useless
Social Justice Rogue
I'm Bi, haven't engaged in sexual activity and wouldn't engage in anal sex, yet I am still labelled high risk, it isn't my action or lack off that has condemned me, but certain peoples views here.
Effeminate man rejected from donating blood
- Thread starter NovaKart
- Start date
I'm Bi, haven't engaged in sexual activity and wouldn't engage in anal sex, yet I am still labelled high risk, it isn't my action or lack off that has condemned me, but certain peoples views here.
Well you wouldn't be banned if you haven't engaged in activity with a man even if you are bi or gay. As far I know you would be if you've had sex with a man even if such sex did not include anal sex or if you used a condom.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
I said labelled high risk.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
This isnt about individuals but the entire demograph in general. Isnt it fair to say that most gay men do engage in anal sex although maybe not all of them do? Or possibly in oral sex (which is still at higher risk than vaginal sex)? If you agree to that, then we have nothing to argue about.
But trying to allege the ban doesnt make sense because a single individual might not engage in that activity needless overly complicates the screening process.
Neither is the transmission demograph broken down to such degree as it would be useless to do so, not to mention misleading. It could create a false sense of security to give the impression you wont get HIV/AIDs if you dont have butt sex, but the rest of its ok. Some of it is still high risk sex, just not as high risk as anal sex.
Just like every man who hires a prostitute might not have high risk sex with her, but the ban on having paid for sex makes sense regardless.
Why would you be labeled high risk if you havent had sex with another man? The questionaire doesnt ask you if your gay - it asks you have you had sex with another man. Thats what makes you high risk.
No oral sex is not more risky than vaginal sex. Actually most people in the world are infected through vaginal sex.
It would not make the screening process needlessly difficult to simply ask a couple more questions about someone's sexual history. In fact it would make it safer, some straight people do have anal sex for instance. Why shouldn't people be treated as individuals and not judged by their demographic? By that logic you would ban black people since they make up almost 50% of HIV cases in America.
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
If it weren't so political incorrect I'd imagine doctors would have done that a long time ago.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Oral sex is far more likely to be unprotected than vaginal sex, which by default makes it (in general) higher risk.
Why do you insist to making claims that this or that isnt high risk when it absolutely is?
Again, because that particular demograph has 44 times the HIV/AIDs infection rate. Why mess around with that?
Btw, here is the actual questionair used:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biolog...roductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/UCM213552.pdf
Lots of things can get you knocked off the list. Tatoos, body piercings, even military service in certain areas of the world. Is it fair to keep those folks from donating too?
What makes you think everyone is having protected vaginal sex? And straight people have oral sex as often as gays do.
Why mess around with that? Because a case by case basis which is based on someone's sexual history makes a lot more sense and is safer than just banning all men who have sex with men.
Why mess around with that? Because a case by case basis which is based on someone's sexual history makes a lot more sense and is safer than just banning all men who have sex with men.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Exactly. Anybody who has sex with someone who may possibly be an HIV carrier should not donate blood for one month afterwards, no matter what they sexual inclinations are. Deliberately discriminating against gays while largely ignoring the others is patently absurd. The CDC's own numbers show that there is still a risk that tainted blood may rarely be turned into plasma and infect a recipient even when all homosexual men are banned, but after one month the odds are close to zero that it will not be detected during testing.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Nova, you are doing it again. I never said anything remotely like that even by implication.
Would you PLEASE stop doing that? I never alledged they were, I just merely pointed out that the odds of having 'protected' oral sex is far less likely than it is for vaginal sex.
I dont even know why thats arguable.
And I dont even want to go into the odds of someones teeth/mouth breaking a condom if they even were attempting to have 'safe' oral sex. Its should be fairly obvious to anyone that there is far more in a mouth to tear a condom than in a vagina, thus making even 'safe' sex a bit more risky. Yeah, you said the same thing earlier about anal sex and then backed off it. Proof please.
It does take their sexual history into consideration. Didnt you read the questionaire I linked?
Now wait a minute. It sounds like your're arguing that the CDCs numbers show there is still a risk, so the answer to that is to lessen the prerequisites for donating blood?
That doesnt make sense, and even the more liberal officials in charge of blood donation rules dont thin the 1 month thing is a good idea and are far more comfortable with a 1 year ban which is in line with the other bans currently given.You said that vaginal sex was riskier than oral sex which is completely false. Oral sex is considered very low risk. I never suggested that straight people have anal sex as often as gays do so it really sounds like you're the one who's "doing it again" Do you really think straight people don't have oral sex very often?
The survey doesn't really ask questions about types of sex. It really makes no sense that you want to ban gays from giving blood for a lifetime without any consideration on their sexual history while straight people get a free pass aside from a few small exceptions like having sex with a prostitute.
The survey doesn't really ask questions about types of sex. It really makes no sense that you want to ban gays from giving blood for a lifetime without any consideration on their sexual history while straight people get a free pass aside from a few small exceptions like having sex with a prostitute.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually, I said unprotected oral sex is higher risk than vaginal sex using protection. But vaginal sex isnt riskier than oral sex all things being equal re: HIV/AIDs. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/pdf/oralsex.pdf
Further:
Which is part of why oral sex is largely unprotected sex - and any unprotected sex that exchanges fluids is high risk sex.
Maybe to HIV/AIDs risk and if protection is used....but not to other STDs. In fact, for some STDs its incredibly high risk: http://std.about.com/od/riskfactorsforstds/a/oralsexsafesex.htm
The #1 high risk sex behavior is having unprotected sex. If you want to argue that a vast majority of people engaging in oral sex use protection, well, state your argument and give your proofs. Make your case. I think the evidence is clear that oral sex is one of the most unprotected sex acts people (regardless of sexual orientation) engage in, and thus this is it why it is high risk sexual behavior.
I think the question about having sex with prostitutes applies to both straights and gays doesnt it? Why yes it does.
But it remains. The only transmission demograph that doesnt get a 'free pass' as you put it, is MSM. WHY? Again, because the HIV/AIDs rate among MSM is 44 times higher than any other transmission demograph. Thats it. Thats why other demographs get a free pass and MSM dont. Simple. If MSM want a free pass where blood donation is concerned, then by golly get that disease rate back down into comparable levels with the other demographs (at least stop it from rising), then we'll talk. Until then, like VRCWAgent stated earlier, I dont have much sympathy for your argument for MSM to give blood.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Well the majority of people have vaginal sex, since about 96% of the world's population is straight and normally has that form of sex, so by implication it should have cases, but the thing is that the 4% of males (I am being generous with this number) makes up more than 4% of the cases, if it were distributed even, but that is not he case. In western countries, if the general population had AIDS as high as the gay population does, then AIDS would be declared a worldwide pandemic, but right now there are generally two areas to avoid for heterosexual sex, South East Asia and Sub Sahara Africa.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Why do you think they do?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
What are considered "desirable acts" in sex change. They're not static, Mobboss, Times do change.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not really proof enough to prove your comment.
The questionairre doesn't even mention condoms so someone could be having lots of unprotected sex with several partners and as long as they're all the opposite sex it doesn't matter but if a man who has protected anal sex or oral sex who's in a monogamous relationship comes along he's barred from donating. That's really a flawed screening process. Besides the fact you seem to think condoms are perfect when straight people use them but useless when gays use them and that straight people only rarely have oral sex.
Another thing about oral sex, it's really only risky when someone has cuts or sores in their mouth and semen or vaginal fluid enters it.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Its not flawed because MSM have 44 times the infection rate of other transmission demographs and it is rising.
And yes, I will continue to repeat that until it reaches a saturation point. Because it matters.
I've never stated that 'condoms are flawless' and thats just a gross mis-statement of my comments. However, as to condom usage, its already been pointed out by others that condoms arent 100% effective all the time, and tend to break more often during anal sex than vaginal sex.
Neither have I said that straight people only rarely have oral sex. Someone else said the vast majority engage in it, and I simply asked for proof to confirm that. As said 'proof' hasnt been provided, my opinion is that while many do indeed engage in Oral sex, it might not be a majority.
Ever bite your tongue? Ever eat something that spiked your gum? Thats a fairly common occurance among people. And while you may be correct about HIV/AIDs risk via mouth sores, thats simply not true about other types of STDs, which can also have significant health risks. As I pointed out, some of them are quite easily transferred via oral sex, mouth sores or no.
And yes, I will continue to repeat that until it reaches a saturation point. Because it matters.
I've never stated that 'condoms are flawless' and thats just a gross mis-statement of my comments. However, as to condom usage, its already been pointed out by others that condoms arent 100% effective all the time, and tend to break more often during anal sex than vaginal sex.
Neither have I said that straight people only rarely have oral sex. Someone else said the vast majority engage in it, and I simply asked for proof to confirm that. As said 'proof' hasnt been provided, my opinion is that while many do indeed engage in Oral sex, it might not be a majority.
Ever bite your tongue? Ever eat something that spiked your gum? Thats a fairly common occurance among people. And while you may be correct about HIV/AIDs risk via mouth sores, thats simply not true about other types of STDs, which can also have significant health risks. As I pointed out, some of them are quite easily transferred via oral sex, mouth sores or no.
