Comments

  1. Jesse says

    Ugh, this guy is so full of himself. I’d be more compelled if it wasn’t so clearly a vanity project as is the case with all his videos.

  2. hamish108 says

    Once infected with HIV it can take over 3 months for antibodies to show up in the blood and test positive. And there is no test for the virus alone, just for antibodies, so anyone donating blood post infection but prior to the appearance of antibodies will be passing the virus on to others.
    This isn’t discrimination, it’s science. Until we get our infection rates dramatically lower (instead of increasing), and they develop a fast, cheap and easy test for the actual virus, I have no problem with this policy.
    Being negative, I wouldn’t want to take this risk with a donated blood transfusion. Would you?

  3. GregV says

    @Hamish108: The ban IS discrimination.
    If a healthy, straight, 53-year-old man who is monogsmouslu-married to a healthy woman once spent 5 minutes getting jerked off by his also-healthy male college roommate 35 years ago when he was 18 years old, he is banned from donating even though he has no risk whatsoever of having HIV.
    If another man just walks into the clinic with open sores on his genitals fresh from a bareback orgy with 12 women, he is welcome to donate, even though he is at exponentially higher risk.
    The guidelines as they are written ste not based on science but on illegitimate prejudice that assumes that all sex between men carries risk while sex with women does not (even when it does).

    Women who have sex exclusively with men have an exponentially higher rate of HIV than women who have sex with only women. The number of black, straight women who have HIV is numerically higher than that of gay, white men and their rate is exponentially higher than that of gay, white women.
    But there are no tules saying that black women may not donate or that a woman has to be gay to donate.
    The policy that exists was developed when nobody knew what kind of sex was safe and unsafe and when the blood could not be accurately tested.
    The policy’s continued existence reinforces the false notion that men having sex with men is inherently unsafe. That’s actually a dangerous message to send. I have a friend who was given that very message at Catholic school and his reaction was to throw caution to the wind and resign himself to the “fact” he would sooner or later end up with HIV and die young. He considers himself lucky that he lucked out until he was old enough to learn that as an adult gay man he could have a healthy and completely safe sex life.

  4. Lucas H says

    This is an interesting concept and I like the discussion points brought up by both hamish108 and GregV. In some respects I understand the precaution of blood banks not wanting to take the risk of spreading HIV infection, since the sad, harsh reality is that sexually active gay men are at an increased risk, and rapid HIV testing is not always accurate. But, in other respects I see the discriminatory nature of the blood ban considering some of the points GregV made.
    But anyhow. I’m still bitter with them when I found out I was rejected from donating blood when I was a freshman in college (12 years ago! Get over it, Lucas H!) for being gay. After that, I was like, “F** you, I’m keeping my f*** blood!” Haha. Sheesh.

  5. Jlavoy says

    hamish108, I see your point, and it is fair. However, I don’t believe simply being gay makes you “at risk”. For example, another group of people with high rates of infection are African American women. To ban that entire group of people is called racism, and would not (rightfully) be tolerated. Instead, we should come up with better criteria then “have you had msm contact?”

Leave A Reply