Welcome to Thunderdome

After gay nightclub shooting by gay Muslim, gay folks want to be able to give blood.

In the government's defense, they're just playing the odds.

That policy had a place once upon a time but it's time has passed. Now that all blood is tested there's just no reason to keep it in place anymore.

However, the FDA states that recent studies show that: "a history of male-to-male sexual contact was associated with a 62-fold increased risk for being HIV positive, whereas the increase in risk for a history of multiple sexual partners of the opposite sex in the last year was 2.3-fold."

It's not about gay or straight, though. It's about men and women. If you are a man into men it's a lot easier to have more frequent casual sex with a larger number of multiple partners. If it were up to those straight men they'd be fucking everything that moves, too, but they have to deal with women who first want to get paid with time and attention which slows down that process considerably and reduces the risks and infection rate.

Well, I think it's also about the type of sex. Anal tends to transmit HIV more easily than vaginal.

That's probably partially a factor, not maybe not as much as you think. According to studies about 85% of homosexuals practice anal sex while 45% of heterosexuals do as well. Sure that's double the rate among homosexuals, but they are vastly outnumbered in raw numbers by the number of anally active heterosexuals.

TPRJones wrote:That's probably partially a factor, not maybe not as much as you think. According to studies about 85% of homosexuals practice anal sex while 45% of heterosexuals do as well. Sure that's double the rate among homosexuals, but they are vastly outnumbered in raw numbers by the number of anally active heterosexuals.

I would debate how that question was posed there. I have practiced anal sex, but my stats were with 2 partners and either 3 or 4 times total. So would I be included in that 45%? And how do you think that would stack up against the average total for the 85% of homosexuals?

I believe the study was "in the past year" so if you had anal sex in the past year then yes, you would count. Otherwise no.

Vince has a solid point on frequency.

Everyone lies, and there's no way to prove, so they needed a blanket rule.

"... and there's no way to prove, so they needed a blanket rule."

What? They test all blood now for any diseases. They can take in all blood and still be safe due to testing. The only reason to limit it is to save some money by reducing the percentage of infected blood taken in, which is good reason to leave out those having unprotected sex with multiple partners but not good enough to leave out all gay men including those who claim they are married and monogamous.

Ok, I meant in the beginning? Unless you think people just hate fags, even during blood drives.

Oh, sure, as I first said above it made sense once upon a time. But no more.

As to your last statement, yes, some people do just hate fags even during blood drives. I don't think there are a significant number of them in the red cross, though.

And allow me to GTF back O of this thread....

TPRJones wrote:Oh, sure, as I first said above it made sense once upon a time. But no more.

As to your last statement, yes, some people do just hate fags even during blood drives. I don't think there are a significant number of them in the red cross, though.

For the record, my mom ran the local blood bank for a small hospital. The Red Cross is big on getting money. Gays will be their best friends if they are getting money from them. I'd bet this is who was pushing the ban because it complicates their getting blood out for which they are compensated.

Here's a pretty good video on the topic: