The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

On Topic Discussion FDA Lifting Lifetime Ban on Gay Blood Donors

pat grimshaw said:
Hospitals are crying out for help.
Click to expand...

I know Pat, as I said I have helped out in these sorts of things in the past although it is not the best use of my skills (and where I could be better used they have full time people doing them) I will probably do more.

Enjoy your Christmas anyway Pat, I make it about 8am for you now.
 
zombiekiller said:
So, they've lifted ban of "ex-gays" but current gay men are still banned. What's there to celebrate here?
Click to expand...

I agree this is no celebration it is still prejudice! Also, isn't all blood screened for HIV anyway? Is the FDA trying to say heterosexuals don't have stds or HIV? Why the double standards.
 
They didn't lift anything, so I don't see why this is good news. Unless straight people have to be celibate for a year as well, this means nothing.
 
I had sex an hour ago. So, I'm still banned.
 
MorrisseyX said:
Why the double standards.
Click to expand...

I have some sympathy for the health authorities, to be honest. There's no getting around the fact that HIV is more prevalent in the gay community (in Western countries). Therefore, in order to cut down the risk of transmission through blood transfusions, they have to be more careful about gay men giving blood. HIV doesn't show up in tests, usually until 3 or 4 weeks after someone has contracted it, and in rare cases up to a year. So, in my opinion, it's not about prejudice, but increased safety. It's sad, but I understand why it's necessary.
 
I have complete sympathy for the health authorities (who are too often understaffed and underfunded).
 
Pat,
I meant "we" the human race - at least in the United States - as a whole. I am an apheresis donor, so I am very familiar with the requirements - I read them every two weeks.

Backagain, that's a huge part of this - it's a lot less of a double standard than it was.
 
DonQuixote said:
Backagain, that's a huge part of this - it's a lot less of a double standard than it was.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make it right.
Who knows what a str8 person does and who they are sleeping with.
Hell it could be a closet case that slips off to the woods to get fucked by some guy, then comes home to fuck the love of his life.... a woman.
The next week the woman donates blood and has no idea the risk.


It doesn't make a difference.
 
DonQuixote said:
Pat,
I meant "we" the human race - at least in the United States - as a whole. I am an apheresis donor, so I am very familiar with the requirements - I read them every two weeks.

Backagain, that's a huge part of this - it's a lot less of a double standard than it was.
Click to expand...



That's right up there with "somewhat pregnant". The requirements are equal, or discriminatory.......there's really no wiggle room.

Is a gay man in a long term, monogamous, relationship more risky than a straight slut?

It may be in individual perception.....but I just don't see this as a gain. It's more like a shell game.
 
I think that, like SSM, it will evolve much more quickly once the changes start to happen.
 
FDA is not a civil rights organization tasked with promoting social equality. FDA hires scientists to promote public health safety and standards. We want to feel equal and will speak of double standards but when it comes to HIV rates in the U.S. the stats speak for themselves. If you look at all data on infection rates and HIV carriers between heterosexual population especially straight males and MSM population in this country, the disparity is staggering. A hetero male can fuck his entire city and his risk of acquiring HIV is 4 in 10,000 as apposed to 134 in 10,000--for MSM that translates to why 70% of HIV is in our population. If there is discrimination it's in mode of transmission--anal sex is more efficient for HIV to spread. If all the current blood bank testing/screening was as accurate and efficient as the public believes it to be, then I don't see why the FDA would stick to their guns on this policy. We now accuse FDA of homophobic politics but trust this agency for approving prEP to combat HIV in our communities?
 
Johnny,
What JaG is saying is that it's possible for tainted blood to test negative, if the infection is very recent and falls inside a window of opportunity.

It's not that the Red Cross and other blood banks are testing the blood, it's that there can be virus present in too small of a quantity to be found, but still wind up infecting a recipient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top