Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, it's not.
Yes, it does. If you have a type of sex that gives easier access to the person's bloodflow, that is at higher risk for infection.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The gay rights community is wrong about blood donations (again)
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
No, it's not.
Yes, it does. If you have a type of sex that gives easier access to the person's bloodflow, that is at higher risk for infection.
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
The difference is that I'm at least attempting to make sure my opinion is related in some way to reality. You don't seem to care one way or the other.
Yeah - that's exactly what I said.
Can I offer you some advice? Before you respond to someone, read what they said. Then think about it. Try your best to figure out what the words that you are reading actually mean. Then compose a response to that meaning. Before you hit submit, re-read the original comment, and your response, and make sure that your response matches the original comment.
1. Reality is, in your case, subjective, appearently.
2. Merely responding to what YOU post, neighbor.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes, but higher, but not necessarily significantly higher.
SoyLeche
meh...
Ture. A statistical analysis is going to be needed to determine that. We don't have the resources available to us at the moment to perform such an analysis. The FDA does, and I would be very surprised to find out that they haven't done so.
SoyLeche
meh...
Reality is always subjective. I'd say that mine is a bit less subjective than yours though.
No you weren't, because your response in no way followed logically from what I posted.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Actually, there are numbers available for it. Yes, it's Wiki, but you can check the sources. In a 1992 study, receptive anal intercourse produced infections in .5% of those exposed to an infected source. Insertive anal intercourse produced infections in .065%.
SoyLeche
meh...
That is reasonable. What I'm saying is, if there is a 2% chance that the person who is receiving has the virus, the the chance of you getting it is (.00065*.02 = .000013 = 0.0013%). If there is a 0.5% chance that the person who is receiving has the virus you have a (.00065*.0005 = .000000325 = 0.0000325%) chance of getting it.
Commoner
Headache
Well then maybe you're the one who's a bit too biased.
Commoner
Headache
Well, while it's not "raw data", I guess we can trust the numbers. But how do you propose one exclude only the first group? And does the latter group not also have a significantly higher risk of infection than other forms of intercourse?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
What do you mean?
No, not if they're all with someone who is infected, at least. As compared to that .065%, the results for receptive penile-vaginal intercourse were .1%.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
A friend of mine in high school, for instance. Why do you ask?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
What would "screened more carefully" mean, specifically? Does that mean blood from some people is tested extra carefully, or does that mean some people are asked additional questions...?
Okay. So should MSM who receive anal be deferred, but not MSM who only give it? Remember, it's not just the type of sex that matters, it's also the risk of your partner.mball said:
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
I'm not familiar with the dynamic of homosexual relationships, is it common to pitch but not catch?
SoyLeche
meh...
But if you are uncertain about whether your partner is infected, if the person receiving anal is more than 1.54 times as likely to have HIV than the person giving vaginally then giving anally is still more risky than receiving vaginally.
Commoner
Headache
Well, how exactly would you differentiate between the two types of anal sex? If your argument is that only those who receive anal are significantly more at risk, how would you go about excluding only them from donating blood? I mean, that would have to be one very detailed questionnaire.
And I was not aware that there is so much specialization among homosexuals. Are you saying there is a significant portion of gays who only practice the one...ahem...position?
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
You can be a "top," a "bottom," or a "switch." None of them is unusual.
SoyLeche
meh...
I guess if you're a "top" you probably aren't going to get along well in a relationship with another "top" then...
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
I've heard these terms, i just wasn't sure how consistent the roles were. Does a "top" always pitch and never catch? Pitch 80% of the time? 90? 99?
Or whatever, this is pretty irrelevant and just me being curious.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
LORD HAVE MERCY.
Can we please just leave it at this - that there are certain lifestyles, health histories, and choices that increase one's risk of HIV infection, and other blood borne diseases - and those whose lives include a higher risk be screened out of the blood supply?
It's nothing PERSONAL, people. I can't give blood because I lived in Europe during the mad cow disease scare. Prior to about 2001 I was a very regular blood donor, even after I came back to the US after living in Europe. Suddenly the powers that be determined that I was high risk, and now I can't give blood anymore.
My husband worked in Africa for 11 years. Even though he never had sex with any Africans, he can't give blood either. In fact, since we're married, even if I had never lived in Europe, I wouldn't be able to give blood anyway, because I have sex with a man who lived and worked in Africa.
And I can assure you that he doesn't have AIDS and I don't have mad cow disease. But we're banned for life now, even though our lifestyles for the past 5 years at least have been totally risk free, and we've both given copious amounts of blood in the past. Damn good blood too, I might add.
It's not personal. It's not a RIGHTS issue. It's a RISK issue.
Can we please just leave it at this - that there are certain lifestyles, health histories, and choices that increase one's risk of HIV infection, and other blood borne diseases - and those whose lives include a higher risk be screened out of the blood supply?
It's nothing PERSONAL, people. I can't give blood because I lived in Europe during the mad cow disease scare. Prior to about 2001 I was a very regular blood donor, even after I came back to the US after living in Europe. Suddenly the powers that be determined that I was high risk, and now I can't give blood anymore.
My husband worked in Africa for 11 years. Even though he never had sex with any Africans, he can't give blood either. In fact, since we're married, even if I had never lived in Europe, I wouldn't be able to give blood anyway, because I have sex with a man who lived and worked in Africa.
And I can assure you that he doesn't have AIDS and I don't have mad cow disease. But we're banned for life now, even though our lifestyles for the past 5 years at least have been totally risk free, and we've both given copious amounts of blood in the past. Damn good blood too, I might add.
It's not personal. It's not a RIGHTS issue. It's a RISK issue.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Maybe, but not by enough to make a distinction.