The thing that cracks me up is when they ask ‘Have you ever exchanged money or drugs for sex?’
I just want to ask them if guys who buy you 15 shots at the bar to get in your pants count.
I do it, but I’ve got a tattoo.
The better one is the women’s question:
“Have you had sex, even once, with a man who has had sex, even once, with another man since 1977?”
“No, or so they tell me” is probably not the right answer.
I actually used to do that. Then I realized that if they didn’t want my blood, then fuck 'em. Frankly, though, I’d be a little happier if I found out they told some nice O+ person that they couldn’t have any blood, since it might give 'em The Gay. Funny, too, since I was a regular donor, and always had sufficient iron, never had trouble giving - it was quite easy for me to do.
But hey, testing the blood isn’t enough. So what if I’m negative, and don’t engage in risky sex? I have sex with other men, so my blood’s out. I figure they probably don’t want my dirty gay money either, so I no longer give to the Red Cross.
Me too!! 
Evidently, the flu I had a while back was actually an attack of Hepatitis :eek:
Ahem. Now that I am no longer pregnant or nursing, I have an appointment for Wednesday morning. It’s a little tricky, because I have two anklebiters and have to find someone to watch them, during the bloodbank’s open hours…
Anyway wish me luck. They’ve always turned me away before for my iron levels, but I take a lot of vitamins these days.
I donated semi-regularly until the local Red Cross center went from an ear-prick test for iron to a finger-prick test for iron a couple of years ago. Apparently the blood from my finger has a lower iron content, whereas the blood from my ear always showed sufficient levels. The nurses said as much; they get a different result and that’s why they changed the test. Why they’d want to change it in order to discourage prior donors, I’m not sure. :rolleyes: I tried again twice, failed both times and haven’t bothered to go back.
Tomorrow just happens to be my time. I do double red donations, there they take some out, pump back the clear part, take more out, and pump back the clear part. It’s a little creepy when the clear part goes back in as it is a bit chilled.
I can’t do it. I’m afraid of needles. (And stories like this “the last few times it felt like someone was jabbing a nail into my arm” don’t help 
). I’ve actually signed up to donate a couple of times, but I can never go through with it.
I’m guessing that “Well, I didn’t really get around to asking, see” isn’t what they want to hear, either.
I got deferred a couple times last year when I tried to donate, 'cause my iron was too low, but lately I’ve been getting a smoothie with a “VitaWoman” addition before I go in, and that seems to be doing the trick. It still takes me forever to fill a bag, though, because I have teeny, hard-to-stick veins. Last time I donated, the nurse had to keep wiggling the needle to get any sort of flow; the time before that, the needle came out of my arm and they had to start over with the other one. Interestingly, it took me less time to fill the bag from my second arm than it did to fill half a bag from the first. shrug Anyways, I’m still going to donate next time the bloodmobile comes to our school, as it does on a fairly regular basis. I’ve got the blood, I’ve got the time, and I’ve got the opportunity, so why not?
THIS POST IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO JUSTIFY OSTRACICISM OF HOMOSEXUALS.
That said… there is some rationale behind excluding gay men from the process.
The blood bank people are playing a statistics game. Testing blood costs money, and because blood is pooled before sampling, a positive test will result in 10-20 bags of blood being discarded. Every time someone who is HIV or hepatitis donates wastes more blood than just their own. Also, tests are not 100% perfect, so the blood bank people would prefer than less diseased blood enters the system, to reduce the chance of it getting missed.
Now, virtually noone would disagree with the statement that IV drug users have higher HIV and hepatitis rates than the general population. They often share blood or needles, and drug use tends to lead to stupid behavior. You may be an IV drug user who is totally celibate and who only uses his own works, but - as a class - it is reasonable to exclude IV drug users from donating blood. IV drug users also make up a pretty small percentage of the population, so the blood banks aren’t losing that many potential donors.
At one time, the vast majority of HIV cases in the U.S. were gay men. At this time, the number of openly gay men was also smaller. From a purely public health point of view, with no insult intended, it made a lot of sense to exclude this relatively small, relatively high risk population. (I’m not saying politics played no role in this decision.)
Now, when social advances (such as they are) have resulted in a lot of people coming out of the closet, and HIV has crossed over to the straight population, I’m not sure that exclusion of gays still makes sense. It’s a hard choice - gay men are still more likely to have HIV than straights, and donated HIV-positive blood is a huge waste of blood and money. However, when you factor in the loss of gay donors (who mostly won’t have HIV) and the ill-will generated thereby… it becomes a tricky cost-benefit analysis, and one that is beyond my skills.
Unfourtunately, these public health decisions don’t get made in a vacuum. Gay men look at the homophobia around them, gay-bashing, marriage exclusion, etc… When they see they are excluded from blood donations they, not unreasonably, percieve it as a presumption of promiscuity when it may have been a semi-reasonable decision made on the basis of statisics. On the other hand, as the demographics of HIV infection has changed, not one major blood acceptor has stood up and said “Intelligent data analysis shows that number of partners is a more reliable indicator of HIV risk than sexual orientation. We will now be accepting gay or straight blood, as long as the number of partners in the past two years is below a certain value.” This lends a lot of credence to gay men feeling that the decisions are not 100% even-handed public-health statisics-based decisions.
So my (rambling) point was: gay male exclusion from blood donation made a certain amount of sense once. It makes less sense now - but still makes some sense - and noone seems to be reevaluating it rationally. Which makes gay men, and everyone else interested in either medical care or social justice, rather unhappy.
Verbosely,
mischievous
They aren’t trying to discourage you, they are trying to protect you. They probably had some problems with some people whos iron levels were too low but got through the test and then had problems.
I feel bad about not donating. I use to on a regular schedule. O+ and tghe stuff would rocket out in record time. I have no problem with it and never felt dizzy after. I always pass all their tests. Unfortunately, propecia makes you inelligible. I feel guilty for not donating for cosmetic reasons, makes me feel shallow.
That’s gotta suck.
See what I have is Thalassemia, I’m just a carrier but it does effect me in that my iron levels are always low. Taking iron does nothing for me and iirc my hemoglobin breaks down faster than normal. I did ask the Red Cross up here about it, but I was told that they don’t take blood from anyone with it. You kinda need those red blood cells. I would donate blood otherwise, but that’s the luck of genetics.
Just to try to be a little understanding of the blood bank people and their rules: I’m sure that those who “have the gay” understand the real reason. It’s not that they think you’ll pass your sexual nature on to others, but that you are more likely than average to have HIV. Even if you just tested negative. It can take months for a recent infection to show up. Yes, you are most likely in a clean monogamous relationship, and your partner is faithful. But not everyone is. It’s just easier. It’s not impossible, of course, to transfer HIV heterosexually, but it’s less likely, according to most things I’ve read. IANAD, of course, so if one comes along and proves me wrong, so be it. Personally, if it weren’t for that, I’d have no problem accepting a gay person’s blood assuming it went through all the other testing that is normally done.
On the OP, I can’t donate either, for several reasons, including a long-ago borderline cancer situation treated with chemo, plus my current meds. In fact, there is currently NO ONE in my entire family who is eligible. Those who are young and healthy don’t weigh enough.
Seeing how many of us are ineligible makes us all the more grateful for those who are eligible and do donate.
Count me as another one black balled. They don’t like my blood.
Actually, my body doesn’t like to give it. I have no fear of needles and no queasiness about it (in fact, I think it’s fascinating), but I also have naturally low blood pressure. The one time I did donate, they spent 3 hours trying to get a readable blood pressure on me–I completely slipped off the scale. While I was dirfting in and out of consciousness, the nurse kept repeating, “I really recommend you don’t donate blood again…” Fun for all!
But hubby’s blood is good, and he just got a postcard all but begging him to come by. Think I’ll add my encouragement as well, since he’s donating for both of us.
Months yes. No problem. I would have no problem if the question was, say, “as a man, have you had sex with a man in the last year,” or something, The problem is that the question is if I have ever had sex with a man in the last 25 years, and that doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Oh, it’s even better… if you think about it, that means if you boink a guy, and then he boinks another guy, you’re out. You were okay before he boinked the other guy, though. Apparently, if you have ever slept with a bi guy, you can be awarded an HIV infection retroactively.
The other irritating thing is they never say what they mean by “sex.” Does a blowjob count as sex? A handjob? Or is it just anal? Oddly, the little old ladies staffing the blood drives never seem to want to answer these important questions.
Like Duke, i have committed the gross error of spending more than three months in the UK since 1980. The fact that i’m a vegetarian is apparently of no consequence.
Moo, indeed.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.
Don’t blame the Red Cross for the stupid rules!
The FDA sets those rules, not the Red Cross. When the Red Cross tries to break the stupid rules they get fined. (What happens when they break the rules that make sense I do not know, although I assume the client passes out or something.) They can’t afford the fines, ergo, they follow the rules.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. 
