Posted May 20, 2011 If anything it isn't discriminatory enough, really they should only accept the blood of virgins, and then only when they are sacrificed on a full moon. I would be quite happy if they accepted your blood, all 100% of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 It's nothing to do with performing the act itself. It's about who performs the act (ie. communities where the virus is already prevalent), and as frequency of anal sex with people more likely than average to have the virus increases, as does risk. Applies to both camps, heterosexuals are just as, if not more, promiscuous, and are probably less careful about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Just seems funny that the major risk is something that is practiced on both sides of the coin, but only one is penalized. Maybe you're just a bit of a prude. It's probably because there are statistics and research that shows HIV and AIDS is significantly higher in the gay community, which may be smaller than the heterosexual population, but a higher proportion of people have it which means they are at a higher risk of contracting it. Combine this with the facts stating that men who have sex with men are in general more promiscuous, I don't feel that they are being penalised. If men who had anal sex with only women had a high rate of AIDS, they would be stopped from giving blood. It's nothing discriminatory and it isn't penalising people, it is using research and medical knowledge to reduce the risk of passing on disease. Surely reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS is a good thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 I would be quite happy if they accepted your blood, all 100% of it. Sorry, not applicable to me. I'm not allowed to donate, due to terminal illness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Applies to both camps, heterosexuals are just as, if not more, promiscuous, and are probably less careful about it. It doesn't apply to both camps, you're not understanding transmission here. If the virus is already far more prevalent in one particular community as it is, and the frequency of sexual encounters in this group per head is also on average higher, it doesn't take a genius to understand why this group is considered at greater risk of transmitting HIV. A person without HIV having anal sex with another person without HIV, and I don't mean 'unconfirmed but possibly positive' - I mean definitely negative - cannot transmit HIV. They simply do not have the virus to transmit. This is why men that have not engaged in same-sex encounters, a group statistically confirmed to have a lower incidence of HIV than gay men (at least through the means we have to confirm this), are themselves less likely to transmit HIV through anal sex to a woman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Oh wait we're trying to debate with Mad Monkey now? *leaves thread* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 It doesn't apply to both camps, you're not understanding transmission here. If the virus is already far more prevalent in one particular community as it is, and the frequency of sexual encounters in this group per head is also on average higher, it doesn't take a genius to understand why this group is considered at greater risk of transmitting HIV. A person without HIV having anal sex with another person without HIV, and I don't mean 'unconfirmed but possibly positive' - I mean definitely negative - cannot transmit HIV. They simply do not have the virus to transmit. This is why men that have not engaged in same-sex encounters, a group statistically confirmed to have a lower incidence of HIV than gay men (at least through the means we have to confirm this), are themselves less likely to transmit HIV through anal sex to a woman. And nobody in the heterosexual community has AIDS, right? May not be as many per head, but it is more in plain numbers, there is risk no matter your sexuality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) And nobody in the heterosexual community has AIDS, right?May not be as many per head, but it is more in plain numbers, there is risk no matter your sexuality. It wouldn't even matter if there were 200,000 straight people with HIV out of 5 million total straight people, versus 90,000 gay people out of 1 million total gay people. The fact is that a higher proportion of gay people have the virus, which means that if, for whatever reason, 50% of the entire population of straight and gay people turned up to give blood, there would be a much higher incidence of HIV in gay than straight men. It just means that they are a higher risk group, nothing more. If you respond to this post in disagreement we can only conclude that you lack understanding of basic mathematics, and we all walk away a little wiser. Edited May 20, 2011 by Sheikah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 The only way this could be reversed in thinking is if every single person in the world gave blood. Then more heterosexual infected blood would be in the banks compared to homosexuals. But that doesn't really mean anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 It wouldn't even matter if there were 200,000 straight people with HIV out of 5 million total straight people, versus 90,000 gay people out of 1 million total gay people. The fact is that a higher proportion of gay people have the virus, which means that if, for whatever reason, 50% of the entire population of straight and gay people turned up to give blood, there would be a much higher incidence of HIV in gay people than gay men. It just means that they are a higher risk group, nothing more. If you respond to this post in disagreement we can only conclude that you lack understanding of basic mathematics, and we all walk away a little wiser. Risk is OK as long as the numbers are acceptable to a government guideline and not to be zero then. OK, enjoy your heterosexual possibly HIV infected blood. Question, is every pint of blood donated kept separate until its needed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Risk is OK as long as the numbers are acceptable to a government guideline and not to be zero then. Yes. Because there is no such thing as 'zero risk'. 'Massive tool' on the other hand... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 you know the nhs wouldn't have these sorts of thing in place without reason.. I'd like to think if I was getting blood that they had been overcautious rather than undercautious. Yeah it may seem offensive, but like... you aren't missing out by not donating.... I've always wanted to give blood but I'm on blood cell modifying drugs, so its basically a no... bummer. at the end of the day you are taking a risk by taking ANY BLOOD. Your body can reject clean blood too. It's usually a case that you get the blood or you die... so they have to take the chance.. they dont give you donor blood for no flippin reason Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 OK, enjoy your heterosexual possibly HIV infected blood. I will, safe in the knowledge that they've done everything they can to keep that risk to a minimum. Question, is every pint of blood donated kept separate until its needed? It's kept in those bag things as far as I know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Yes. Because there is no such thing as 'zero risk'. 'Massive tool' on the other hand... And lets not even get in to acceptable risk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) I will, safe in the knowledge that they've done everything they can to keep that risk to a minimum. It's kept in those bag things as far as I know. Yeah, as far as I'm aware it is kept separate from others, it is tested and it may be separated into Red cell samples, plasma, platelets etc. These tables are quite interesting: Days Stock Left 20 May 2011 Stock Levels 20 May 2011 Shows how important giving blood is and that they really can't take risks on taking samples that may be infected. Edited May 20, 2011 by Mr-Paul Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Wouldnt want to be B Neg or AB Neg! My Nan is AB positive, has a car accident in the 80's... they had a dreadful time getting her blood! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 If anythings come out of this farce of a thread, it's that I will be looking into donating. They still give out tea and biscuits right? I'll be honest, this is a major factor in my decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Wouldnt want to be B Neg or AB Neg! My Nan is AB positive, has a car accident in the 80's... they had a dreadful time getting her blood! But if you look at the first table they have a longer supply of AB- than some of the others! Because it is rarer they need less. I think my brother is AB- but I'm A+, nice and simple If anythings come out of this farce of a thread, it's that I will be looking into donating. They still give out tea and biscuits right? I'll be honest, this is a major factor in my decision. Yep! One of the reasons I go :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 I love the phrase "practicing" sex. It's like, WHEN DOES THE REAL SEX BEGIN?! When you're good enough at it. Keep practising jay. I've always wanted to give blood but I'm on blood cell modifying drugs, so its basically a no... bummer. Yeah that would prevent you from donating as well. And lets not even get in to Best thing you've ever said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 But if you look at the first table they have a longer supply of AB- than some of the others! Because it is rarer they need less.I think my brother is AB- but I'm A+, nice and simple wow obscure ones in your fam! I'm pretty sure that I'm an O, give my mum and dad are both O's.... or I belong to the postman :P Yeah I saw the chart, its good that's its more available these days... I'd be more annoyed if I was a rare type and not able to donate! In those days they didn't have quite the storage tech etc so it was a lot more dificult for my nan Yeah that would prevent you from donating as well.. Be quiet you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 20, 2011 Just realised my charts got mixed up, they should be right now! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2011 Why would you want to donate homosexuality? Is it the gift that keeps on giving? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2011 My Nan is AB positive, has a car accident in the 80's... they had a dreadful time getting her blood! How? AB+ can receive from all other blood groups as far as I am aware. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2011 If anythings come out of this farce of a thread, it's that I will be looking into donating. They still give out tea and biscuits right? I'll be honest, this is a major factor in my decision. I got a free pen! And I didn't even have to give blood for it! (got rejected) =P I don't even know what blood type I am, hmm. I once had my blood tested (for vitamin shortages etc) and asked my doctor to also check for my blood type. When she gave me the results, she completely forgot about the blood type part. =( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) If anythings come out of this farce of a thread, it's that I will be looking into donating. They still give out tea and biscuits right? I'll be honest, this is a major factor in my decision. But...but you're not allowed! yeah i just schoolboy called you gay sorry :x Hows about we just keep on waiting til the one day when some poor sucker goes and gets a blood transfusion to save their life only to find they've been given a crippled existence and infected with HIV, damning them to a cursed life with an eventual death sentence. Then we'll all be outraged and ask how such a thing could have ever happened and why necessary precautions weren't taken to eliminate this risk as best we could etcetcetc. I'm sure some homosexuals then might say 'I wouldn't mind being not allowed to give blood if it's in an effort to save a life' etc. Edited May 21, 2011 by Rummy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
