Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[NovaKart]

I'm not sure what happened since I posted something earlier and now it's not on here. Anyway this is pretty much what I said:

It makes no sense to say that every man who has had sex with another man in his lifetime is more high risk than someone who has numerous unprotected sexual encounters with people of the opposite sex and he/she is not high risk. That's why asking people about their sexual history for something like this really makes a hell of a lot more sense than relying on some questionairre that looks like it hasn't been updated since the 80s.

Instead of flashing a statistic over and over and over and over and over again and putting it in bold and italicizing it what would make more sense is to think of why the statistic exists and why it may not apply to everyone in said demographic.

Oral sex is considered very low risk and its riskiness is mostly theoretical at this point, there are very few documented cases of people transmitting HIV through oral sex and since the blood centers apparently don't ask about whether vaginal sex was protected or not we can't assume all those people are having protected vaginal sex. Your reasoning here makes no sense and just relies on stereotypes and fear mongering.

 

[civ_king]

MobBoss, despite the much higher infection rate it is possible that homosexuals could in fact be less promiscuous if the likelihood of them engaging in sex with someone with HIV/AIDS is vastly higher, and we know that the MSM group does indeed have that, also it is possible for a minority to skew a group, say if black MSM have a significantly higher rate of infection...

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not sure what happened since I posted something earlier and now it's not on here. Anyway this is pretty much what I said:

It makes no sense to say that every man who has had sex with another man in his lifetime is more high risk than someone who has numerous unprotected sexual encounters with people of the opposite sex and he/she is not high risk.

As long as the MSM transmission demograph experiences such a far higher infection rate, it is indeed reasonable.

That's why asking people about their sexual history for something like this really makes a hell of a lot more sense than relying on some questionairre that looks like it hasn't been updated since the 80s.

Its been updated since then...all one has to do is read it and realize that fact.

Instead of flashing a statistic over and over and over and over and over again and putting it in bold and italicizing it what would make more sense is to think of why the statistic exists and why it may not apply to everyone in said demographic.

I would suggest that accepting the stat as true and the fact that it is rising is most important. As long as that is indeed true, it just simply makes sense for the rules to be what they are. The reason the stat exists is painfully true, that MSM engage in high risk sex and nothing within recent decades has been able to reverse that trend to any meaningful extent. Its not because of bigotry or homophobia, its because of behaviors involved.

Oral sex is considered very low risk

For HIV/AIDs it is...for other STDs it simply isnt low risk.

Your reasoning here makes no sense and just relies on stereotypes and fear mongering.

My reasoning isnt fear mongering, but based upon factual clinical data. As long as MSM experience 44 times the infection rate and that rate continues to rise in comparison to other transmission demographs, then the steps taken are quite sensible indeed.

I would suggest focusing on the actual infection rate and the reasons it is still rising after decades of HIV/AIDs awareness messages. Its apparent that a lot of people just arent getting the message, and/or just outright ignoring it for their own reasons. I dont think claiming the victim card and continually alleging bigotry and homophobia is going to help and in fact, is probably a big part of the problem in regards to the rising rate.

MobBoss, despite the much higher infection rate it is possible that homosexuals could in fact be less promiscuous if the likelihood of them engaging in sex with someone with HIV/AIDS is vastly higher, and we know that the MSM group does indeed have that, also it is possible for a minority to skew a group, say if black MSM have a significantly higher rate of infection...

I've never argued promiscuous-ness anywhere in this thread. Again, bear in mind that 2% to 4% of the population accounts for more than 2/3ds of new infection cases. That's simply unexcusable, especially in this day and age of awareness in regards to HIV/AIDs and how it can be avoided.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, the "inexcusable" part is teaching abstinence-only sex education in much of the US, while not providing free condoms to the young African-Americans who get infected largely due to the resultant ignorance from such an absurd and provincial practice.

It is really just as bad as Reagan deliberately ignoring the AIDs epidemic for years because he and his fellow advisers thought it was their god getting vengeance on gays. That is what really led to so many hemophiliacs getting needlessly infected and dying as a result.

 

[NovaKart]

Except not all gays engage in high risk sex and many straight people do which is why a case by case basis would make more sense than an all out ban on any man who's had sex with another man in his lifetime. Gays are also not the only people who engage in oral sex so singling them out is pretty stupid.

I think it's pretty accurate to use the bigot card when discussing something with you since you justify discrimination against gays in pretty much every issue that comes up. I'm not aware of a single one in which you think gays deserve any equal treatment.

 

[MobBoss]

Again, the "inexcusable" part is teaching abstinence-only sex education in much of the US, while not providing free condoms to the young African-Americans who get infected largely due to the resultant ignorance from such an absurd and provincial practice.

It is really just as bad as Reagan deliberately ignoring the AIDs epidemic for years because he and his fellow advisers thought it was their god getting vengeance on gays. That is what really led to so many hemophiliacs getting needlessly infected and dying as a result.

As has been pointed out several times, abstinence only sex ed isnt an excuse for this. Hell, according to the CDC, the areas where the infection rates are worst, i.e. large urban cities, simply arent even near where abstinence only ed is even a concern.

Bottom line, trying to make this about abstinence is just more diversion. You might have a point if we were discussing teen pregnancy, but we arent. We are talking about homosexual men that have litterally been bombarded with HIV/AIDs awareness messages for decades.

There is no excuse for it. None. Blame shifting and playing the victim card to something totally unrelated to the actual problem is the wrong thing to do, and in my opinion, will simply make the rate continue to climb as it currently is.

If all people want to do is make excuses for this it wont improve. But that is indeed a choice, albeit in my opinion a bad one.

Again: 44 times the HIV/AIDs infection rate and the only transmission demograph that is increasing its rate.

All the offered excuses in the world arent going to change that fact. Hell, even relaxing the requirements for blood donation wont. All that will do is increase the risk to the blood supply and thats it.

 

[useless]

Not really, unless you're ignoring Reagan's disgusting ignorance and ignoring of Aids.

 

[NovaKart]

You're really into the bold and italics thing. Ever thought of mentioning that it's only rising among black men and black people have the highest rate of HIV due to poverty and so the whole thing kind of makes sense?

 

[MobBoss]

You're really into the bold and italics thing. Ever thought of mentioning that it's only rising among black men and black people have the highest rate of HIV due to poverty and so the whole thing kind of makes sense?

Sounds rather racist to me. Odd how you accuse others of bigotry and homophobia while making this comment. If you think referring to the problem as a MSM problem as bigotry and homophobia, then isnt this racism if you go this route?

And fwiw, your wrong. While its true that gay black men have the highest increase in rate, the largest demograph of HIV/AIDs infection is still white males. You may want to go back and re-read the CDCs report first.

 

[NovaKart]

I did, we're talking about the rising rate of HIV, not the rates overall.

Black Americans because of poverty tend to be over-represented in certain things like HIV statistics and they make up nearly half of the cases of HIV. It's not racist to point that out, I'm not trying to deny black people anything based on this unlike you, someone who justifies discrimination against gays in pretty much everything that comes up.

 

[MobBoss]

I did, we're talking about the rising rate of HIV, not the rates overall.

Black Americans because of poverty tend to be over-represented in certain things like HIV statistics and they make up nearly half of the cases of HIV. It's not racist to point that out, I'm not trying to deny black people anything based on this unlike you, someone who justifies discrimination against gays in pretty much everything that comes up.

If its not racist to point that out, then its not bigotry/homphobia to point out the MSM stats either.

 

[NovaKart]

It is if you seek to justify discrimination against every single person who fits that demographic regardless of what they've done in the bedroom, how long ago, with how many partners, if it was protected or not, etc. From what I remember you even want to deny marriage benefits to gays based on this. I mean I can understand the blood ban a little but not that.

 

[classical_hero]

I did, we're talking about the rising rate of HIV, not the rates overall.

Black Americans because of poverty tend to be over-represented in certain things like HIV statistics and they make up nearly half of the cases of HIV. It's not racist to point that out, I'm not trying to deny black people anything based on this unlike you, someone who justifies discrimination against gays in pretty much everything that comes up.

Overall rates do matter, since once you have the disease, you are contagious and incurable. So trying to separate one fact from the other is pointless. If you are not going to accept the facts as they are presented by world leading agencies, then there is no point in trying to be in this discussion. We have disclosed the fact and if you want to continue arguing a point that has already been answered quite comprehensively, then you are fine to do so, but you are really wasting yours and others time. The fact are the MSM is the highest demographics of AIDS cases in developed countries, and as a result it is sensible of countries to make sure their blood supply is not tainted. The government's role is to protect it's people, even if it from fellow citizens.

Also you are making up excuses for a sub section of a sub section. Surely it is not that expensive to buy a condom, since the majority of people who do buy condoms are gay, so if they are going to engage in irresponsible behaviour, then they have to suffer the potential consequences.

 

[NovaKart]

If the majority of people who buy condoms are gay then they are not acting irresponsibly. I'm talking about a subgroup of a subgroup that is skewing the results. It's all a bit ironic how people who have this opinion are also people who think homosexuality is sinful.

I'm also suggesting that rather than treat people as a statistic it's better to look at individual sexual history which is reasonable.

 

[MobBoss]

It is if you seek to justify discrimination against every single person who fits that demographic regardless of what they've done in the bedroom, how long ago, with how many partners, if it was protected or not, etc.

Anyway, here is the data. It was from the other thread not this one.

According to the new estimates, there were 48,600 new HIV infections in the United States in 2006, 56,000 in 2007, 47,800 in 2008 and 48,100 in 2009. The multi-year incidence estimates allow for a reliable examination of trends over time. They reveal no statistically significant change in HIV incidence overall from 2006 to 2009, with an average of 50,000 for the four-year period. In 2009, the largest number of new infections was among white MSM (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800). Hispanic MSM (6,000) and black women (5,400) were also heavily affected.

Attention please to the highlighted part. Just blaming black MSM for this situation is inadequate. The fact that the largest 3 sub-demographs are ALL MSM is precisely why its not silly to consider the MSM demograph as a whole in such things.

 

[NovaKart]

It's nearly an equal number to white males and considering their percentage of the population is extremely high and it definitely skews the numbers. You'll have to do better than that if you want to justify your religiously inspired bigotry.

 

[MobBoss]

It's nearly an equal number to white males and considering their percentage of the population is extremely high and it definitely skews the numbers. You'll have to do better than that if you want to justify your religiously inspired bigotry.

Rather like how the CDC estimates the MSM population at about 2 percent, but it accounts for more than 2/3rds of new infections each year?

But you are being unfair in your allegation. This is about clinical and factual data, not religious bigotry (or bigotry of any kind). In fact, I havent mentioned religion once in either thread recently discussing these issues (rather like how you accused me of making a promiscuity argument when I never did either).

The numbers given by the CDC are devoid of any bigotry of any kind. They are what they are. Its not bigotry to point them out or to be willing to discuss them in a frank and open manner. Since you have been insistent in mentioning race as opposed to the overall MSM transmission demograph, it is still telling that the largest top 3 racial sub-demographs are still ALL MSM demographs. Which is why this isnt bigotry at all, but a simple recogntion that the MSM transmission demograph as a whole has a big problem with HIV/AIDs infection rates.

No allegation of bigotry that you make is going to change that fact.

 

[NovaKart]

It is bigotry to judge all gay men based on those statistics and since you clearly justify discrimination against gay men on numerous issues I feel that I'm pretty justified in finding your comments full of bigotry.

I've said over and over again that a screening process that involves sexual history would make a hell of a lot more sense than an outdated screening process that of all things still mentions smallpox vaccinations and never takes into account a heterosexual persons sexual history but instead you just prefer to lump all homosexuals together into one group. And I'm the one that's irrational??

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I am not going to read the pages and pages and pages of stuff, but I have a suggestion that maybe both sides can agree?

Maybe if someone is in a high risk group, they can put a special sticker on the blood thing. And the sticker means "Put that in for special testing."

Also for that part where AIDs isn't testable. For any unprotected sex they just can't donate that for that period of time.

 

[MobBoss]

This isnt a judgement of all gay men, but simple recognition of a transmission demograph that itself has 44 times the transmission rate of all the other demographs.

At some point that fact has to outweigh claims of bigotry. If 44 times the rate isnt enough, what for you would be? 100 times? 1000 times? How high does it need to go for you to say enough is enough?

Btw, Nova, you havent noticed, but we lump all the heterosexuals in a transmission group too, just like we lump all the needle users into a group. If the 'lumping' is done the same across the board using the same criteria...how is it bigotry?

The point remains. If MSM didnt have such a high infection rate, it wouldnt be singled out as a perma-banned or 12 month restricted demograph. While 44 times the rate may not be high enough for you to make that choice apparently its more than high enough for the doctors and scientists making the rules in regards to blood donation to make that 'bigoted' choice.