What is Sex? Canadian Blood Services - Doesn't Allow Gays to Donate

Our policy is similar here in America, although I've been told it varies by state. Here in Massachusetts (I'm assuming since it's a very liberal state and pretty pro gay) if you are a male and you have had sex with another male you have to wait 1 year before donating again. I've heard that in other parts of the country its like that though, once you've done it once you're barred for life.

 

This is random but there was an episode on Degrassi about this topic....haha

 

There are plans to cover this on Full Spectrum. I have stored both this post and xequar's "Indefinite Deferral", and I'll ask one of our contributors (one more familiarized with that than I am) to take a look and put things together.

Heterosexual sex is actually riskier than gay sex in my opinion. As far as I know from friends, family and acquaintances, straight men are much less likely to use condoms than gay men. In fact, they usually don't think about STD's, and if the woman is taking the pill they immediately want to stop using condoms. That I have seen countless times (some girls have used me as a sexual counselor, I don't know why).

In fact, I only know of one man who religiously wears condoms, and that is my father... My mother has told me that it's an exception for men of his generation (he's 44 now); in her experience most men of that age don't want to use condoms. She cited as an example her friend's husband (he's fifty-something). He has never used a condom in the 20 years they have been married to each other.

Yes, I can get that information quite easily, even from my own mother with whom I'm not in the best terms (especially since I came out). I thought you all might want to know.

Of course this is Uruguay, not Canada or the US. Here, AIDS awareness came in the 90s, although the first recorded case dates back to 1983.

 

I've been donating blood since I was 16, and after I read this thread, I wondered what the policy is here in Australia. I looked up on the Australian Red Cross Blood Service website, and it turns out there's a 12 month deferral period after you have had "male to male sex"

From the website:

Eh... looks like they won't get much more blood out of me...

 

While fellatio is a safer sex, it is not safe sex. There are cases, although statistically low, of HIV being transmitted through fellatio. I former colleague of mine works for a local blood bank. The particular rules for the blood bank excludes donations from MSM (men who have sex with men) from entering the blood supply. The blood bank defines sexual relations to include fellatio.

Here is one of the overlooked points of interest though when the blood ban is brought up: You can still, legally, donate blood for your own use even if you are in one of the designated banned categories. That means you can donate your blood if you are going in for a procedure, and it will cause less of a stress on the general blood supply.

 

I had a conversation about this with an American Red Cross employee who feels the "rules" on this are unjustified. They actually looked at this a few months back and decided to leave it. It is unfortunate and does discirminate against gays in healthy relationships. They are no more likely to be carriers of AIDS than straight folks.

 

I also used to donate blood regularly, and had to stop after my first m2m experience. I understood the rationale, but I do think that a lifetime ban is silly. Once I'm in a committed, monogamus (sp? lol!) relationship, and have been tested, then I don't think I'm any more of a risk than a straight male.

I would say any oral sex of any kind would qualify as man 2 man sex. You'll have to find another way to contribute to society I guess!

 

It took a bit of digging around but the definition of "sex" is:

Hope that helps...

Here's a question though... They mention that there is a "window period" where early signs of the virus may not be detected. What if I didn't have sex during this window period? Surely any virus would be easily detected if I waited long enough to clear the "window period." Why can't after waiting through this window period should I not be allowed to donate blood?

 

I think they shouldn't discriminate gay men completely, they should have a thing that concerns gay and straight people that if they have had unprotected sex and possibly have HIV or any STD that they shouldn't donate blood. Just because a high population of gay people have HIV doesn't mean everyone has. And it's just as easy for straight people to get it too.

 

Yeah, I was going to say they mean "sex" in the somewhat traditional sense of the word, or really the sense that could transmit HIV, which is bodily fluid contact. Just getting cum or other bodily fluid on your (unbroken) skin (like you would during a handjob) wouldn't count.

And what's SUPER stupid is there are tests that narrow this window period to DAYS, not 3 months. I think I did some rough calculations once and statistically letting gay people donate might result in one more HIV infection per year (something like 4 possible infections rather than 3) in all of Canada from donated blood. If you compare that to benefit you'd get (i.e. how much more blood you'd have and how many lives THAT would save), even if you ignore the fact that a LIFETIME ban is GROSS discrimination, it makes NO SENSE to bar gay people from donating.

The lifetime ban is a very 1980s holdover from when AIDS was seen as a gay disease (at one point called GRID--gay-related immune disease) and when they had NO idea what it was or how it was actually spread, other than it had something to do with blood. If you actually look at who else is banned "indefinitely," you notice that sex trade workers and people from certain regions in Africa are, and while yes, an argument can be made that there might be a higher incidence of HIV infections among those populations STATISTICALLY, if you look at it from an oppression point of view, you have all the long-standing pariah classes (black people, sex trade workers, and those dirty dirty homosexuals [only the males one, of COURSE]) being lumped together in a combo straight out of the 1950s. Or the 1890s.

And a lifetime ban implies those groups are morally defective because it implies we are "irredeemable." That is, we can't be trusted to actually honestly abide by a time-limited ban (of say a year, or 6 months, or whatever the standard window period for the standard test for detecting HIV is) like, for instance, a straight woman is trusted. In Canada, a straight woman is banned from donating blood if she's had sex with a guy who has sex with men or with a guy whose sexual history she "doesn't know" (we'll ignore exactly what constitutes "knowing" someone's sexual history) but that ban is at most a year, after which she is given the benefit of the doubt.

So basically you could have really irresponsible straight people (not just women) having the most unsafe sex imaginable and they could donate after a certain period, a period during which HIV might very definitely not reveal itself without testing, and a period after which they don't have to actually be tested to prove that (at least within the last 3 months) they are HIV-.

So yes, the "indefinite deferral" on blood donations from gay men is about the most discriminatory official thing still left in practice in Canada relating to homosexuality, and one of the most discriminatory things left in America, particularly because it reinforces the notion that HIV and AIDS are only gay (and other "diseased" classes) concerns.

 

Last I checked, the American Red Cross had EXACTLY the same restrictions as Canadian Blood Services. Are there state (and/or local) agencies that don't follow their guidelines? Because if so, and I've said this before about the US state/federal divide, that is REALLY weird.

 

I'm pretty sure the Red Cross restrictions are universal. From their site:

However, for some other STI's, like Syphilis and Gonorrhea, the 1 year thing does apply. You can donate blood 12 months after being treated for those. For sex with another male, though, there don't seem to be any exceptions. It's not a Red Cross rule - it's a federal restriction.

People give the Red Cross a lot of heat for "their" restriction, when in reality it's the FDA imposes this restriction, and not the Red Cross directly. The Red Cross and America's Blood Centers are both in favor of lifting the ban, pointing to modern technology's ability to detect HIV positive donors within short periods of time. Their proposed compromise is the 1 year window that Derek mentioned, but as far as I know the FDA ban is still in effect across the nation.

 

Im not sure if its the same outside of schools but here a certain group in our school sponsors a blood drive and the guideline they give you is if you are a male who's had sexual contact with another male you have to wait 12 months. They're bound to do it again this year so I'll scrutinize it more closely in case I'm wrong.

 

In Florida, if you have kissed a man who had had sex with another man you cant give blood. If they are going to go that far, I can give my blood to people who appreciate it.

 

wow...
<><
Thats stupid.
People can be such idiots sometimes they should be hit in the head with a boulder...then ran over.
How is "Gay" sex different than "Straight" sex?
Wow both person has the same organism.
Big deal?

 

Last I checked Red Cross / Canadian Blood services has been doing a bang up job on its own of risking the safety of the blood supply, especially in the timeframe since 1977 to the 90's. Their magical rule didn't stop anything.

They seem to:
-Want to discriminate
-Want to use guilt trip advertisement campaigns
-Do a bang up job on their own putting the public at risk.

I see no reason why I should donate to them.