FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Bi/ G Men can't give blood? grrr
Bi/ G Men can't give blood? grrr
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
This has come about because of another discussion I posted recently about men and trans.
It was raised that a man who has sex with another man is not allowed to give blood.
I googled it.
And it is true! (if a man has had sex with a man within a year they cannot donate)
What is worse is that the site then goes on to mention that two men in a monogamous relationship, who have regular check-ups and practise safe sex CANNOT give blood!
YET a female can!
This how outraged me so much!!!
A man gives oral to man cannot give blood.
A woman gives oral to the same man can?
No "bloody" wonder they are crying out for donations!
Surely testing EVERY sample of blood should ensure it is clean of anything not wanted.
After all people lie!
Discuss!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I can't believe it!
have you read the FAQ's?
There is a whole list entitled:
"Men who have sex with men and giving blood"
Which then has 16 q and a's attached underneath!
Yet under descrimination act 2010 it is legal.
Wow! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Blame me for this enrage I started it sorry lol "
Lil Missy I didn't know if you wanted to be named or not
So didn't .
I didn't know! I am angry!
I am sure we have phones that can do everything now (on mine you can play a game called snake!) so why they can't screen ANY blood sample to make sure it is safe regardless of who it came from?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't believe it!
have you read the FAQ's?
There is a whole list entitled:
"Men who have sex with men and giving blood"
Which then has 16 q and a's attached underneath!
Yet under descrimination act 2010 it is legal.
Wow!"
Yep I know
Surely they test the blood that's donated anyway
But I can't give now because of transfusions myself as I may now be at risk of hepatitis ..... Well I was given the blood by the hospital !!!
They need to more rigorous tests on the donated blood and allow normal people with normal sex lives give blood if they wish
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"If you are a woman and have had sex with a man who has sex with a man you can't give blood "
Can you find me something to back this up?
I know fab doesnt allow site links but I am looking on Give Blood and cannot see this (not saying it is not there) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you are a woman and have had sex with a man who has sex with a man you can't give blood
Can you find me something to back this up?
I know fab doesnt allow site links but I am looking on Give Blood and cannot see this (not saying it is not there)"
It's on there on the list of if you have had sex with |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you are a woman and have had sex with a man who has sex with a man you can't give blood
Can you find me something to back this up?
I know fab doesnt allow site links but I am looking on Give Blood and cannot see this (not saying it is not there)
It's on there on the list of if you have had sex with "
A man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you are a woman and have had sex with a man who has sex with a man you can't give blood
Can you find me something to back this up?
I know fab doesnt allow site links but I am looking on Give Blood and cannot see this (not saying it is not there)
It's on there on the list of if you have had sex with
A man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female)."
A man (if you're a male). Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man (with or without a condom) are deferred from blood donation for 12 months. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you are a woman and have had sex with a man who has sex with a man you can't give blood
Can you find me something to back this up?
I know fab doesnt allow site links but I am looking on Give Blood and cannot see this (not saying it is not there)"
I was told I couldn't give blood for this reason |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
It's on there on the list of if you have had sex with "
Sorry to be a pain, I just have to see it for myself and I can't see it. Is it on this list? (I have brought down men who have sex with other men and giving blood sub menu)
Giving blood
Q
Who can give blood?
Q
How often can I give blood?
Q
How much blood will be taken?
Q
How long does it take to donate blood?
Q
Will I be asked a lot of questions before I give blood?
Q
How will giving blood affect my health?
Q
Why can women donate less frequently than men?
Q
Is it safe for men to donate more frequently?
Q
I have heard that the donor's ethnic origin is requested. Why does this matter?
Q
I have heard that blood is used for research. Isn't it all needed by patients?
Q
I am a vegetarian, can I give blood?
Q
How do UK donation frequencies compare with other countries who have blood services?
Q
Giving blood after acupuncture, tattoos or piercings
Q
Why are people who have or think they may have received a blood transfusion since 1980 no longer able to give blood?
Before and after giving blood
Men who have sex with men and giving blood
Q
Blood donation criteria for men who have had sex with men
Q
Can a man who has sex with men donate blood?
Q
I'm safe as I'm in a stable monogamous relationship. Why can't I donate?
Q
I always use condoms, why can't I give blood?
Q
How can it be fair to continue to treat all men who have sex with men as high risk?
Q
Anyone can contract Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs), so why aren't gay men allowed to donate?
Q
HIV is not a 'gay disease'. Why discriminate against gay men?
Q
I'm a man who has had sex with another man in the last 12 months and I still want to donate blood. Should I just lie on the Donor Health Check?
Q
Isn't there a risk of gay men who don't agree with the policy donating anyway?
Q
I have sex with men. You test donated blood so why can't I donate?
Q
What is an infection 'window period'?
Q
Why is the deferral period 12 months?
Q
I've recently had a negative HIV test result and know that I am negative, so why can't I give blood?
Q
Will the blood donation selection criteria related to men who have sex with men change in future?
Q
I'm gay and have a rare blood type. Are patients missing out because I can't donate?
Q
What are the donor selection criteria for men who have sex with men in other countries?
Q
What are the other donor selection criteria related to sexual behaviour?
Q
Why aren't promiscuous heterosexuals deferred or excluded from giving blood?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Oh it's so much worse than just that!
If you both regularly give blood, so dare to ask, you're labelled as small-minded, bigoted, hypocritical, judgemental and worse. Eventually you give up explaining.
The Terrance Higgins Trust has a good explanation of the reasoning.
Mr ddc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Yep I know
Surely they test the blood that's donated anyway
But I can't give now because of transfusions myself as I may now be at risk of hepatitis ..... Well I was given the blood by the hospital !!!
They need to more rigorous tests on the donated blood and allow normal people with normal sex lives give blood if they wish
"
If any of my family or friends needed blood I wouldn't be concerned who it was from but would like it to be vigorously tested! which makes me question the tests that they can't pick up if somebody had a transfusion or a tattoo - tick a box and we trust you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Oh it's so much worse than just that!
If you both regularly give blood, so dare to ask, you're labelled as small-minded, bigoted, hypocritical, judgemental and worse. Eventually you give up explaining.
The Terrance Higgins Trust has a good explanation of the reasoning.
Mr ddc"
I guess it is all about education.
If you want to give blood honestly then you no option but to decline invitations of this sort.
Must get annoying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you are a woman and have had sex with a man who has sex with a man you can't give blood
Can you find me something to back this up?
I know fab doesnt allow site links but I am looking on Give Blood and cannot see this (not saying it is not there)"
Look on the National Blood Transfusion site. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Copy and pasted from the other thread like you asked
"No it doesn't defy all logic and science it's perfectly rational.
Anal sex is more dangerous than vaginally sex for the transmission of hiv (yes straight people have analysis but it's lower than in gay men)
Then there's the 50% of new infections of hiv are amongst gay and bisexuality men, gay people make up what less than 5% of the population?
The main risk is those new infections which don't activate the tests in the first 12 months.
So if by excluding 5% of donors you reduce the risk by 50% you'd have to be utterly illogical and unscientific to not exclude them"
You really need to stop applying an ideological view to what should be a pure statistics argument.
By excluding gay and bi men they drastically reduce the risk without really impacting the size of the donor pool.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They've never been able to give blood and nor has a woman that has relationships with a bi sexual man"
Yes they could. They were only stopped in the eighties when HIV started to be seen over here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Swingers are a high risk group so I'm just surprised it isn't mentioned. "
that IS logical.
But is it just a q and a session
as a female.
1)have you ever had sex with man who has had sex with a man.
"oh hang on. I have slept with 10 (yeah i know) men- I forgot to ask them all?"
TEST TEST TEST
people lie!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There was a thread about this just last week and I'm outraged about the same thing. There were some interesting posts on it though. I can't remember what it was called but I'll try and find it for you. It makes me quite cross so I don't give blood any more.
I'm willing to bet no-one will give a shit who I've fucked when they're picking through my organs after I'm gone.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Copy and pasted from the other thread like you asked
"No it doesn't defy all logic and science it's perfectly rational.
Anal sex is more dangerous than vaginally sex for the transmission of hiv (yes straight people have analysis but it's lower than in gay men)
Then there's the 50% of new infections of hiv are amongst gay and bisexuality men, gay people make up what less than 5% of the population?
The main risk is those new infections which don't activate the tests in the first 12 months.
So if by excluding 5% of donors you reduce the risk by 50% you'd have to be utterly illogical and unscientific to not exclude them"
You really need to stop applying an ideological view to what should be a pure statistics argument.
By excluding gay and bi men they drastically reduce the risk without really impacting the size of the donor pool.
"
Thank you THX
It is a valid point, my bad for keeping the conversation going on there. Hense this one.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Not to mention all the women with 'straight' husbands who donate in blissful ignorance.  "
Yep!
with the restrictions on recent tattoos, piercings etc i think that none of my friends can donate anyway? If i was a vampire i'd be fucked! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Swingers are a high risk group so I'm just surprised it isn't mentioned.
that IS logical.
But is it just a q and a session
as a female.
1)have you ever had sex with man who has had sex with a man.
"oh hang on. I have slept with 10 (yeah i know) men- I forgot to ask them all?"
TEST TEST TEST
people lie!
"
They do test them all its just if it is a new infection there is a small chance it won't be detected by the test.
As for banning swingers we make up such a tiny portion of the population that it's not even worth mentioning us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Copy and pasted from the other thread like you asked
"No it doesn't defy all logic and science it's perfectly rational.
Anal sex is more dangerous than vaginally sex for the transmission of hiv (yes straight people have analysis but it's lower than in gay men)
Then there's the 50% of new infections of hiv are amongst gay and bisexuality men, gay people make up what less than 5% of the population?
The main risk is those new infections which don't activate the tests in the first 12 months.
So if by excluding 5% of donors you reduce the risk by 50% you'd have to be utterly illogical and unscientific to not exclude them"
You really need to stop applying an ideological view to what should be a pure statistics argument.
By excluding gay and bi men they drastically reduce the risk without really impacting the size of the donor pool.
"
spot on - blood supplies have been contaminated before - you reduce the risk by stopping high risk donors - perfectly logical - it's not a 'gay rights' thing - it's designed to protect people - and should stay that way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
"Copy and pasted from the other thread like you asked
"No it doesn't defy all logic and science it's perfectly rational.
Anal sex is more dangerous than vaginally sex for the transmission of hiv (yes straight people have analysis but it's lower than in gay men)
Then there's the 50% of new infections of hiv are amongst gay and bisexuality men, gay people make up what less than 5% of the population?
The main risk is those new infections which don't activate the tests in the first 12 months.
So if by excluding 5% of donors you reduce the risk by 50% you'd have to be utterly illogical and unscientific to not exclude them"
You really need to stop applying an ideological view to what should be a pure statistics argument.
By excluding gay and bi men they drastically reduce the risk without really impacting the size of the donor pool.
"
I'm BI and am almost amazed that other BIs seem to be in denial that they, in general, face a greater risk of STIs than heterosexuals do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm surprised they haven't banned swingers too.
I think maybe they should ban EVERYONE
OR
Just test the red stuff!"
They do test it. Every single donation.
But the Hiv virus can take up to 12 months to manifest - hence the delay.
I think they get scientists, using a combination of science and risk-based statistical analysis to decide the policy. They tried the other way, but then loads of hemophiliacs got hiv from infected blood.
It has changed the way we play, but every time we see someone told to lie about their sexuality on here we realise eventually we will be forced to choose.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Copy and pasted from the other thread like you asked
"No it doesn't defy all logic and science it's perfectly rational.
Anal sex is more dangerous than vaginally sex for the transmission of hiv (yes straight people have analysis but it's lower than in gay men)
Then there's the 50% of new infections of hiv are amongst gay and bisexuality men, gay people make up what less than 5% of the population?
The main risk is those new infections which don't activate the tests in the first 12 months.
So if by excluding 5% of donors you reduce the risk by 50% you'd have to be utterly illogical and unscientific to not exclude them"
You really need to stop applying an ideological view to what should be a pure statistics argument.
By excluding gay and bi men they drastically reduce the risk without really impacting the size of the donor pool.
I'm BI and am almost amazed that other BIs seem to be in denial that they, in general, face a greater risk of STIs than heterosexuals do. "
Yep, we are statistically a risk group but then I'm a man and a motorcyclist, seems I'm not happy outside of high risk groups lol
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Of course what really bugs me is 'what do they mean by "had sex with"?'
However this isn't a debate I've so far been prepared to air with old dears doing tea and biscuits at the blood donor sessions.
(Though technically if they had a coronary, they'd at least be in a good place, wouldn't they?...)
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Copy and pasted from the other thread like you asked
"No it doesn't defy all logic and science it's perfectly rational.
Anal sex is more dangerous than vaginally sex for the transmission of hiv (yes straight people have analysis but it's lower than in gay men)
Then there's the 50% of new infections of hiv are amongst gay and bisexuality men, gay people make up what less than 5% of the population?
The main risk is those new infections which don't activate the tests in the first 12 months.
So if by excluding 5% of donors you reduce the risk by 50% you'd have to be utterly illogical and unscientific to not exclude them"
You really need to stop applying an ideological view to what should be a pure statistics argument.
By excluding gay and bi men they drastically reduce the risk without really impacting the size of the donor pool.
I'm BI and am almost amazed that other BIs seem to be in denial that they, in general, face a greater risk of STIs than heterosexuals do. "
Yup, it's not a value judgement, it's just data. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
