Homosexuality and Giving Blood (UK)

[Abhorrence]

So, I was planning on giving blood this month but I have read through the health check required for it and found a question saying: "Male donors only; In the last 12 months have you had oral or anal sex with a man, with or without a condom?" I was quite confused by this question and so I did a quick Google of it. This question has only been around since around 2011 - before that men who had had sexual relations with another man at any point in their life were subjected to a lifetime ban on giving blood. In 2011 it was reduced to 12 months.

I was very confused by this and obviously followed it up, apparently it is all to do with medical statistics and whatnot to do with homosexual sex and HIV. Sometimes the disease cannot be found until up to 12 months after the act.

Now, I guess that is fair enough but why is this question not subjected to everyone? One, anyone can carry the HIV virus and I think it is somewhat discriminatory to suggest that only males who have sex with males could have it. Not only that, but a blood donor could be in a long-term homosexual relationship and they could both have been virgins beforehand but they would both still be unable to give blood. My final issue is the fact that it says "with or without a condom", this acknowledges the fact that even if a homosexual man has had one sexual relation and it was completely safe then they can still not give blood; whereas a heterosexual man/woman or a homosexual woman could have unsafe sex with multiple partners and still be eligible.

As a gay dude, I've not really found much discrimination towards me and I don't find a lot of things offensive but this is quite stupid. I understand that they are only attempting to be safe but they are ultimately cutting off a decent portion of the UK's population from giving blood simply because there is a stigma attached to homosexual sex.

What are your opinions on this?

[phuckphace]

consider the following:

- homosexuals are far more likely to have anal sex than heterosexuals
- HIV is more easily transmitted via anal sex
- homosexuals are more likely to engage in causal/non-monogamous sex with a higher number of partners
- the number of people who know they are infected is much lower than actual infection rates

I've encountered quite a few people who think statistics are discriminatory/racist/whatever unless the figures are literally 0% or 100%. if this policy remains in place in one of the world's gayest nations you better believe there's probably a good reason for it, fam.

the CDC's statistics report that while gays are 2% of the population, they account for 52% of HIV infections. if you were about to take a plane flight and knew there was a 52% chance of a plane crash, would ya?

[Judean Zealot]

I am leaning towards the opinion that the question should be extended to anal sex in general, homo or heterosexual. That said, it is definitely a reasonable concern.

[Abhorrence]

consider the following:

- homosexuals are far more likely to have anal sex than heterosexuals
- HIV is more easily transmitted via anal sex
- homosexuals are more likely to engage in causal/non-monogamous sex with a higher number of partners
- the number of people who know they are infected is much lower than actual infection rates

I've encountered quite a few people who think statistics are discriminatory/racist/whatever unless the figures are literally 0% or 100%. if this policy remains in place in one of the world's gayest nations you better believe there's probably a good reason for it, fam.

the CDC's statistics report that while gays are 2% of the population, they account for 52% of HIV infections. if you were about to take a plane flight and knew there was a 52% chance of a plane crash, would ya?
But don't you think they should focus more on unprotected sodomy in general rather than just "oh a guy has fucked another guy once in the past year"?

[northy]

the CDC's statistics report that while gays are 2% of the population?
WRONG, about 10% of males are gay. Perhaps you are looking at the statistic that includes women as well?

Let's do a little maths:

38.6% of straight couples engage in anal sex at least once a year.
Population of the UK: ~64 million
Straight population of the UK = 90% x 64 million = 57.6 million
38.6% x 57.6 million = ~ 22.2 million straight people who have had anal sex (on average)
10% x 64,000,000 = 6,400,000 LGBT people.
6,400,000 / 2 = 3,200,000 gay men
Assuming that all gay men have had anal sex (NB: not true), there are just under 7 times more straight people who have had anal sex.

This law / rule is outdated and discriminatory. I think that if they choose to enforce it, they shouldn't moan about being low on blood.

[Abhorrence]

This law / rule is outdated and discriminatory. I think that if they choose to enforce it, they shouldn't moan about being low on blood.

This is another issue, they actively encourage people to give blood because they NEED it and then go ahead and do this.

[Judean Zealot]

This is another issue, they actively encourage people to give blood because they NEED it and then go ahead and do this.

My father knows somebody who was involved in an accident in France and the hospital there gave him a transfusion of HIV+ blood (it may have even been AIDS, but that I'm unsure about).

They definitely have to be on the watch out for such things, and anal sex has a much greater likelihood of transmitting HIV. Again, I say they ought to expand the rules to include heterosexual anal sex.

[Abhorrence]

My father knows somebody who was involved in an accident in France and the hospital there gave him a transfusion of HIV+ blood (it may have even been AIDS, but that I'm unsure about).

They definitely have to be on the watch out for such things, and anal sex has a much greater likelihood of transmitting HIV. Again, I say they ought to expand the rules to include heterosexual anal sex.
Yes, your point is completely valid. I think the issue is that they focus just on M on M. Obviously there are greater risks there for whatever reason (lack of education for homosexual teens, increase in out-of-relationship sex, etc) but either way, whoring yourself out as a heterosexual or homosexual is an issue. Also I know that condoms aren't always completely safe but they completely disregard them either way in the case of homosexuals for this test. I'm not saying they don't do the same for heterosexuals, there are some questions relating to sex for them too but it's the fact that a man may have had sex with one guy in the past 12 months and he wouldn't be able to donate no matter how careful, which is somewhat unfair - in my opinion.

Awful situation to have happened btw, couldn't imagine how fucked that must've been.

P.S. Just to clarify the lack of education point I meant there isn't a lot of sexual education for homosexuals, at least not in my experience.

[phuckphace]

WRONG, about 10% of males are gay. Perhaps you are looking at the statistic that includes women as well?

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/10/01/cdc-gay-men-represent-2-percent-of-us-population-52-percent-of-people-with-hiv/

"men who have sex with men" - my bad, that's not the least bit gay, like, at all.

[northy]

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/10/01/cdc-gay-men-represent-2-percent-of-us-population-52-percent-of-people-with-hiv/

"men who have sex with men" - my bad, that's not the least bit gay, like, at all.

You're right MWHSWM is a completely different statistic.

Judean Zealot is also right that they should expand it to heteros as well.

Another thing that they could do is test every person for HIV, but that would never be cost effective as the kits cost about £30.

[Abhorrence]

You're right MWHSWM is a completely different statistic.

Judean Zealot is also right that they should expand it to heteros as well.

Another thing that they could do is test every person for HIV, but that would never be cost effective as the kits cost about £30.
They do do HIV tests but the issue is that there is sometimes not traces of it until up to 12 months later, that's what it says on the sheet I have anyway. [emoji14]

[phuckphace]

You're right MWHSWM is a completely different statistic.

no, my point stands and your bleep-bloop attempt at a distinction without a difference is pretty lol-worthy and pointless - what we should take awake from these statistics is that homosexuals have an overall higher risk of HIV infection which can lead to terminal illness - unjustifiable risk. it's all about LOGIC until the facts trigger you, isn't it?

[Judean Zealot]

no, my point stands and your bleep-bloop attempt at a distinction without a difference is pretty lol-worthy and pointless - what we should take awake from these statistics is that homosexuals have an overall higher risk of HIV infection which can lead to terminal illness - unjustifiable risk. it's all about LOGIC until the facts trigger you, isn't it?

Chill brah, he's saying you're right. Unless I'm misunderstanding him and he's being sarcastic ofc.

[phuckphace]

Chill brah, he's saying you're right. Unless I'm misunderstanding him and he's being sarcastic ofc.

possibly but it's hard to tell with these types

the Internet tells me that sexual preference and orientation are "fluid" like what you'd find in a used condom on the floor of a Bay Area bathhouse. not-gay people have sex with men all the time, bigot.

[tovaris]

Because homosexuals have alan sex. HIV (aka GRID ;-) ) is transmitted usualy by the infection of a (shit how to say this in en...) mucosa, and the one in tge anus is apparently realy sensitive to infection. Much more than say the one in your mouth. That is why homosex are reguarded as a high risk group (also the steriotipical lack of the jsage of condoms)

[Living For Love]

Can't people just lie when answering that? How could anyone verify whether you were telling the truth or not? That question is just ridiculous IMHO.

[Abhorrence]

Can't people just lie when answering that? How could anyone verify whether you were telling the truth or not? That question is just ridiculous IMHO.
Quite easily, and I can guarantee that a lot of people do so but I'd probably feel awkward lying about it. I'm not too sure what the process is when you go into the clinic, I think they ask you the questions over again because there is a "staff" tick box too.

[SethfromMI]

But don't you think they should focus more on unprotected sodomy in general rather than just "oh a guy has fucked another guy once in the past year"?

that's the way it should be but sadly it is not and it is a shame

[Gwen]

Can't people just lie when answering that? How could anyone verify whether you were telling the truth or not? That question is just ridiculous IMHO.

Because if your nice enough to donate blood but such a massive dick enough to want to risk giving someone HIV infected blood then maybe you need to get your personality in order? They're choosing to believe in people's word.

[northy]

Because if your nice enough to donate blood but such a massive dick enough to want to risk giving someone HIV infected blood then maybe you need to get your personality in order? They're choosing to believe in people's word.
In that case they should do it to all people who've had anal sex, not just gay men. Also, what if you know for certain that you don't have hiv, they'd still bar you. It is discrimination in my opinion.

[Vlerchan]

In that case they should do it to all people who've had anal sex, not just gay men.
I'm taking statistics from the 2014 report (p. 8). (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf)

MSM have a HIV prevalence rate of 59 per 1000 population.
Heterosexuals have a prevalence rate of 1.6 per 1000 population.
Your statistics state that ~40% heterosexuals have had anal sex. I'm thinking it's not the anal sex. Or at least it doesn't explain the 37-fold higher prevalence rate amongst MSM's. Odds are the MSMs having a higher rate of contracting HIV (54% of diagnoses as per p. 10) stems from the fact that MSMs have a much higher chance of sleeping with people with HIV.

It's worth nothing from p. 8 that black African men have a prevalence rate of 41 and black African woman have a prevalence rate of 71. I'll add that people that have been sexually active in West Africa in the previous 12 months are also banned from donating blood. This almost certainly distorts both (p. 8) statistics provided upwards. The likelihood is that it's more severe for heterosexuals since on average people tend to hold a greater likelihood of being heterosexual - and the woman aren't men.

---

The most important question is also to what extent HIV kits can be trusted. If I remember correct these restrictions were introduced because the likilihood of the kits reporting back a false-negative was just too high to leave people feeling comfortable.

I have no idea how far it's progressed since though.

[Living For Love]

Because if your nice enough to donate blood but such a massive dick enough to want to risk giving someone HIV infected blood then maybe you need to get your personality in order? They're choosing to believe in people's word.
What the hell... First of all, like it has been said, they should ask that question to everyone if they actually think it's relevant, and second, they can't just choose to believe in people's word, they must do tests in order to assure themselves that the person who is donating is absolutely qualified for it and that her/his blood meets the necessary conditions. That's why the question is so irrelevant. Also, not everyone who has had anal sex has AIDS.

[Zachary G]

I find the question quite discriminatory, but during a certain time period I could kind of understand it. Now that they have screening for diseases and everything, it should be no problem for a gay man to donate blood. Here in the US they have changed the rules on gays donating blood and I think it should be done that way everywhere. And why isnt it the same way for gay women?

[tovaris]

I am leaning towards the opinion that the question should be extended to anal sex in general, homo or heterosexual. That said, it is definitely a reasonable concern.

The unprotected sex question applies to all.

But don't you think they should focus more on unprotected sodomy in general rather than just "oh a guy has fucked another guy once in the past year"?

Maybe, but statistic say that gays are still much more likly to be infected. Besides in Slovenia the question is "Have you ever had sex with a man who had sex with other man" (something along those lines.

This is another issue, they actively encourage people to give blood because they NEED it and then go ahead and do this.

Do you mean to tell me the UK with such a large population, with so many "progressive" people is low on blood? Our reserves are always sufficient (in general, rare blood type donors sometimes get midnight calls to donate)

My father knows somebody who was involved in an accident in France and the hospital there gave him a transfusion of HIV+ blood (it may have even been AIDS, but that I'm unsure about).


HIV is the virus you get AIDS is the illness you develop as a result of the infection.

Can't people just lie when answering that? How could anyone verify whether you were telling the truth or not? That question is just ridiculous IMHO.

If you lie you put other peoples lives at stake.

"Have you ever injected drugs into yourself?"
"No." (says the heroin adict
-kills 5 people with hep C

Quite easily, and I can guarantee that a lot of people do so but I'd probably feel awkward lying about it. I'm not too sure what the process is when you go into the clinic, I think they ask you the questions over again because there is a "staff" tick box too.

If you are not confortable with a question you are presented with you can walk away at any point, no questions asked.

QUOTE=Twintail;3293963]
Because if your nice enough to donate blood but such a massive dick enough to want to risk giving someone HIV infected blood then maybe you need to get your personality in order? They're choosing to believe in people's word.
[/QUOTE]

In just quotin this because its right on the money.

In that case they should do it to all people who've had anal sex, not just gay men. Also, what if you know for certain that you don't have hiv, they'd still bar you. It is discrimination in my opinion.

How can you know for certan?

I find the question quite discriminatory, but during a certain time period I could kind of understand it. Now that they have screening for diseases and everything, it should be no problem for a gay man to donate blood. Here in the US they have changed the rules on gays donating blood and I think it should be done that way everywhere. /.../

Thats crazy. Wanting to keep the population healthy is not discrimination.

And why isnt it the same way for gay women?

Because 2 woman cant have an exchange of botoly fluid frew the anus, there is hardly any exchange of botoly fluid frew genetalia either.

[Miserabilia]

They can't test every single donation for HIV so I understand the decision, statisticaly
.
BUT
oral sex shouldn't be on there. At alL!!!!
HIV epidimeic in gay men has nothing to do with oral sex, oral sex is very safe and less higher risk of catchin hiv than heterosexual acts.

I totally understand the part about anal sex do. Gay men that have anal sex are very high risk.

[UNKNOWN8198]

Because if your nice enough to donate blood but such a massive dick enough to want to risk giving someone HIV infected blood then maybe you need to get your personality in order? They're choosing to believe in people's word.

Although this is a nice idea, in practice it doesn't work because anyone who had had anal sex could have contracted HIV. Scrap that, anyone who has engaged in sex at all carries a small risk of being infected. Therefore surely anyone who has engaged in sex in the last 12 months is being a 'massive dick' by donating blood because they're 'risking giving someone HIV infected blood', or at least going by your above statement.
I do agree that lying on forms is not normally the correct thing to do, however here I have to disagree with you. The whole inclusion of oral sex in the question is pointless because of the likelihood of HIV transmission via the mouth, even when it's unprotected, and the anal sex only becomes a problem if it was unprotected*, else there should be a similar question for females as well as even if it is less likely for them to have had anal sex, if they have they still carry the same chance of infection as a gay man.

*here I am not saying that you can only get infected with unprotected anal sex. I'm saying that the risk only becomes big enough to worry about when it's unprotected.

[phuckphace]

lol at implying that having anal sex with your monogamous partner every once and awhile carries the same HIV risk as random buttfucking with strangers from Grindr/craigslist

[RiHouse]

That question has everything to do with likelihood and absolutely nothing to do with homophobia. Sure, heterosexual women and men are able to contract the HIV virus, but there are far more homosexual men/women who have the infection. I know for a fact that in Australia they ask this question to everyone regardless of what your sexual orientation may or may not be, and although it's been proven that 12 months is probably a little on the long side for someone to have to wait, I think it's better to be safe than sorry.

[UNKNOWN8198]

lol at implying that gay people for some reason sleep around any more than straight people. Yes it may be a stereotype, but by no means is it correct.

Also you have misunderstood my previous post. I was by no means saying that having anal sex with a long term partner was at all as risky as sleeping around. Obviously the more people you sleep with the more chance you have of contracting it, however the only way that you could've inferred what you did, is if you decided to partake in the belief that for some reason gay men don't have long term relationships and only sleep around, and that straight people only do the opposite. Or even that gay people do have relationships, but still decide to sleep with other people, which I mean straight people obviously never do.* My point was that if you're going to become worried about a small percentage of the gay population that could've contracted HIV through anal sex, then you should also be worried about the small percentage of the straight population that could've also contracted the virus through anal sex. Given the considerable size differences of the population, and the percentage split for the sexuality of the people who donate blood (because of this rule), if you are going to ban one person for doing one thing, then you need to ban everyone else for doing the same thing, especially when the risk is so small as it is.

*Just to clarify, here I am by no means saying that you're saying all gay people do, however your previous statement shows to me that for some reason you think on average gay people sleep with more people that straight people do, which makes no sense whatsoever, unless you believe in the stereotype mentioned above.

[Vlerchan]

Yes it may be a stereotype, but by no means is it correct.

Oswalt and Wyatt (2013) (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-0066-9) report homosexual men as having twice the number of sexual partners in the previous month than homosexual men. I haven't read other reports but this one had quite a large pool of participants and was reporting quite small error margins.

Obviously the more people you sleep with the more chance you have of contracting it[.]
No. Homosexual men have a higher chance of contracting it because homosexual men have a much larger likelihood of sleeping with someone else who has HIV. This holds when we keep the number of partners and usage of protection constant.

My point was that if you're going to become worried about a small percentage of the gay population that could've contracted HIV through anal sex, then you should also be worried about the small percentage of the straight population that could've also contracted the virus through anal sex.
The percentage of homosexual men with HIV is 5.9%.

The percentage of heterosexual men with HIV is 0.16%.

I supported this in the statistics published in the first post I made in this thread.

[Uniquemind]

It's discriminatory, but in this particular case the statistics I think justify the questions.

Although I'm always for tightening standards given that I always get the feeling that disease is getting easier and easier to spread, sexually transmitted ones or not.

[tovaris]

They can't test every single donation for HIV so I understand the decision, statisticaly
/.../


Actualy the do.

[Miserabilia]

Actualy the do.

Huh.. that's kind of weird.
Well if they check ALL of them, there's really no reason to ban gays from giving blood.. If they're gonna check anyway

[tovaris]

Huh.. that's kind of weird.
Well if they check ALL of them, there's really no reason to ban gays from giving blood.. If they're gonna check anyway

HIV can be present but undetectable for up to 6monts i hear, but new testing metods decrese that.