On HIV and Blood Donation

So I went to donate blood today (which was a hilarious failure - they couldn't get anything out of me once they'd stuck in the tube), and noticed that amongst the various prohibitions, you can never, ever donate blood if you've had oral or anal sex with a man, regardless of whether you used a condom or not. However, oral or anal sex with a woman is A-OK unless 'you have reason to believe she is HIV-positive'. When I asked about this, it was explained that it was due to a presumed higher risk of HIV among gay men.

Anyways, I wanted to see if I could get some further info on this. How much higher is the risk of HIV from sticking your dick in a man rather than a woman, and is the margin significant enough to warrant this kind of double-standard? Because my gut says 'no', but I figured it'd be smart to get the data before I started jumping to conclusions.

Answers, anyone?

Well... I highly doubt there's any actual statistics behind it anymore, but I believe that it was actually true (i.e. gay men have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS)... back in like the '70s/'80s, when they passed that law.

I think the only thing keeping us from switching to blood tests for HIV/AIDS is the anti-gay movement, today, though...

edited 17th Aug '11 3:11:08 PM by USAF713

Yeah, thought that were the case. Any solid stats on modern HIV rates, though?

I had heard from a Stephen Fry documentary on the subject that the majority of people that now carry HIV are in fact white, heterosexual males.

Though ofc this might be due to the fact that in Western Europe, that is a significant amount of the populace.

Well, it's probably because before HIV/AIDS, there was never a psychologically-justified reason for gay men to consider using protection. I mean, no chance of kids, and STDs just really weren't considered a big deal because they weren't overtly lethal. So the gay population probably got it much faster than the general population, and then we found out it was a latent killer.

That changed perception of condoms real quick-like...

In the first world at least this is true, I think over here your not allow to give blood if you've had sex with a gay man in the last three years or something equal arbitrary

This is why I'm glad I'm in a monogomous relationship with a woman who has her tubes tied...

No condoms, no kids, no diseases.

Fuck yeah.

I'm assuming that the multitudes of women who have had oral and anal sex are not similarly disqualified?

Does anyone know of any one who would actually refuse a blood transfusion from a gay man? Either because their're scared of catching 'teh aids' or they are just uncomfortable with having 'queer blood'

edited 18th Aug '11 12:13:52 AM by joeyjojo

I donate blood in my country and never asked that. In fact, they never asked anything about my history.

Edit, Okay, they asked me whether I'm involved in risky behaviour in regards to HIV, and provide a list of that. But never anything specific.

edited 18th Aug '11 12:38:57 AM by Blurring

If I remember correctly, the last time I went to give blood the rule was 'no gay sex for the last three years'.

Also no tattoos, or piercings in the last few years.

I think in Sweden they removed that restriction on gay men but they blood collection agencies got special permission to keep it for another year.

Down here the question is "Male Donors: Have you ever had sexual contact with another man, even just once?" They also ask if you've ever had sex with a prostitute (or been a prostitute), even if you used protection, as well as if you've ever shared needles. With tattoos and piercings, it's if you've gotten one in the last year.

Probably for more tests.

I give blood 4 times a month and I've never been asked any questions even vaguely related to homosexuality.

Isn't that a bit too often dude? I can only give blood every couple of months.

While I normally would go on a rant about Sweden being gutlessly politically correct, there doesn't seem to be an good reason at all for the restriction :/

What people have said upthread is correct - while AIDS first came to public attention though gay men in the West, these days the majority of the cases are in the southern parts of Africa, and unsafe (mostly hetero) sex is the most frequent way it is spread.

And IIRC, the regulations here come from prior to the development of a reliable test for AIDS.

Barkey, that's plasma, not blood.

Yeah, over here in England, gay sex (protected or otherwise) and having sex for money are both automatic, permanent disqualifiers. Which is just a little bit unfair.

not to rag on sex workers, but they are being exposed to multiple often anonymous partners. it's not just a case of saying that they have 'bad sex'

Indeed. In theory, they should be statistically more likely to get a STD. If not, the practice has no basis and needs to go die.

I believe that we had a topic here before on a similar premise, where a feminine man was denied the ability to deny blood because he "acted gay", even if he was actually as straight as a plank.

I think that's where the "on what basis is an effeminate man considered gay" thread came from...

Related: One doesn't need to have gay sex, just look the part