The National Health Service of England, Scotland and Wales ever so slightly changed its view that the blood running through gay men’s veins is a tainted danger to society by allowing homos to donate as long as they have not had any kinds gay sex (including blowjobs) for at least one year. This restriction forbids monogamous gay men who use condoms from giving blood for a year—the same ban put on straight men who have sex with prostitutes and intravenous drug users.
It’s progress, we guess, seeing as homos can’t give blood in the U.S. whether they’re celibate or not.
Image via juditK
JWilliamson
Personally, I’m against loosening the rules at all. If anything, they should be tighter.
Godiva
It’s not right, but it’s progress, and you can’t really complain. But still, this blatant discrimination is pretty offensive. HIV obviously had a massive, massive impact, but straight couples are just as likely to have STDs. And frankly, the idea that sexual orientation trumps experience, that one gay sexual encounter is horrible vs. a hundred straight ones… that’s pretty disgusting! But like I said, progress, things will improve even further in more time.
hmmm
to mr. villareal, i think the word you intended to use is “eunuch.”
“enuch” doesn’t even exist and your spellchecker should have pointed it out to you,
but i guess you don’t bother using it (just like other “journalists” at queerty.) shame.
Jerry
@hmmm: So you can’t even use capitalization while calling someone out on their accidental misuse of a single word? How terribly sad and pathetic that you felt the need to call him out on it in the first place. I mean really? You have nothing better to do than this?
WillBFair
Stop hiv in this community now, after thirty years of non action. Then you can complain. Idiots.
WillBFair
Excuse me: self hating rube idiots.
hmmm
@jerry: kids in school get corrected when making this kind of mistakes, so they won’t make them again. therefore, when an adult that writes for a living makes those same mistakes i think it is shameful because queerty is not an elementary school, spellchecker is available to everyone and since i don’t visit this website to read essays by third graders, i would expect, at least, proper spelling. period.
ps: as to my writing with lower-case letters, it is a choice not a mistake but what would you know?
go find a good argument next time, a—–e.
Riker
Good info, but it might help to know who this applies to. Is it only England, Scotland and Wales? Or, does it apply to other parts of the UK as well, like Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man?
Trent
Sorry, this may be a discriminatory policy, but it comes to the general health and welfare of people. This is not one that should be touched. They shouldn’t change a policy dealing with health, just because it offends a certain group of people. We may think it is silly and know otherwise, but better safe than sorry.
jason
HIV is a massive beat-up. It doesn’t cause AIDS. The days of it scaring people are rightly over.
The National Health Service of England, however, should be condemned for having a double standard. It treats identical behavior differently depending on the identity of the person. Thus, in cases where men and women have anal sex with each other, both the man and woman can still give blood because they are opposite sex rather than same sex.
It’s a massive double standard which stinks.
jason
Trent
If the National Health Service is to be judged on its own logic, it should ban anybody who has anal sex regardless of orientation. At the moment, it is banning only men who have anal sex with men. It’s not only a form of sexuality discrimination, it’s gender discrimination.
It’s discriminating against men as well as men who have sex with men. Think of all the sleazy anal sex-practicing men and women it is allowing through the gate simply because their anal sex is of the opposite-sex combination.
Carl
Whilst not ideal, this is a positive step forward in the law, as before gay and bisexual men who admitted to having ever had sex of any kind with another man were banned For Life. So, yes it’s still discriminatory and places gay men at the same level as prostitutes, but it is a step in the right direction.
And Jason, regarding your opinion about HIV/AIDS – you know more than the worlds medical professionals, eh? Tell me, do you believe the moon landings were filmed in a garden shed somewhere and that 9/11 was an inside job?
Cinesnatch
@jason: HIV doesn’t cause AIDS? Where doesn’t AIDS come from then? I’ve never understood AIDS denialism.
All in all, the standards for donating blood seriously need to be reexamined. Discouraging blood donation from IV drug users and people who engage in prolific non-monogamous, non-safe sexual behavior should be the priorities. As it stands, gay men are unnecessarily singled out in general. And it needs to change. And it’s shamefully unexamined in the mainstream.
I can remember the last time I tried to donate years ago and realized I couldn’t. It sends an awful message to the individual, the gay community and society in general. Of course, as it stands, it justifies the apathy I have now cultivated towards participating in blood drives. Thanks American Red Cross.
corvidae
At least they used a group of doctors to make this decision this time rather than just guessing what the rule should be.
If HIV/AIDS decreases in the gay population to the same levels it’s found in straights, men who have sex with men will have the same rules, personally I feel the rules for straight people need tightening up based on the same evidence, but that is not (unfortunately) what was asked about.
At the moment, I can’t argue that being gay is a risk factor in having blood-transmitted diseases, because it is.
Max
I’d just like to point out that eunuchs can still be bottoms…