Blood donation and homosexuality

i didn't know this was a thing, but it seems pretty stupid to me. if you want to give blood and gay you could just lie about it or whatever and they wouldn't know so they should probably be testing the blood anyway.

 

Stupid. As far as I know, tests can identify infections after three months, not twelve, and heterosexuals can also be HIV positive. The issue here is casual sex, not the gender of the participants. For those in monogamous relationships where both are clean, people should be allowed to donate. In regards to casual sex, I'm not sure. If the donor has been using protection properly, then donation is probably fine. Blood is tested before it's given anyway, isn't it?

 

Wait, do they not test blood before they give it to people who need it?

 

My opinion is this rule is wrong, and stupid.

People say just lie about it, but the way i see it is if they dont want my blood thats up to them. Theres all these adverts asking for more blood donors yet theyre happy to say no to me... great logic.

 

Is that a UK law? Here in the US the FDA does not permit blood donation from any men with history of sex with other men, and recently (2004 iirc) added recommendations against accepting sperm donations from men who have had sex with me, but allowing if they have been celibate for five years. It's really sad that this kind of idiocy still passes for health regulation in this country. HIV testing after a 6-month quarantine of every sample is standard practice anyway, so why put this kind of rule in while ignoring the risk from donors who have risky heterosexual histories?

 

Sucks to be you ;-) (yes yes. a typo)

 

OMG I can't believe I typed that. :lol:

 

Should be the same as with everyone else; 4 months' waiting period after a new sex partner, but after that, no restrictions.

 

Okay, one last time for anyone who doesn't understand anything about sex: sex with a person of the same gender doesn't inherently result in an STD. Sex with an infected person, regardless of gender, results in risk of STDs. Got it? Doubt it.

Even ignoring all that logic and reason, why can't the standard just be to test all donated blood, or get tested before donating and refraining from risky behavior of all kinds while the blood is tested?

 

I'm not a gay male but I seriously get offended when people say stuff like that.

I'll admit I've not understood the LGBT community myself even though I'm in it now, but I've always thought the gay man stereotype of being a sex fiend who automatically has aids is utterly ridiculous.

Should all heterosexual people be asked if they have had sex in the past 12 months? It's not like Herero couples are immune to aids... Or any std.

 

I think it's stupid. If they test the blood before giving it to someone (which I sure as hell hope they do), what's the big deal? Straight people can have STD's too, and they do. Being a gay man does not equate to being a "slut." Sluts exist in every sexual orientation.

 

I've tried to argue agaist the ban with the UK Blood Transfusion Service, as I used to give blood before I came out and started having sex. Got me knowhere (obviously), but at least I had my say. Would happily give blood again if they lifted the ban.

 

Here it's forbidden to men who had sex with other men since 1976, lol. Even more stupid.

 

Test the blood...
Doesn't matter who gives blood, anyone could have anything!

 

I do understand that anal sex can be more risky. But the thing is that not all gay men have anal sex, and a LOT of straight couples do. I've actually met more gay men who take safer precautions with anal than straight couples who do (Not that I'm saying that straight couples don't protect themselves, but there are a lot of religious straight people who do anal because they think they can 'still wait for marriage' and when you have that mindset you won't see it as a risky form of sex).

Secondly, I've heard that gay men who do oral can even be refused. What the hell? Oral sex is so common in straight couples, yet they never think to refuse them for the same reasons?

 

The rule is outdated and discriminatory. MSMs aren't even the most affected demographic by HIV anymore, it's now black WSMs. Them denying gays from donating is just doubting the accuracy of their own tests.

 

Question: if I tell my GP that I'm gay does that get documented with the NHS so that they know if I lie about being gay later for something like this?

 

I actually just donated blood today haha~ It's a lot of fun ^^

I don't think the rule is all that bad to be honest. I mean, it's to ensure that the blood is not tainted with any diseases. While I was reading the deferral list, there were actually a LOT of things that required you to either wait 12 months or be banned completely. It may seem outdated or homophobic for this restriction against gay/bi men who are sexually active with other guys, but at the same time you also don't want to give blood that may ultimately hurt the patient more than help them (or not at all).

Also, yes oral sex is still classified as sexual intercourse. They define the term sex as "any contact with another person's genitals through oral, vaginal, or anal means" (something fancy like that.) In general you can't donate with STDs, so don't think it's limited to just gay men.

You can hate it all you want, but in the end the doctors are just trying to do their job in a safe, efficient way. Some may not like it, but it's meant to narrow the possible amounts of "bad" blood. Rather safe than sorry, right? When a person's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.