cbus4life wrote: if a gay man wants to give blood, can't he just tell the people taking the blood that he isn't gay?

Yeah, but when they ask him to extend his arm so they can put the needle in, and they see he is limp-wristed, then they'll know he putts from the rough.

bigkahuna wrote: What if you wrapped your shit before you stuck it in his pooper?

I'm sure you don't have AIDS.

jmog wrote: Those of you who are saying "well its tested anyway, so they should be allowed to donate" have no clue how the blood donation system/testing works.

As FFT said, its not just gay men that are not allowed, anyone that is in the "high risk" category of any kind. Sleeping with hookers, doing IV drugs, being in Africa for a certain amount of time, blood transfusions from quite a few European countries, etc.

As has been said, the tests aren't infallible, so please, by all means, in case I ever need a blood transfusion, keep the high risk people from donating.

Could you elaborate on this a little? I'm curious as to what they test for and how intensive the testing is. I donate blood on a regular basis, and obviously I don't have any health problems but I've often thought its rigorously tested and they would give me a warning if something was wrong.

dwccrew wrote:

cbus4life wrote: if a gay man wants to give blood, can't he just tell the people taking the blood that he isn't gay?

Yeah, but when they ask him to extend his arm so they can put the needle in, and they see he is limp-wristed, then they'll know he putts from the rough.

i bet they have GADAR set up also.

I am not able to give blood due to the years living in England when the Mad Cow Disease was rampant. It is what it is.

I Wear Pants wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

Glory Days wrote: if you receive gay blood, do you also become gay? all kidding aside, dont they test the blood anyway? if it's bad, just toss it out right?

The tests aren't 100% accurate, and there are often errors. Some people try to donate blood for a "free" HIV test. With all the potential risks, most private blood banks don't want to chance it.

Aren't there free HIV tests in most cities anyway?

Probably, but for whatever reason, people think that donating blood is one way to get a free HIV test. Depending on how long someone has been affected, false negatives aren't that tough to trigger.

Like I said, this ban doesn't strike me as anti-gay. It strikes me as saying, "Hey, our tests aren't perfectly accurate, and if we get it wrong, lots of others people can get infected/pass it on/die, so let's err on the side of caution and exclude statistically high-risk groups."

Even today, the majority of new HIV cases are among gay men, even though gays make up a tiny fraction of the overall population. Preemptively banning their blood (as well as blood from other high-risk groups) is simply prudent risk management. I couldn't give blood for awhile because I traveled to Belize and Honduras. Mrs. FFT couldn't give blood after getting her ears pierced. It's not discriminatory, it's just prudent risk management. Eliminating this ban increases the risk of passing on HIV to innocent people in need of a blood transfusion.

But, what i don't get, is that it seems kinda pointless, as it isn't like they can "prove" that you're gay.

All a gay person needs to do is say "no, i'm not gay," and then they give blood.

Isn't really preventing anyone from giving.

^^^ All I gotta say is that I didn't live in England.

The sytem is not without flaws, but I think by having the rules in place it stops a lot of people who fit in the high risk categories from donating. There will always be people who lie and do it anyway.

cbus4life wrote: But, what i don't get, is that it seems kinda pointless, as it isn't like they can "prove" that you're gay.

All a gay person needs to do is say "no, i'm not gay," and then they give blood.

Isn't really preventing anyone from giving.

Right--someone can check on a form that they have never had sex with a man or sex in exchange for drugs or money since 1974. It's not foolproof, for sure, but typically, I think most people are generally honest. Giving blood sucks, so most people don't want to jump through lots of hoops for the "freedom" to give.

fan_from_texas wrote:

cbus4life wrote: But, what i don't get, is that it seems kinda pointless, as it isn't like they can "prove" that you're gay.

All a gay person needs to do is say "no, i'm not gay," and then they give blood.

Isn't really preventing anyone from giving.

Right--someone can check on a form that they have never had sex with a man or sex in exchange for drugs or money since 1974. It's not foolproof, for sure, but typically, I think most people are generally honest. Giving blood sucks, so most people don't want to jump through lots of hoops for the "freedom" to give.

They do for the money.

tk421 wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

cbus4life wrote: But, what i don't get, is that it seems kinda pointless, as it isn't like they can "prove" that you're gay.

All a gay person needs to do is say "no, i'm not gay," and then they give blood.

Isn't really preventing anyone from giving.

Right--someone can check on a form that they have never had sex with a man or sex in exchange for drugs or money since 1974. It's not foolproof, for sure, but typically, I think most people are generally honest. Giving blood sucks, so most people don't want to jump through lots of hoops for the "freedom" to give.

They do for the money.

I don't believe it's legal anymore to pay for blood donations. The Red Cross (and three other regional blood banks with which I'm familiar) no longer pay for it for this very reason.

fan_from_texas wrote:

tk421 wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

cbus4life wrote: But, what i don't get, is that it seems kinda pointless, as it isn't like they can "prove" that you're gay.

All a gay person needs to do is say "no, i'm not gay," and then they give blood.

Isn't really preventing anyone from giving.

Right--someone can check on a form that they have never had sex with a man or sex in exchange for drugs or money since 1974. It's not foolproof, for sure, but typically, I think most people are generally honest. Giving blood sucks, so most people don't want to jump through lots of hoops for the "freedom" to give.

They do for the money.

I don't believe it's legal anymore to pay for blood donations. The Red Cross (and three other regional blood banks with which I'm familiar) no longer pay for it for this very reason.

Don't they still pay for plasma donations?

The most I ever got from donating blood was a slice of pizza, cookies and Koolaid

tk421 wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

tk421 wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

cbus4life wrote: But, what i don't get, is that it seems kinda pointless, as it isn't like they can "prove" that you're gay.

All a gay person needs to do is say "no, i'm not gay," and then they give blood.

Isn't really preventing anyone from giving.

Right--someone can check on a form that they have never had sex with a man or sex in exchange for drugs or money since 1974. It's not foolproof, for sure, but typically, I think most people are generally honest. Giving blood sucks, so most people don't want to jump through lots of hoops for the "freedom" to give.

They do for the money.

I don't believe it's legal anymore to pay for blood donations. The Red Cross (and three other regional blood banks with which I'm familiar) no longer pay for it for this very reason.

Don't they still pay for plasma donations?

I don't know. I wasn't paid for it in the past when I've given it.

When i need money, i donate other types of bodily fluids.

fan_from_texas wrote:

tk421 wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

cbus4life wrote: But, what i don't get, is that it seems kinda pointless, as it isn't like they can "prove" that you're gay.

All a gay person needs to do is say "no, i'm not gay," and then they give blood.

Isn't really preventing anyone from giving.

Right--someone can check on a form that they have never had sex with a man or sex in exchange for drugs or money since 1974. It's not foolproof, for sure, but typically, I think most people are generally honest. Giving blood sucks, so most people don't want to jump through lots of hoops for the "freedom" to give.

They do for the money.

I don't believe it's legal anymore to pay for blood donations. The Red Cross (and three other regional blood banks with which I'm familiar) no longer pay for it for this very reason.

But the organizations that collect blood are allowed to sell it to the hospitals. Doesn't something seem wrong with that?

You can still get paid for plasma, but its only like $25 per donation.

Used to be able to get plasma for $50 a few years ago. i remember the commercials on tv kept repeating $50 over and over again.

sleeper wrote: You can still get paid for plasma, but its only like $25 per donation.

Depending on the place you can get anywhere from $25-$50 per donation and you can do it twice a week.

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: ^^^ If the gay person had AIDS so would their children if I remember correctly how that disease works.

The only way a gay man could pass it on to his children is if his infected sperm were used to impregnate a female. It isn't automatic LOL.

This. I have a friend whose father passed away from AIDS she doesn't have AIDS or HIV.

Those needles are fucking horrid. Sharp things = evil.

bigkahuna wrote: What if you wrapped your shit before you stuck it in his pooper?

Without going into the gross details, doesn't matter, that form of "sex" causes many MANY more "wrap" breaks than normal sex with a woman.

Before anyone flies off the handle, sex in the pooper with a woman is the same situation. Greater chance of the "wrap" breaking.

Wrap it 2x then lol..... All kidding aside.

At the surface, this sounds like discrimination, but there are studies to back up why these bans are in place. I completely understand and agree why it's there because there are figures to back it up.

jmog wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: What if you wrapped your shit before you stuck it in his pooper?

Without going into the gross details, doesn't matter, that form of "sex" causes many MANY more "wrap" breaks than normal sex with a woman.

Before anyone flies off the handle, sex in the pooper with a woman is the same situation. Greater chance of the "wrap" breaking.

jmog would know all about this subject.

I Wear Pants wrote:

jmog wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: What if you wrapped your shit before you stuck it in his pooper?

Without going into the gross details, doesn't matter, that form of "sex" causes many MANY more "wrap" breaks than normal sex with a woman.

Before anyone flies off the handle, sex in the pooper with a woman is the same situation. Greater chance of the "wrap" breaking.

jmog would know all about this subject.

Depends on which "subject" you are referring to. With a male? Nope, just educated.

With a woman? I can neither confirm nor deny.

This is not a big issue in the gay world. We have much bigger fish to fry than whether or not we can donate blood.