Posted May 20, 2011 Difficult to throw a hiv test tbf. But easy to lie about your sexuality. I also find your straight friends' actions to be very homosexual. Are you sure they claim to be straight? It's called being in the closet. Maybe they are a statistical anomaly. My point exactly. Well if you click my link you'll see that it refers to men who have sex with men (MSM), not just gay people. And what does that mean, men who are raped by other men? Statistics, provided they have been collected in a genuine way, are a million times more worthy than your preconceptions. Do you have statistical proof to back up those figures? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 It's scientific fact that gay blood will turn you gay. Same as if you're bitten by a gay. Shit that's zombies isn't it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Well look at that, you both picked up on my figure of speech/exaggeration :p You're the one who brought up men having sex with men but considering themselves straight - my point was that the statistics include men who do not identify themselves as homosexual. Point is - to put it bluntly - research carried out by reputable sources shows that men who stick their willies in other men's bums are more likely to have AIDS than men who have sex with ladies or ladies who have sex with ladies. People could lie about their sexuality/HIV status and give infected blood, but i'm pretty sure it must be illegal and they would be prosecuted for acting irresponsibly and putting other people's lives in danger. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 People could lie about their sexuality/HIV status and give infected blood, but i'm pretty sure it must be illegal and they would be prosecuted for acting irresponsibly and putting other people's lives in danger. I'm no advocating that obviously, just the fact that people lie, and screw with statistics, making them not 100% reliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Is that a statistical fact or just your assumptions? Do you have statistical proof to back up those figures? Keep up MMonkey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Keep up MMonkey. I only missed it because of the new page. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 I guess there are many artefactual reasons we can think of that could interfere with the result because after all, it is qualitative in the end and so has many flaws. But considering everything it's the best we have right now, so I assume it to be our best guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 I'm gay and have given blood twice now. I think it's pathetic that we're supposedly banned from doing so. I don't care if HIV is more prevalent among gays, they do tests on the blood so this shouldn't even come into it. It only further promotes the idea that HIV is simply a gay disease. Oh, and the new rule that states we can give blood if we haven't had sex for 10 years? Equally pathetic. It's offensive that they presume because I'm gay, I have less morals. I've been in a relationship for a year and a half now, I don't sleep around, I've never touched drugs, but I'm told I'm not good enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 It's offensive that they presume because I'm gay, I have less morals. Bollocks. It's not offensive, nor is it to do with any presumptions, gay men are statistically more likely to have AIDS or other STIs. That's a fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Bollocks. It's not offensive, nor is it to do with any presumptions, gay men are statistically more likely to have AIDS or other STIs. That's a fact. And? The blood is tested. Why should I be told I can't give blood simply because statistically, my sexual orientation is more likely to be promiscuous Try being a gay, and being told you can't give blood even though you take all the necessary precautions. Then tell me it's not offensive. A blanket ban is ridiculous. Edited May 20, 2011 by Slaggis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 I'm gay and have given blood twice now. I hope you get ARRESTED! And? The blood is tested. Why should I be told I can't give blood simply because statistically, my sexual orientation is more likely to be promiscuous Try being a gay, and being told you can't give blood even though you take all the necessary precautions. Then tell me it's not offensive. It's... not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) So a straight man that might be utterly promiscuous can give blood, but as a gay man who is in a long-term relationship and practices safe-sex, I can't? Makes sense. I outright refuse to not donate blood, if I get a leaflet through the door telling me the area has shortages. Edited May 20, 2011 by Slaggis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 And? The blood is tested. Why should I be told I can't give blood simply because statistically, my sexual orientation is more likely to be promiscuous Try being a gay, and being told you can't give blood even though you take all the necessary precautions. Then tell me it's not offensive. A blanket ban is ridiculous. Because tests can give false negatives, hence why people of high risk can't give blood. What a ridiculous thing to say. There's plenty of reasons why you can't give blood, all of them based on risk statistics (other than the ones to protect the donor such as pregnancy and low weight). Are those things offensive as well? What about having sex with somebody from a country that has a high HIV risk (such as Africa), is that offensive to Africans etc.? What about prostitutes/escorts? A lot of them have taken precautions and only ever have sex with a condom, yet they can't donate. Is that offensive? So a straight man that might be utterly promiscuous can give blood, but as a gay man who is in a long-term relationship and practices safe-sex, I can't? Makes sense. Yes because gay men are of a higher risk than straight men. They can't measure each individual's sexual practices and precautions, so they have to go with statistics. How do they know whether somebody is promiscuous or not? How do they know whether somebody practices safe sex? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 From the NHS Blood website: Why is this policy necessary if all blood donations are tested?The National Blood Service has a responsibility to assure the safety of the blood supplied to hospitals for patients. Although all blood donations are tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis and human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV), there is a period after a person contracts an infection – known as the ‘window period' - when tests can't detect these viruses in the blood. This rigorous approach has resulted in the National Blood Service's good safety record. Since the introduction of testing for HIV in 1985, there have been three cases of transmission of the virus to patients through blood from donors in the ‘window period'. Although the risk of such transmission is low, we work on the basis that any transmission is one too many. Isn't this policy outdated, given the work which has been done to promote safe sex among gay men? While campaigns have certainly done a great deal to promote safer sex, there is still no such thing as completely safe sex. Decisions as to who can give blood are made using up-to-date evidence based on patterns of disease in the UK population. Men who have sex with men are currently at the greatest risk statistically of acquiring most sexually-transmitted infections, such as syphilis. Why is this exclusion lifelong? Wouldn't a one-year deferral pick up recently-acquired infections? Although most new HIV infections would be detected, there is a risk that some would still be undetectable. While changing the policy to a one-year deferral has been considered, the risk of transmission of HIV into the blood supply – based on current evidence – is deemed too high to justify a change in the policy. While the absolute risk is small, any transmission as a result of a change in policy would be one too many. How can the National Blood Service continue to justify this policy in the face of the latest statistics suggesting that HIV is now more prevalent in heterosexuals than gay men in this country? As a group, men who have sex with men have a far higher chance of carrying HIV than the heterosexual population.. Statistics also show that the majority of new cases amongst heterosexuals were acquired in countries outside the UK where HIV is very common, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, people who have been sexually active in such high-risk countries, or who have a partner who has been, are also excluded for one year after the last relevant sexual contact. This exclusion was agreed on the basis of the lower risk that this group presents overall and the need to maintain a sufficient supply of rarer blood types – such as Group B – for the treatment of conditions, such as Sickle Cell Disease, only found in patients from ethnic minority communities. This policy is also kept under regular review. Why doesn’t the National Blood Service exclude promiscuous heterosexuals? Current evidence shows that sex between men still represents the greatest risk factor for the transmission of infections which could be passed on through donated blood. Heterosexuals who engage in activities, sexual or otherwise, which put them at risk of blood-borne infections are excluded from donating blood. The length of this exclusion depends on the specific activity. For example, anyone who has ever had sex for drugs or money – regardless of their sexuality – is excluded permanently from giving blood, as is anyone who has ever injected drugs. How can it be fair to treat all gay men as high risk? What about those in long-term monogamous relationships? There are, clearly, a range of lifestyles among gay men, with many practising safer sex and seeking regular HIV testing. However, given that the National Blood Service must collect 7,000 donations of blood every day to meet demand from hospitals, it is not feasible to take a detailed sexual history from every potential donor. Isn’t there a risk of those gay men who don’t agree with the policy donating anyway? The National Blood Service relies entirely on volunteers; and the underlying principle on which people give blood has to be one of mutual trust. Our only aim in applying this policy is to ensure the safety of the blood on which patients depend. We believe that the vast majority of donors understand and respect this. It is not clear whether a change to the policy would make people more or less likely to comply with it; this is currently being considered. This research is due to be completed by Summer 2010. Other EU countries, such as Italy, have lifted this exclusion. Why doesn't the UK follow suit? Although donor selection policies in Europe are guided by EU law, each Member State must make decisions within this legislative framework based on evidence regarding patterns of diseases which can be transmitted by blood in their population. Although men who have ever had sex with men are deferred from donating in most European countries, this can account for occasional variations in policy within the EU. How can you justify excluding men who have sex with men from donating when there are blood shortages in this country? There has been a safe and sufficient blood supply in this country for many years, although the rate of blood donations is subject to fluctuations. This is when we make particular efforts to ask the public – particularly those with rare blood groups – to give blood. The safety of the blood supply is paramount; the exclusion of men who have sex with men from giving blood is in place to protect patient safety. There are even more reasons on there, as well as cross-Europe directives on the matter. It also emphasises that this policy is always being reviewed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Because tests can give false negatives, hence why people of high risk can't give blood. What a ridiculous thing to say. There's plenty of reasons why you can't give blood, all of them based on risk statistics (other than the ones to protect the donor such as pregnancy and low weight). Are those things offensive as well? What about having sex with somebody from a country that has a high HIV risk (such as Africa), is that offensive to Africans etc.? What about prostitutes/escorts? A lot of them have taken precautions and only ever have sex with a condom, yet they can't donate. Is that offensive? The prostitute example? Really? You can't compare the two whatsoever. If you're throwing all these examples at me, then surely you see my point? Anyone can catch HIV. So why only allow straight people to donate. The blanket system is out-dated. If I were able to prove a clean bill of health, why should that not allow me to donate blood in order to save a life? All those examples contain choices. My being gay isn't a choice. Why should I be banned from something that may save a life simply because I was born gay so have been assigned to a higher risk group? I'm sorry. I just detest the fact I practice safe sex, and am in a long-term relationship, and am still told I shouldn't give blood. Surely people can see why it's so frustrating? Edited May 20, 2011 by Slaggis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Why did Italy lift the ban? Berlusconi bummed a tranny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 I'm no advocating that obviously, just the fact that people lie, and screw with statistics, making them not 100% reliable. So you are saying that people are lying, pretending they are gay in exams, just to increase the amount of gay hiv infections? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 So you are saying that people are lying, pretending they are gay in exams, just to increase the amount of gay hiv infections? No, he's saying that there's probably a much larger number of gay people than the ones that tick gay in a survey and that skews the 4% statistic that was the basis for the 50 times more likely calculation. Also people can lie in any number of ways in surveys, because of many reasons, which is why surveys have many flaws. People can even misunderstand the question or fear their answers are being monitored by their peers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 All those examples contain choices. My being gay isn't a choice. Why should I be banned from something that may save a life simply because I was born gay so have been assigned to a higher risk group? Fine then, people from certain countries (Diageo says he can't) can't give blood. That's not a choice. Is that racist? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 No, he's saying that there's probably a much larger number of gay people than the ones that tick gay in a survey and that skews the 4% statistic that was the basis for the 50 times more likely calculation. Also people can lie in any number of ways in surveys, because of many reasons, which is why surveys have many flaws. People can even misunderstand the question or fear their answers are being monitored by their peers. It is almost certainly based on the number of positive tests in clinics :p Not a survey. And if people were lying and pretending to be straight that would reduce the number of gay hits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 It is almost certainly based on the number of positive tests in clinics :p Not a survey. No it was definitely a survey. Didn't you fill out the "Are you gay? Do you have AIDS?" survey that came with the Census? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 It is almost certainly based on the number of positive tests in clinics :p Not a survey. And if people were lying and pretending to be straight that would reduce the number of gay hits. No it's based on the percentage of the population that has sex with men/bi/gay/etc which they use to find the chance per 100,000 people or whatever they used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 No it's based on the percentage of the population that has sex with men/bi/gay/etc which they use to find the chance per 100,000 people or whatever they used. Their estimates of the number of gay people are probably reliable, otherwise there would be no point in quoting them. You can't just assume the people taking the surveys are incompetent, and surveys are anonymous too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Their estimates of the number of gay people are probably reliable, otherwise there would be no point in quoting them. You can't just assume the people taking the surveys are incompetent, and surveys are anonymous too. How are they probably reliable? Who is quoting them? Some people taking surveys lie, misunderstand the question, mess, get it wrong. All surveys have this problem. ALL OF THEM. Anonymity makes most people more likely to tell the truth, but not everyone, and it means people can lie without getting caught. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
