F57
Are you a blood donor and a swinger?
July 24 2015
Comments
-
NawtyNNice777
10 years ago
what the story is behind the question? NN xxx - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Would love to be a blood donor again, but had to stop due to medications I have to take. However, even if I didn't have a medical condition, I'd be excluded now anyway: From the Australian Donateblood website: "Donors who disclose relevant risk behaviour are ‘deferred’ from donation either temporarily or indefinitely." These are a few things the site names as this so-called risk behaviour: "Within the last 12 months have you 1 Had male to male sex (that is, oral or anal sex) with or without a condom?2 Had sex (with or without a condom) with a man who you think may have had oral or anal sexwith another man?3 Been a male or female sex worker (e.g. received payment for sex in money, gifts or drugs)?4 Engaged in sexual activity with a male or female sex worker?" Apparently swinging is just fine, as long as it's between heterosexuals.
-
MissBishere
10 years ago
that's friggin awful! Do they consider male on male high risk for disease? I don't understand. I would if I could but I can't they don't want my blood as I have a clotting issue.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Yup, and even a woman sleeping with bi guys is excluded. The Red Cross's loss, in my opinion.
-
AnnieWhichway
10 years ago
I have round blood cells instead of oval. Being bi sexual nails that door shut anyway. Been that way since the 80's when some got hiv from transfusions. Perhaps straight married people need only apply.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
The report states: "...it is not considered operationally practical with current resources to perform tailored individual assessments of individual donors prior to every donation, ‘group’ risks of TTIs* are used for deferral criteria." Yet, right underneath it says: "The main objection to a policy of deferral is the concern that such policies discriminate against minority groups within the community. It prevents certain groups from accessing the social and moral benefits of blood donation and, more importantly, there is concern that deferral policies stigmatise groups of individuals as being ‘unclean’ and ’less worthy’. In practice, this means groups such as sex workers and men who have sex with men (MSM) (including those in long-term monogamous relationships) cannot donate blood unless they alter their sexual practices. This presents a significant challenge to an individual’s right to privacy and sexual preference. In ethical terms, discrimination represents a failure to treat people as equals. The principle of equality, applied in the context of blood donation, requires that all potential donors be treated equally unless there is a relevant material difference." * Transfusion-transmissible infections
-
AnnieWhichway
10 years ago
Something about men's bums. Dirty things........
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' "Donors who disclose relevant risk behaviour are ‘deferred’ from donation either temporarily or indefinitely." These are a few things the site names as this so-called risk behaviour: "Within the last 12 months have you 1 Had male to male sex (that is, oral or anal sex) with or without a condom?2 Had sex (with or without a condom) with a man who you think may have had oral or anal sexwith another man?3 Been a male or female sex worker (e.g. received payment for sex in money, gifts or drugs)?4 Engaged in sexual activity with a male or female sex worker?" A heterosexual man / woman who has only had sex with the opposite gender could have had unprotected sex with a hundred people in the last year, never been tested for STIs, and still donate. Between someone like that and a man in a monogamous relationship with another man, I know who I'd consider to be the bigger risk. I know those rules came about because on an individual basis the physical risk of HIV transmission is greater for male-to-male sex, but at an aggregate level there are other important indicators of risk that the rules currently ignore. I think they should be asking about number of partners, condom use, and history of STI testing and developing exclusion criteria based on those. I donated a few times but I can't anymore due to issues with anaemia.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'Missb72' Do they consider male on male high risk for disease? I don't understand. From memory it's because the risk of HIV and other STI transmission is greater for anal sex generally (more risk of skin tearing etc.). In which case those guidelines are also assuming that heterosexual people don't have anal sex, which as we know is bollocks.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Men are promiscous sluts and bi men have double the fun! I guess it excludes me too then.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Only sacrificial virgins may give blood.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
The RCBB have to manage their resources like everyone else. Yes, male on male sex is much higher risk (generally) for transmission of blood born disease, and percentages indicate a higher prevalence of unprotected random sex occurs in the gay male sector. That's just factual, not judgmental. Does it mean gay men are 'dirtier' - no. Does it mean others are 'cleaner' - no. There's still a risk that hetero folk will have come into contact with bi or gay partners, it's just a much lower percentage risk, so they rely on the samples they take to do the second level of screening, and exclude those donations if the blood tests turn up positive for a disease. They also automatically screen out those who've traveled to FNQueensland and PNG too - but they're not anti-travel. ... and those who've had recent dental work done =)
-
RHP User
10 years ago
I'm a blood donor, but not a swinger. I've been donating regularly for about 5 or 6 years now. At the moment I can't donate for a few months as my iron levels are too low, but once they are back up again I will be donating again!
-
RHP User
10 years ago
how you live your life is up to us. However it is a high risk lifestyle. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
10 years ago
I assumed they tested everyone. Wow silly me. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
sweet_cherry69
10 years ago
I think you have trouble donating blood if you have had a tattoo in last 12 months too. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
ArtsyLusttty
10 years ago
I work for the Red Cross- no comments! - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'morganaschild' I assumed they tested everyone. Wow silly me. - Posted from rhpmobile It would take too much time and be too costly to test everyone, and it would probably turn some people off donating when as we know they need all the (suitable) donors they can get. They do thoroughly screen all the blood they collect before it's used.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Plasma donor instead. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
tylannister
10 years ago
I don't know if they finally reversed it, but for a while in the U.S., you couldn't donate blood if you had lived in the U.K. during the Mad Cow disease outbreak...
-
RHP User
10 years ago
I've been her 9 years and still can't donate. Yet in the UK I donated all the time. So regardless of lifestyle I can accept blood but you can't have mine. Not many people understand the concept of CJD or mad cow disease. If the English screen for it, why can't other countries?
-
RHP User
10 years ago
That rule is still in place. I just scrape in, but friends of mine can't donate because of that.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
They test the blood before giving it... So I'm a little confused. What's the difference? - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'jennifer102' Not many people understand the concept of CJD or mad cow disease. If the English screen for it, why can't other countries? On the Red Cross blood service site it says that there isn't yet a reliable blood screening test for the human form of Mad Cow. So how do the English screen for it?
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Yeah I was living in England around that time. Mid 90's. Tops! I am a mad cow with syphilis, I dribble and have a heinous case of the clap. I also just rimmed a gay man's arse on the way in. Can I give blood??
-
RHP User
10 years ago
I've often wondered that especially since having nursed someone with ?CJD. Thee only reliable diagnostic tool is elimination of other causes and autopsy, to my knowledge.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'morganaschild' They test the blood before giving it... So I'm a little confused. What's the difference? Say 100 people want to give blood. The Red Cross will rule about 70* of them out for illnesses, meds, risky behaviour etc. so in the end they'll only have to test the blood of the 30 people left over, rather than all 100.More time and cost efficient that way. Problem I have with that is that of the 70 people disqualified, many may be just as (if not more) qualified than those selected 30. Hope that makes sense. *Random guess for illustration purposes only.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Meander is right. Screening questions are a crude tool to exclude higher risk people. A HIV infected man having unprotected anal sex confers a 2% chance of picking up HIV for the recipient. Vaginal is 0.02-0.04%. The questions are aimed accordingly. HIV stats here show that gay men have a higher incidence of HIV, they're not discriminating against the person, they're just trying to rationally minimise the risk of infecting others. The questions are aimed accordingly. Also, no test is ever 100% accurate for various reasons. It takes many months for someone who picked up HIV to seroconvert; they'll test the blood (of course) but they won't get a positive result if a recently HIV infected person donates. So they apply pretty strict rules to try and minimize that possibility as much as practical. The questions are aimed accordingly. A lot of donated blood goes to immunosuppressed cancer patients, which makes the stakes higher. Turn your nose up if you want, but the proof is in the pudding, what they're doing is working - they're really good at not infecting patients with HIV and Hep C. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'jennifer102' I've often wondered that especially since having nursed someone with ?CJD. Thee only reliable diagnostic tool is elimination of other causes and autopsy, to my knowledge. I had a quick look at the UK blood donation guidelines and found the following: The risk of transmission of prion diseases such as variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (vCJD) is reduced by excluding at-risk donors (including recipients of a blood transfusion or tissue/organ transplant since 1980), removing white cells from donations (leucodepletion), importing plasma derivatives from countries with a low risk of vCJD and providing imported, virus-inactivated fresh frozen plasma (FFP) for patients born on or after 1 January 1996. People also can't donate there if a member of their family (first degree relative) had Mad Cow. They're still working on finding a blood screening tool. I imagine that would be very difficult given that prion diseases (Mad Cow isn't the only one) sometimes appear to be dormant for decades before becoming active in the brain. They suspect in some cases that some people who started showing symptoms in their 50s or 60s were infected during childhood (surgical procedures etc.).
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' Quoting 'morganaschild' They test the blood before giving it... So I'm a little confused. What's the difference? Say 100 people want to give blood. The Red Cross will rule about 70* of them out for illnesses, meds, risky behaviour etc. so in the end they'll only have to test the blood of the 30 people left over, rather than all 100.More time and cost efficient that way. Problem I have with that is that of the 70 people disqualified, many may be just as (if not more) qualified than those selected 30. Hope that makes sense. *Random guess for illustration purposes only. A lot of people don't take their Duty of Disclosure serious either. So, all the people that lied out of that 100, would be part of the 30 people to be accepted for donating.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'Luck_Dragon'They do thoroughly screen all the blood they collect before it's used.Quoting 'ktulu100' Turn your nose up if you want, but the proof is in the pudding, what they're doing is working - they're really good at not infecting patients with HIV and Hep C. Well yes, ktulu, because as we esteblished all blood gets tested before it gets to patient. I wonder what percentage of blood from the so called "desirable donors" gets chucked out though.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Quoting 'TangerineDream'A lot of people don't take their Duty of Disclosure serious either. So, all the people that lied out of that 100, would be part of the 30 people to be accepted for donating. Not to mention all those that are blissfully unaware there is any reason for them to exclude themselves. Also, I think people have different reasons for not answering all questions factually, it doesn't necessarily mean they're not taking their duty of disclosure seriously imo.
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 15123 Comments: 88158
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1417 Comments: 10229
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2521 Comments: 11674
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2506 Comments: 9759
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 1008 Comments: 5264
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1303 Comments: 5776
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 782 Comments: 1988
-
LGBT
Topics: 170 Comments: 867
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share