Why are gay men barred from donating blood?

Edward Green said:I honestly wouldn't have any issue receiving blood from someone who has only had homosexual partners throughout their life, tests regularly for HIV, only has sex after seeing a fresh test result, and always uses protection.
PARTICULARLY if they were doing medical research back in their youth, but for the last 20 years, they've been married to a wife they don't cheat on. (But according to this system, he's banned from donating. Period.)

I assume nobody would actually have a problem with a transfusion like that, unless they refuse transfusions across the board for some reason.

Maybe someone’s just terrified of being outed in this straight-edged universe. 😁

Edward Green said:Maybe someone's just afraid of being outed in this straight universe. 😁

Is he really going to get a boost in masculinity from some 4.5 ounces of queerness? Please. 🤣

I could only be grateful. I'd kiss him on his ass for saving my life. 🙄

HZTM said:Permanent donor deferrals:
1. Permanently deferred are individuals who have suffered or are currently suffering from severe chronic respiratory or digestive diseases, as well as those with cardiovascular disease, malignant diseases, liver disease, AIDS, diabetes, or neurological and mental health disorders.
2. Individuals with high-risk behaviors are also permanently deferred:
- alcoholics or drug users,
- men who have had sexual contact with other men,
- men and women who have had sexual contact with sex workers,
- people with multiple sexual partners,
- anyone who has used drugs intravenously,
- people treated for sexually transmitted diseases (syphilis, gonorrhea),
- HIV-positive individuals,
- sexual partners of any of the above.

Can someone chime in who doesn't fall into any of these categories?
Either everyone is lying, or nobody would ever donate blood.

In this day and age, when singles head to a bar and end up in bed before they even know each other's names..., kids are starting to have sex at 12 or 13, dear addicts,
people who don't even remember where or when they had "good times" with someone,
and people who pass on STIs long before they even realize they've been infected?

I find it hard to believe there's even one person in a thousand who is "perfectly clean," whether regarding their health or their past encounters with anyone—from sex workers to the high-society types who change partners more often than they change their underwear.

It's an interesting topic for potential blood donors!

What about those "social drinkers"... the ones who drink regularly but aren't labeled alcoholics because they have good jobs, nice cars, and houses?

Then you have smokers or people with allergies... if you read anything about health today, you'll see there isn't a single person left who isn't struggling. They tend to exaggerate, sure, but almost everyone deals with anemia, low iron, bronchitis... or just a lack of decent nutrition.

Look, I’m no saint, and I have my own health issues. I was young once too, and I caught gonorrhea—and it was from someone who seemed like a "lady." So, no one can say it's just about visiting a prostitute. Honestly, most of the trouble today comes from educated young people who just don't care. Fifty years ago, we didn't have the sexual education we have now, and our parents didn't talk to us about these things like they do today.

So, let the first person who has never made a mistake stone me... especially considering I'm 64 and have lived through all of this. I'm just being honest.

😎

Speaking of the subject at hand, if you ever have to undergo surgery, you can actually prep your own blood supply just in case of an emergency... at least, that’s how we handle things here in the States.

Back in 2002, I went ahead and prepared 200, I think, for my own procedure. It ended up not being necessary, but the hospital was actually quite relieved I had my own supply ready—blood shortages are a constant headache.

😉

Edward Green said:ESPECIALLY if they were running experiments on themselves back in their youth, yet for the last two decades they've been happily married to a wife they haven't cheated on. (Under this current logic, though, they aren't allowed to donate blood. Ever.)

Honestly, that’s what really gets under my skin about how they disqualify donors; I can get behind checking their history over the last year, two years, maybe even five—but to say someone is banned from donating blood for the rest of their life?! 😕
If they had actually contracted HIV back then, I highly doubt they'd even be alive today...

It could be a year or two, honestly. But those few weeks—depending on how sensitive the test is—that's how long it takes for the virus to actually show up. I have no clue how things work regarding hepatitis. It’s a total joke.

rapidwalker7 said:Is it because they're considered a high-risk group?!? Or is there some other reason?

I'm gay and I donate blood regularly every three months. I sign that doctor's waiver without a second thought, because at the end of the day, I feel like I'm doing something good.
I've tested negative for HIV, and I'm not promiscuous... Is there an actual reason why I shouldn't be donating?

Yeah, you're a high-risk group...

Edward Green said:I personally wouldn't have any issue receiving blood from someone who has only ever had homosexual partners, tests regularly for HIV, follows medical advice by only having sex after getting a clean test result, and always uses protection.
PARTICULARLY if they were doing research experiments back in their youth, but for the last 20 years, they've been married to a wife they aren't cheating on. (But according to this system, he isn't allowed to donate blood. Ever.)

.

Furthermore🙂

I just find myself praying—I don't even know who I'm praying to, but still—that if I ever need a transfusion, there’s at least a 3-4 month window between the donation and the procedure... because as mentioned above, someone noted that "some hospitals have tests that won't show the presence of HIV within less than 3 months." That is what should be frightening, rather than who is providing the blood.

An openly gay person is better than some guy who hits the clubs constantly, cheats on his wife, or is calling women "sweetie" at every party...🙄

So what’s the big deal with a guy having anal sex with his wife? 🤣

Larry Cruz51 said:it takes 3-4 months from donation to transfusion

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

That won't save anyone—nothing changes just because the blood sits there for 3 or 4 months... nothing.

What we're talking about is the window between someone actually catching the infection and the moment their body produces enough antibodies for an HIV test to catch it. So, if someone gets infected in April, by May, their blood might still show as negative even though the virus is there.

How long that blood stays on a shelf before it’s used doesn't change the math at all, because
a) they aren't going to re-test it all over again
b) and even if they did, the virus isn't going to suddenly multiply and trigger an antibody response while sitting in a bag—that can't happen once it's out of the human body.

Hopefully that clears things up a little bit...

Jose Miller3 said:You misunderstood me.

That won't save you; nothing will actually happen just because blood sits there for three or four months.

We are talking about the timeframe between initial infection and when the body produces enough antibodies for an HIV test to actually catch it. Essentially, if someone gets infected in April, their blood might not show any detectable HIV during May.
...

So I figured that the blood should be tested AFTER that three to four month window, rather than immediately.

look, you totally misread the situation—I don't even know how to put it... 😁

Edward Green said:So, what's actually wrong with a guy who prefers anal sex with his wife? 🤣

It’s the exact same thing as some guy being gay and doing it to someone else.😁

Jose Miller3 said:Well, you've got it all wrong, what can I even say to you... 😁

She should probably go get tested then, right? Because after that much time has passed, you can finally be certain whether the blood is actually infected or not... or maybe not.😵
I mean, if the guy is actually HIV-positive, it should show up on a test within three to four months. Wouldn't the exact same logic apply to blood donations?...
Listen, I’ll try my best to break this down for you... as simply as possible... though it might take a moment to get through all the nuances...😁

When does blood testing actually happen here in the States? Is it done right away after you give it... or what?

Screw it, Larry Cruz51, do I really have to type this out?

Can we just talk about this over coffee instead?

Jose Miller3 said:Damn it, Larry Cruz51, do I really have to type this out?

Oh, you absolutely do. Please, enlighten us uneducated masses...🥳

Good grief, I suppose my background in the social sciences requires me to weigh in here. Someone needs to explain why test results could theoretically look identical immediately after a blood draw versus three or four months later, even if the individual is actually HIV-positive.

Alright, look, you guys clearly aren't getting it—what else can I even say?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure why you're even asking me this...

Here’s how the whole thing works:

So, we've got Stef, who sleeps with Petrov—who's HIV-positive—and ends up catching the virus himself. About 15 days later, he goes to donate blood. During the immediate screening, the test won't actually pick up any HIV antibodies yet—let's not get bogged down in antigen testing, because let's be real, those probably aren't even being used here—even though Stef is officially HIV-positive and his blood carries enough of a viral load to infect anyone receiving a transfusion.

Now, we're looking at two totally different scenarios here: we have Stef walking around infected, and then we have his blood, which gets processed into various components for transfusions later on. Most people don't realize that you almost never just give someone whole blood exactly as it was taken from the donor—unless it's some extreme emergency, you're actually not even supposed to do that.

Stef is out there walking around with a normal body temp, his immune system is running at 100 miles per hour, fighting the virus with everything it's got, cranking out hundreds of thousands of antibodies...

But the blood? It's sitting separately, stored in refrigerators at all sorts of different temperatures. Some components have to be used within five days, while plasma can sit for up to a year at -35°F. In THAT kind of environment, antibodies just don't develop!!!

Does that make more sense now?

Disclaimer: if I messed anything up, it wasn't on purpose. I'm doing my best to explain what's happening, but since I'm not some medical expert—just an interested idiot—I might have gotten something wrong. Don't go getting mad at me if I did...

Hmm, I suppose so... I've been wondering from the very beginning why blood isn't tested after just three or four months?

I mean, if you wait those few months before testing... if that's when the antibodies would definitely show up... is it because the blood samples are stored at such low temperatures?😢

Then it really is just a total lottery... there's always that risk of infection...😢

Sorry if I'm asking stupid questions, but really...

a) there's really no point in saving it since most of the meds have to be used within about 10 days anyway
2) you wouldn't even see any antibodies because the blood isn't actually producing them.

they aren't stupid.