To Bi or Not (giving blood)
 

Hiya you lovely people!

I'm not even sure why I'm wanting to discuss this, but it has been on my mind for a while now..

I give blood, donation to the blood banks here in England 3 times a year.
I don't get anything from it, apart from the warm fussy feeling and idea that I may be helping with research or maybe save a life or two in the process.

I'm straight, don't have any problems with my sexuallity (I know the title says bi, but read on).
Latley, I've been wondering, if I wanted to try going with a guy for anal, cock in ass fun, would I actually do it... Not because of it being a guy or anal or any other social stigma like that, but more because I wouldn't be allowed to give blood anymore if I have anal sex with another guy, even if I've used a condom.


So, the question I'm really wanting to ask is that:
If you were thinking that you were bi-sexual, would you give up giving blood to find out or just try to 'ignore being bi' and continue to give blood and maybe save a few lifes in the process?

What a fascinating dilemma.

I want to say that they can find someone else to give blood, but I imagine it's rather difficult to find a person who is willing to donate as frequently as you do. It's a harsh process that leaves most people feeling drained if not ill.

Still, personal happiness comes first.
It all comes down to how much that experimentation will mean to you.

My gut tells me they can find another donor.

The straight blood tastes like brown gravy and the gay blood quickly clots on pastel fabrics.

...

+1. WTF? Do the voluntary-vampires have a DADT policy?

You think they'd check your juice out first. They do before distribution, as far as I recall.

Research has shown that clean gay blood is just as good as clean straight blood.

...

This seems like discriminating the oil taken from car based on foreign or domestic manufacture. Phooey. It's all the same oil.

/commentary by guy too scared of needles to voluntarily give blood

It's issues like these that really piss me off.

Instead of treating AIDS and HIV as a disease like many other, many blood donor agencies go out of their way to discriminate against any man whose had sex with another man without any proper evidence to back up their claims that they actually pose a higher risk to the national blood supply. In Canada, you're banned from donating blood if you're a male whose had sex with even a single male all the way back to 1977 no matter what your current HIV status may be.

It's a disease folks! Granted a serious one, but still one of many diseases that can kill. As long as the blood agencies properly test the donated blood before distribution (as they should for ALL deadly diseases), the risk factor falls to nearly zero.

Sagum, your generosity to help out those in need is admirable. But if your blood agency wants to discriminate against you for your lifestyle choices no matter how short they actually may be and with absolutely no consideration on their hypothetical outcome, I say fuck 'em!

Not that I give blood in the first place, but there's no way in hell I'd place that in higher priority than my own personal lifestyle choices. I guess I'm a selfish bastard.

I have a genetic blood disorder, so I have never had a chance to give blood, and it is something I do wish I can do. Growing up my dad would go like clockwork whenever he was allowed to give, he was there donating. I can not say what I would give up, since this exact topic is not even an option to me, but knowing you can just give a little time and comfort to save someone life, is something I wish was an option for me.

By the way I know in NYC they blood banks are frequently begging the public for more blood since they are consistently low.

I'm not allowed to give blood in Canada, because I lived in England during the time of mad cow disease. So I guess your blood is only good in England? Personally, I think they should test it for everything before letting it back out. I would like to be able to donate, and it pisses me off to have an arbitrary 'no' assigned to me without a shred of proof of infection.

i agree with you that they should test, I have an old friend that got very very sick from a blood transfusion. but i understand the cost of testing every blood donor for everything would be very costly.

The problem with testing blood for HIV is that if you've only recently contacted it, it wont show up in the blood but can still be transmitted.

"Sexual activity - Is there any kind of sexual activity that will affect my ability to donate blood?

If you have any reason to believe you may have acquired an infection through unprotected sex, you should not donate.

Safe sex practices are vital to the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. However, 'protected sex' is not 100% effective and therefore the Australian Red Cross Blood Service's guidelines relating to sexual activity are based on the prevalence of infection in certain population groups.

The following questions are asked in regard to sexual activity:

* Have you ever thought you could be infected with HIV or have AIDS?
* In the last 12 months have you engaged in sexual activity with someone who you think might answer yes to any of the questions on the use of drugs, partner with HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HTLV, or treatment with clotting factors?
* Since your last donation or in the last 12 months have you had sexual activity with a new partner who currently lives or has previously lived overseas?

Within the past twelve months have you:

* Had male to male sex? more info
* Had sexual activity with a male who you think might be bisexual?
* Been a male or female sex worker (e.g. received payment for sex in money, gifts or drugs?)
* Engaged in sex with a male or female sex worker?

If the answer is 'yes' to any of the above questions, then a 12 month deferral is applied."

the anal sex thing is you can't give for 12 months - in Australia anyway.

that's from the Australian red cross who look after all blood donations. I can't donate for another 6 months because i had protected sex once with a guy who may have used intravenous drugs.

I mean I understand the need to keep the blood supply clean but I do think they go a little over the top considering how badly they always need donors. I will give blood when I can but I think it's a little insane.

I donate blood every eight weeks or so--that's the minimum the Red Cross allows, and I usually schedule my next appointment while I'm eating my snacky cakes after donating.

I think the pre-screen seems, to a layman, needlessly harsh in a couple ways. There's HIV/AIDS obviously, but they're pretty concerned about CJD, too--enough so that people who lived outside the US are proactively screened out. And the "have you ever touched cock" questions... yeah, that kind of pisses me off.

On the other hand, I've watched those screening questions change over the years, so I know they're not just sitting still about it. Somebody's making a call about the balance of available donors versus the risk they present. And I assume they've got access to better statistics than I do...

OK, Here's a very simple solution:

1. Have your sex. Make it good, so you don't feel like you missed out, because you won't be doing it again for a while unless you decide you actually are bi, in which case donating blood is out for you. Use a condom (DUH).

2. Wait a year so any illnesses have time to manifest themselves.

3. Get yourself tested, twice, at two different places, so there's no chance of a false negative.

4. If the results are negative and you are clean, then go back and start donating again. When they ask you, "Have you had gay anal," say NO. You aren't lying, because they aren't REALLY asking if you're had gay sex, they're asking "Are you potentially infected," and the answer is really NO.

Ta-da!

I know at least one gay guy that lied and donated every 2 months anyways...

I think it should be more about your general high risk activities instead of focusing on the sex with gay men part.

I give every 2 months at work... I would be inclined to continue donating unless I did something particularly risky or thought I might be infected.

I'm in the same boat - it's a bit silly now that mad cow is present in North American beef anyway!

I give blood whenever I can. Since I have only been in one intimate relationship and neither of us have strayed or been intimate with another, this does not really affect me.

HOWEVER!

This is an issue that I brought up to my communications/social advocacy class. In Canada, according to my prof, you can still participate and there is no reason not to continue to give blood; they just may not use it. Even if my beau had a bisexual experience in the past, it affects my ability to give blood.

I would simply lie. Since I do not have HIV or AIDS and they test the blood anyway, I do not see why it is an issue. I think as long as we are aware of our sexual health and you get yourself tested as well as sexual partners tested, I have no moral obligation to tell the truth. They test the blood anyway.

I personally think that a heterosexual female is more at risk of HIV or AIDS than anyother person because we can engage in all forms of sex (anal, vaginal and oral).

If you want to continue giving blood and follow your heart, I suggest getting a check up when you change sexual partners and then lie.

I keep thinking about how arbitrarily biased this system appears.

I definitely agree.
Unfortunately, for me, I just don't think it is right for me to "take a stand" against this issue by not giving blood.
Hospitals are just too under funded and under supplied. And considering how blood demand is at its peak when it nears holidays, it just doesn't seem right to snub them, even when they are being wrong about the whole thing.

I would have thought, considering the demand for blood donations and lack of donations, they would allow more safe people to donate.

I used to give blood, from 18-23 and my diagnosis of cancer.

Now they'll never take blood from me again.

I miss it.

I have O Negative blood (universal donor) but I can't donate because of what I've done in my past. I used to give all the time, and I absolutely still would if they would let me.

I don't understand how you guys miss giving blood? I mean, they don't want it for some reason or another ... really, I don't give blood simply because I like my blood. I'll give you anything else if you ask nicely. Not to mention it can cure anything but just because I lived in persia some hundred years ago you won't take it? Hell, suit yourself.

Can't you just lie to the docs?

DUDE!!! I didn't know that!!! So you're telling me that if I fucked around with some guy, I can't give blood?!?! Even if it was "safe sex"? I've never messed around with a dude but it is really crazy because of the way that you were treated if you do. Thats why, nowadays, people cannot be honest with themselves and much less others. I was kinda pissed last year that I couldn't give blood because I got a less than a month before. I like giving blood, I like to continue doing it, but if people that are HIV negitive cannot give blood that are bi or gay, then what is the need? To me, this is taking away peoples rights...AKA BULLSHIT.

<threadjack>
I'm impressed by all of you that donate blood. I wasn't allowed to donate for a few years after becoming of age due to being on a drug that stays in your blood for a long time afterwards. Since then, I haven't donated. When I was on that drug, I got a lot of blood tests monthly, and had a lot of bad, painful, somewhat traumatizing experiences.
Now I cringe and feel a surge of panic if I see a needle headed towards the crook of my arm.
Which is why I have never donated blood.

I'd really like to, if they can use something to take my blood besides the crook of my arm.
Also, I have fainted and had a seizure due to panic and shock from injury. I'm afraid the same might occur when giving blood. And that thought terrifies me. :(

</threadjack>

Why would you miss an activity that costs you nothing but a little time and a little fluid that you won't have any reaction to save a little light-headedness for a short while, but said activity goes out into the big wide world and helps save or revolutionise lives.

Yeah, how could anyone miss something so pointless and inconsequential.

:(

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------

You should report him.

Higher risks are higher risks.

The last people in the world who should be taking unnecessary risks are those who need blood.

:(

I hope that isn't directed towards me. :grumpy:

Not at all. Wussy.

JOKE. ;)

Part of the reason I started giving blood was to get over my fear of needles and especially of having blood taken... In my early teens i'd got to the point of passing out through hyperventilation, so I know where you're coming from.

Hey! I'm no wuss!

...ok, maybe I am.

But I didn't have a fear of needles until I had to give blood samples. I have a 2 inch scar on my inner arm from a nurse cutting up my arm to hell. -_-

And I can still get shots/needles for things. I just start to panic when I see a needle coming towards my inner arm to get blood.

The passing out thing is weird. Its a more recent thing. I don't see it coming fast enough. One second I'm fine, the next I black out. Only once did I have a seizure.:oogle:

It's a legal matter baby.

Simply put, the blood agencies don't want to take on the liability. They know that HIV is primarily a gay male disease / drug user disease. As such, they choose to reduce the risk by not accepting blood from gay men.