it would still be infective to the recipient), so it possible for a HIV+ unit to slip through.

This is true. I was reading the blood.co.uk site only a few days ago.

Like someone mentioned, the rules will be changed soon. The men having sex with men rule was left over from the 80s and was due to gay men having a higher prevalence of AIDs. Gay men who have had anal sex with other gay men will soon be able to donate blood if 12 months has passed since their sexual encounter.

At the end of the day, all of these regulations are to ensure that the blood has not got any infections etc that could be passed onto the recipient.

[coolstory]

There are obviously checks to see if heterosexual's blood has diseases before the blood is used so the idea that homosexuals can't because they may have HIV/AIDs is redundant

[medbh4805]

apparently women who have sex with bisexual men aren't allowed to for a year either

[najinaji]

As far as I know, gay men can't donate blood atm, but that law will be overturned November this year.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by JohnJoe)
That's still a bit dodgy to me.

Has been stated that women like up the other path too and those are not few.

It's not anal sex that spreads HIV, it is any sex with an infected person.

That having been said, I agree that it's a ridiculous law and it's nothing but discrimination. These days HIV and AIDS aren't so common among homosexuals (there WAS a time when there was a much higher proportion of gay people with the infection, but obviously things have changed a lot since then).

[FXX]

Back in the day, HIV was spreading like wildfire and we didn't understand much about it. They want to change the rules but when it's people lives that are at stake they're going to take their time over it. Don't see it as a modern day attack on gay people, it's just playing it safe until we understand the facts and can provide irrefutable evidence that it won't cause future problems in patients that have blood transfusions. Saying "oh that's ridiculous" isn't good enough.

[JohnJoe]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
It's not anal sex that spreads HIV, it is any sex with an infected person.

That having been said, I agree that it's a ridiculous law and it's nothing but discrimination. These days HIV and AIDS aren't so common among homosexuals (there WAS a time when there was a much higher proportion of gay people with the infection, but obviously things have changed a lot since then).

Yeah I knew that, also blood contact, like if you scratch yourself. I was just refering to the arguement put up before.

[M1F2R3]

Before AIDS was established as AIDS, it was known as GRID (Gay related immune deficiency), perhaps it's some old regulation? Still, it's about time it was over turned.

[Lewis :D]

(Original post by JohnJoe)
Yeah I knew that, also blood contact, like if you scratch yourself. I was just refering to the arguement put up before.

To be honest, I'm gay and I don't think I'd give blood. I come online and read attitudes like 'I'd never receive blood of a gay person' and think to myself what's the point in me going through that (I don't like needles) when a lot of people would bluntly reject my blood if they knew who it came from.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by JohnJoe)
Yeah I knew that, also blood contact, like if you scratch yourself. I was just refering to the arguement put up before.

I was just saying that pointing out that women sometimes have anal sex too is pretty irrelevant to the arguement.
But it seems we probably agree for the most part in this debate.

[SwingOnTheSpiral88]

if there's a scientific basis for this rule then so ****ing what if it upsets certain people?

[Converse]

(Original post by medbh4805)
apparently women who have sex with bisexual men aren't allowed to for a year either

Yes they are. It's only if the man has had sex with another man. A bi-sexual man has not necessarily had sex with another man.

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
It's not anal sex that spreads HIV, it is any sex with an infected person.

That having been said, I agree that it's a ridiculous law and it's nothing but discrimination. These days HIV and AIDS aren't so common among homosexuals (there WAS a time when there was a much higher proportion of gay people with the infection, but obviously things have changed a lot since then).

Yes you did imply it

[JohnJoe]

(Original post by Lewis :D)
To be honest, I'm gay and I don't think I'd give blood. I come online and read attitudes like 'I'd never receive blood of a gay person' and think to myself what's the point in me going through that (I don't like needles) when a lot of people would bluntly reject my blood if they knew who it came from.

I don't understand how you can exclude such a large part of humanity for such a stupid reason. It doesn't matter where the blood comes from. It's been tested of diseases, should be clean.. what's with the homophobia?

I wouldn't like anyone's blood because... it's alien to my body. But that's got nothing to do with whether they are gay or black or white or asian or whatever. Just the idea of something not own in/on my body. Can you imagine how I reacted when my teeth had to be done and I got a filling, brrrr.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Converse)
Yes they are. It's only if the man has had sex with another man. A bi-sexual man has not necessarily had sex with another man.



Yes you did imply it

Sorry what? That made no sense in relation to what I said

[Lewis :D]

(Original post by JohnJoe)

I don't understand how you can exclude such a large part of humanity for such a stupid reason. It doesn't matter where the blood comes from. It's been tested of diseases, should be clean.. what's with the homophobia?

I wouldn't like anyone's blood because... it's alien to my body. But that's got nothing to do with whether they are gay or black or white or asian or whatever. Just the idea of something not own in/on my body. Can you imagine how I reacted when my teeth had to be done and I got a filling, brrrr.

Eh, are you calling me homophobic? I'm gay

[JohnJoe]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I was just saying that pointing out that women sometimes have anal sex too is pretty irrelevant to the arguement.
But it seems we probably agree for the most part in this debate.

You're right, had nothing to do with that :x.

I originally thought AIDS/HIV was transfered trough blood only, seems it's more like 'bodily fluids'. I'm wondering about saliva now?

(Original post by Lewis :D)
Eh, are you calling me homophobic? I'm gay

No, haha.
I know that, I meant;

How can anyone exclude such a large part of humanity (gays) just because of homophobia.

[JohnJoe]

Sorry, double post.

[kingme]

right.


ANYONE who has put themselves at risk of HIV in the last 12 months is not allowed to donate blood.

its not homophobia, its common sense.