I have been trying to get in touch with some of them and to make sure that they are at least okay. I have not been able to reach some of the guys I’ve been with. Do you have any suggestions?

thank you

Andre Bekare

A funny thing I have to mention is that, in my experience, people who have multiple random and regular sex partners and/or drink a lot and/or abuse drugs, but especially the trifecta, lie all the time and with such ease as telling you the time of day. When they say, “It’s 3:00,” they really mean, “I had sex with all of your friends at 3:00 this morning.” They even lie about what they know you already know, because you were there with them and looking right at them, to your face. It’s easy to get drawn in, but I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s a gift, and takes years of talent, drawing you in. But they’re just so cute when they’re angry. Even lying. It’s kind of adorable. An easy mistake. And it went on and on with you here. They like to be noticed. All that rubbing “mmm-yeah, yes! yes! yes! I’ll have what she’s having” kind of a thing, at every bar and motel and hot tub (yes, hot tub!) you can get your 2xist baskit brief self into. –Suz, get your head on straight. Don’t you know sex isn’t logical, man. It’s natural! Where’s that gallon of oil and that gallon of vodka. Lissssssten to us. Mmmm, come in, the water’s full of us swarming around like bacteria! :D If you did the right drugs, maybe you’d understand. They slipped something in your drink. You’ll feel better soon. GIVE US YOUR BODY. GIVE US YOUR BODY. Picture a quiet mummy from Scooby Doo in a hot tub at 2 a.m. coming toward you and all you know is something is really, really wrong. You feel like you’re not a real person and you’re not supposed to really be there. It’s kind of like a dream, but it’s scary and you’ve been duped and it’s all too damn real and you’re even too weak to speak up for yourself. You know it’s a nightmare. And the drugs make you afraid you might die. But he is having a great time. And this was someone I knew.

Hey, check your emotions at the door, this is about a party. Aren’t you tense? They can fix that. Need a massage? Hey, no charge for the first one.

They’re all so nice. See them smiling? And they’re friends with each other. They have to be decent, right?

Oh, to dread that HIV test. That’s sobering when you’re waiting for that. Especially your first or second one. Awful, being afraid and calling yourself stupid.

Brave of you Susan, for entering into the seedy underworld and defending helpless B.B. from the angry, hissing (this means they’re happy) orgasmers. Tough love. Get out while you can. It’s a bottomless pit.

I was always trying to get her to hit on guys at bars and she was always reluctant. Finally she was like, “Gay men can go home together and are pretty much guaranteed an orgasm, no matter how bad the sex is. Thats not true with girls. I could take any guy in this bar home with me and 99% of their drunk asses wouldn’t be able to get me off.”

Bottom line is girls tend to require a little skill in their lovemaking. Obviously, as I guy, I want good sex too, but I know I can always just jerk myself off in about 30 secs if I have too and go home.

It’s not an issue of dissenting opinions. In fact, at this point, it sounds like we agree. The unilateral ban on MSM donating blood to blood banks is “overreaching.” It’s not “sensible,” and the policy should be changed. You say “refined.”

I am completely confused by how you could think that the Red Cross can take our tax money and then tell us we aren’t good enough to donate blood–not just some of us, all of us–and it’s not a violation of our human rights. Are you disaggregating civil rights and human rights? I think that’s a mistake people frequently make. Our justice system is far from perfect, but, as a general rule, if an organization receives federal funds and denies access to certain groups, it’s a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. There are exceptions. People with fatal or chronic blood born diseases do not have the right to intentionally pass them on to people who do not want them and do not take the proper precautions to protect themselves. Blood recipients have a reasonable expectation to receive non-contaminated blood.

Help me understand how you think that it’s okay to deny you the right to donate blood because of an immutable characteristic, like your sexual orientation, but it’s not a violation of your basic rights as a human being.

The point I’m trying to make is that giving blood through blood collection organizations is not a right at all. And why not? That’s because someone who wants to give blood (usually to a particular person, such as a family member in need) can still do so through a directed donation. Blood banks are just a specific method which tries to seek out blood which is almost certainly uninfected. It is a matter of convenience, not right.

That’s not to say I think the current ban is sensible — it just plain isn’t. The MSM risk group is, in the U.S., banned for life from any contact, unprotected or otherwise, which occurred after 1977. This is far longer than the detection period for HIV, and as such, the blanket ban is nonsense. The risk groups are just not being appropriately identified. A heterosexual who has just had unprotected sex the night before, with a stranger, but not for money or drugs, can still donate blood — this is a significant risk, because HIV antibodies can take up to three months to detect (six months in some cases, although that much is a stretch).

So, the way I see it, the MSM risk group should not just vanish, but emphasis needs to shift on prohibiting unsafe behavior for any blood donor. If that means still putting a ban on, say, those who have had anal sex without a condom (with men or women) within the past six months (or more for someone with an already compromised antibody production rate) or people who are one link away from such individuals, I do not think this would be totally unreasonable. But, I get the impression that the gay community would still find this to be an outrage, because for some reason, blood donation recipients should still have to take our blood, no matter what the probabilities of recent infection are.

In particular, you stated that “[t]hey test and track every single unit of donated blood.” Yes, they do. But that’s not the reason for excluding a risk group, because there is still a decently high chance of undetectable, recently acquired infection. That is exactly why the MSM restriction is not completely unfounded, but just overstated, as individuals infected in 1977 certainly have detectable infections by now.

So, before I ramble too long here, I hope I have been clear that I do not think human rights issues are not important. I just don’t think this is a human rights issue at all. But, because blood banks do have shortages and do have an overreaching ban, they should refine their restrictions to be more reasonable.

One last thing: although I am hopefully correct in saying there was no bad intent with your allegation, not every dissenting opinion is a result of “internalized homophobia” (a much nicer phrase than “you’re a g0y”).

Human Rights 101. When you lump entire groups of people together and make blanket generalizations, it’s called “bigotry.” When the bigotry becomes policy and exclusionary practices directed against one-specific group, it’s call “discrimination.” For the record, EVERY human rights issue is critical.

When you and others put forward the idea that some of our rights are more important than others, you are essentially agreeing with our oppressors. It’s a manifestation of internalized homophobia (which is probably where the g0y charge comes from) that says, “We are second class citizens and don’t deserve access to all of our rights at the same time. We have to pick and choose and settle for less than what is ours.” Then, if that weren’t bad enough, people who buy into that extremely limited way of thinking legitimize the discrimination being perpetrated against their own community by echoing the same bigoted assertions.

It may not be important to you, but there are shortages at blood banks. By arbitrarily turning LGBTQ people away, the Red Cross is putting the lives of others at risk. Well, I guess you’ve already answered that question.

Finally, when you say, “it requires a lot of care to make the appropriate call on blood donation decisions,” you’re wrong. As with all things, education is the primary way to fight bigotry and discrimination. You should check out the American Red Cross’ website and the extraordinary lengths to which they go to inure the safety of the blood supply. They test and track every single unit of donated blood. The care to which you refer is already in place.

You may not think it’s a priority, but don’t defend it and try to rationalize discrimination, especially when it’s against you and the community you call your own.

Back on topic: I totally disagree with this column.

What, exactly, prompted you to think that I wasn’t in terms with my homosexuality? Is this the response you give to anyone who disagrees with you?

If you want a less verbose version, my post basically boils down to that removing blood bans should be done slowly and carefully, and the exclusion of donors is not a critical human rights issue. Current policy might not always make complete sense due to previous biases, but it requires a lot of care to make the appropriate call on blood donation decisions.

I am particularly put off by the suggestion that just because I don’t find blood bans to be as important as other issues that I don’t care about the gay community, or that I don’t get involved. Give me a break.

Your painfully verbose “ramblings” sound distinctly like the siren call of a g0y man standing on the shoreline directing the gay community to the shoals by going along with all established societal de facto standards.

Always something unconstructive to say, but ever really taking a stand, never really getting invovled, but ALWAYS interjectcing. And WHY? Because you can’t really come to terms with your own true homosexuality.

So stop kvetching from the sidelines whilst the home team is fighting in the end zone and pray go kaffe klatsch cluelessly amongst your g0y selves!

When I say, “The fact of the matter is that male homosexual sex spreads HIV very well — and so do a whole lot of other sexual practices,” I do not mean to suggest that any engagement in male-on-male action will or is likely to spread HIV. This claim would be ridiculous.

Rather, a significant potential exists for the efficient spread of HIV through certain homosexual male sex practices (the risk of which is very greatly reduced by using protection, but which certainly does not vanish, as with almost any sexual act).

I find that the use of the word “discrimination” in the context of your post and other arguments with regard to blood donation regulations, even if technically correct, is a little bit exaggerated. What right is being infringed upon by not allowing men who have engaged in oral or anal sex with other men to donate blood through organizations such as Community Blood Center? I might agree if you say it gives a bad *perception* of homosexual men, but unfortunately that’s not what blood transfusions are all about.

Blood banks have a very hefty responsibility on their hands — they must ensure, to even more than just a reasonable degree, that the blood which they receive and send off to patients needing blood transfusions is not infected. Everyone knows this is not an easy task. On the one hand, in order to be completely sure, one might suggest that they deny donations from anyone who has engaged in any unprotected sexual acts for the past three months, in order to wait long enough for detection of HIV to become reasonably accurate. But, of course, this is not the type of criterion used, as the number of donations would plummet. The other extreme is to allow donations from anyone not denying participation in a most basic list of unsafe practices — sex for drugs or money, sex under the influence, and so on, but this is insufficient to reasonably guarantee the safety of the transfusions.

What this boils down to is that blood collection organizations are not in the easiest of positions. Their decisions greatly affect the lives of those who receive blood donations. The possibility that even one person could contract HIV from infected blood due to a policy change must be taken into account, and this applies even if the donor is a well-meaning, homosexual man who mostly engages in safer sex practices, but who happened to contract HIV due to an unsafe (or even safe!) encounter.

That being said, I do disagree with a blanket ban. Why, pray tell, must a man who had oral sex with another man **in the 70′s** be excluded from giving blood? I am not using this decade on a whim — this is specifically the time range I remember reading. This is, as you have said, unscientific and unreasonable. Unfortunately, though, progress on any matter such as this will be very slow, and it will almost certainly be hindered by adherence to outdated ideas. This might seem a bit contradictory to what I just said, but I really wouldn’t have it any other way. Change to policy that has such significant impact on the lives of so many people should be slower than other progress. It should always be on the conservative end of the spectrum, on the safe side, just in case. But, it is in this sense which I believe the regulations have failed — they place too much emphasis on homosexual sex, and too little on unsafe sex in general. Unprotected anal sex is a horribly efficient means to transmit HIV infection, and that holds whether the partners are of the same sex or of the opposite sex. Criteria for donation exclusions should consider this as well.

So, the way I see it, the blood ban(s) should “discriminate” against a whole lot more groups of people. They can back off on the ridiculous, far-reaching bans on homosexual men, but in no way should the acknowledgement of this risk group vanish. The fact of the matter is that male homosexual sex spreads HIV very well — and so do a whole lot of other sexual practices.

I hope that this jumble of thoughts has been relatively coherent, and I invite replies and rebuttals as appropriate.

(Also, you mention at the end of your post, “This ban does not apply to women who have slept with a man who has had sex with a man.” Perhaps a federal ban does not, but of the times which I have viewed the screening criteria for blood donations (for particular organizations in the U.S. only), not one failed to mention this specific action as sufficient grounds to deny a blood donation.)

(Also also, I apologize that this post has really nothing to do with the article . . . )

A blanket ban based on someone’s sexual orientation is discrimination: not common sense as you suggest.

Originally such bans were set into place to help to prevent the spread of HIV through blood transfusions. This was because there was little understanding of how the infection spread – and why so particularly among the gay community.

However, as the very first quote from the NUS says: “Since the early 1980s, the NBS has had a blanket ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men* who have had oral or anal sex – even with a condom. This is unscientific and unjust, as it is based on the presumption that all men who have sex with men are at ‘high risk’ for HIV, regardless of their individual sexual behavior.”

What this means is, instead of discriminating all homosexuals as participating in “high risk” sexual activities, we screen donor’s on their actual sexual activity. For example, if an individual has partaken in high risk sexual activity, such as unprotected anal sex, then a doner would be banned for a determined period of time, until they could pass HIV/STI screening. If a donor practiced safe sex, they would be eligible to give blood, provided they passed the generic statutory quality control checks (so the screening all donors undertake).

Which is to say, we now have the scientific understanding to deploy effective and non-discriminative guidelines on blood donation.

Such is the weight of evidence against your arguments, America, as well as the UK, are also re-examining this discriminatory policy – google: “Ending the Federal Ban on Gay Blood Donations” for some informative hits about the debate.

*This ban does not apply to women who have slept with a man who has had sex with a man

Not all guys like it when they get stereotyped as sex machines… myself included. I don’t have that kind of sex life, and I cringe when I read articles that presume to stereotype male-male relationships in this way. I don’t begrudge anyone their own sexual choices. It happens that there is a strong correlation between promiscuity and insecurity. But there are promiscuous men who are healthy and vice versa… the world is a complicated place.

And some gay men probably take slight offense at the idea that gay men have “unfettered access to the one thing most people only dream of.” They don’t take offense because sex is bad or shameful, but because such statements presume to speak on behalf of all gay men. Why don’t some people like those kinds of statements? Gee… well, it’s slightly juvenile for one. I mean, yes, I can understand having a little fun with words and playing off straight peoples’ insecurities about the gay world. But at the end of the day, many gay people feel that it only hurts ourselves when we resort to superficial stereotypes.

Further, there is a sense that the article not only repeats stereotypes but almost takes them at face value for the construction of a gay identity. Stereotypes can be amusing, but it’s nice when someone actually engages with them, questions them, tries to understand what’s true and what’s false and why.

I’m not saying every article has to be mature. I suppose there’s a place for immaturity as long as it’s intelligent. I’m not sure this article is all that intelligent though.

I agree that we shouldn’t hide pleasure. But it’s misleading to characterize gay men as having unlimited sexual access, as if men were universally made happy by lots of sex. The article is just too simplistic in this sense.

More important in my mind, the article seems to embrace an overtly sexualized interpretation of the “gay” label. The author admits that it was the heterosexual world that defined “gay” according to the physical act, which to it seemed perverse or queer. And yet the author declines to challenge that construction, declines to question it and ask whether that is even a positive thing.

I’m no idealist and no prude, but I feel like we often make it more difficult for ourselves than it has to be. What do we expect when sex is such a central part of “gay” at the expense of other parts of ourselves? Do we think that makes it easier? Because at least that’s the one great, easy thing we’ve got going for ourselves that heterosexuals don’t have? It’s tempting to think that way, but ultimately immature. Did we ever think that the focus on sex only makes things MORE difficult? Biological urges are real, yes, but we do have the choice to build our lives and our identities around many satisfactory things.

I don’t have ambitious goals. I really don’t. At some point, I’d like just to be a guy who likes others guys and who doesn’t have to confront gasps of surprise when I say I don’t sleep around and honestly don’t believe I’m any different from any straight person in any way. That’s the world I want to live in… where all these weird obsessions about being different and marked and oppressed have disappeared. I’ll try by best to make it that way.

There is nothing to stop any gay person going to donate blood & putting on the form they arent gay as they will be allowed to donate blood, but the NHS would rather not have blood from gay men because of the promsicuity as the gender isnt discriminated against, but the reckless behaviour of gay men in having a love affair with unprotected sex with strangers & then continuing to meet other strangers without being tested for HIV. So I think the NHS not wanting gay men to donate blood is common sense than being discrimination because its the statistics of gay men being diagnosed each year that makes the NHS rather not have gay men donating blood.

The National Union of Students LGBT Campaign has been challenging these arguments effectively for last couple of years; Stonewall (once unmovable on the topic) have now agreed to review their stance on the blood ban, and the NBS have also been increasingly responsive to the arguments put forward, about why a life long ban on gay men donating blood is prejudice.

To see the arguments in full google “NUS donation not discrimination”

From the site:

Since the early 1980s, the NBS has had a blanket ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men who have had oral or anal sex – even with a condom. This is unscientific and unjust, as it is based on the presumption that all men who have sex with men are at ‘high risk’ for HIV, regardless of their individual sexual behavior.

As for the rest: the scene is ok, but I know even Cilla couldn’t help me find my special guy. Which is fine, because I just went for a drink.

Gay relationships dont even last long today specially when one of the 2 guys or both have the internet as they are cheating on each other or one of them is cheating on the other one.

Gay men are sleeping around as that is the trend whether they have the interent or not & most people have access to the intenet sites with their mobiles if they dont have laptops, so the majority of gay guys are not meeting up to find a boyfriend to form a friendship that goes to a telattionship … Some are but they are in the minority.

The statistics of gay men diagnosed each year in the UK runs into thousands & the rate is increasing, so that is a sign that gay men are sleeping around. Even gay men put on some profiles they are looking for a relationship, but of course they arent to be trusted if they have a profile on a gay site.

I have known many gay couples & one of them has a profile on a gay site to hook up with other guys & their profile photos & others are hidden so their partner doesnt see it as they send their photo to a guy who is interested in meeting them. I also know of gay couples where one of them has more than one profile on Facebook & their profile says they are single not in a relationship as their other profile on Facebook does, but these are not one off instances as this is going on a lot … The fact is that gay men are promiscuous … Some do want a partner & they find a partner, but they are going to find it very difficult to find a partner if the one they meet uses the internet by a mobile phone or laptop as then the trust is compromised & many people today use the internet by laptops or mobiles.

It can be very difficult for any gay guy even if they dont have the internet to trust someone they meet & have a relationship with because of the promiscuity that does go on. Those on Gaydar & other sites who are just looking for different guys all the time to sleep give a clear indication that the majority of gay men are sleeping around.

The NHS are aware of this which is why they dont want gay guys to donate blood because of the rate of gay guys being diagnosed each year runs into thousands & on being diagnosed they are told how long they have had the virus & it can be many years since being infected & in that time they didnt get tested & continued to bareback … The NHS in not wanting gay people to donate blood are not discriminating against gay men, but its common sense that gay guys are not suitable to donate blood because of the trend of them sleeoing around & having a love affair of wanting unprotected casual sex … Its naiive to think the ones wanting a partner are being like Mother Theresa until the right one comes along as gay people are promiscuous.

These profiles do give a good indication of what gay men are looking for today & the rise of HIV infections even in the UK is proof that gay men are not looking for one guy to be with, but they are promiscuous as the extent of HIV among gay men in the UK is increasing at an alarming rate as that is a clear indication of the promiscuity of gay men.

Even on Gaydar you get HIV Positive guys in a chat room for HIV cruising & they are all looking to bareback with each other. They make the choice to bareback with each other, but they risk catching another STI or even a worse strain of HIV, so even HIV Positive gay men on websites can be still reckless about their own health by going with different HIV Positive guys knowing full well it could give them a worse strain of HIV.

The love affair gay men have with unprotected sex is linked to the rate of HIV infections in the UK as every year there are thoussands diagnosed with HIV, so gay men are promiscuous & not using protection, so that is a good idea of what the gay population in the UK are looking for as the fiqures are there in black & white for everyone to see.

When it comes to gay relationships gay men have ruined it for themselves as trust today has gone out of the window & gay men are cheating on their boyfriends & partners because of the trend to be promiscuous.

The minority are looking for a partner but the majority of gay guys clearly are not.

Mark, love the comments above.

In the UK there are 74,OOO people with HIV & there are 24,OOO of that number who dont even know they are HIV Positive. Its estimated that by 2O17 there will be 1OO,OOO people in the UK who will be HIV Positive & gay men are the gender most affected in the statistics. Today no person is safe for having unprotected casual sex as their word that they are not HIV Positive cannot be believed, but still gay men are having unprotected sex with the rate of HIV infections among gay men.

Gay men are tacky … The talk in gay chat rooms is disgusting about sex & shows that many gay men are nothing more than sluts … There is no apology for this opinion as its a fact … You only have to witness the talk in chat rooms to see it for yourself. Today many gay men will remain single because of the trend of sleeping around is so great that they wont find anyone to be with & if they do they will find the relationship wont last very long with cheating going on. So when it comes to relationships gay men have ruined it for themselves because they are a gender that are not to be trusted as trust between two gay men is often a misplaced one.

There are many who are uneducated about HIV/AIDS as they think it wont happen to them because they dont know of the statistics. Many who have unprotected sex dont get checked out at a GUM Clinic to be tested for HIV & so they go looking for more bareback sex not knowing that they are then spreading HIV & they will continue to do so for many years if they dont get a HIV test done. There are also many with HIV who will not disclose their status or protect a guy who is up for unprotected casual sex. By the the time that person finds out they are HIV Positive it could be years later & they wont know who gave it to them if they are promiscuous or know that they were deliberately infected by a person with HIV.

When a person who is HIV Positive discloses it to another gay guy then he can be rejected by the other person but that person will look for unprotected sex elsewhere, so he puts himself at greater risk of having HIV than by having sex with a person who is HIV & who will use protection … This shows the love affair gay men have with unprotected sex & the love affair often ends in tears with them being diagnosed with HIV. The rate of HIv is linked to the promiscuity of gay men as the two go hand in hand.

Gay men are slappers & its the majority that give them that bad name as being sluttish by the trend in sleeping around. There is nothing good at being gay today … Many gay men will look back on their lives at a certain age & have the regret that all those years they lived was spent not with anyone & having a future life, but it was spent wasting their life as a person who was only good enough to be used for sex … Gay men use each other for sex as the majority are nothing more than predators.

No one has the answers for anyone but themselves. We can and do learn from others experiences and from our interactions with others.

Gay society is diverse and an artificial construct born out of oppression.
A healthy society would be more concerned with a person’s character and contributions than with sexual behavior alone.

I suggest people look at the the following psychological terms to understand what gay men live with, life compression, PTSD, self-esteem, and addiction. All are common to gay experience and all limit and control behavior and the enjoyment of life.

The creation of healthy gay lives is one of the major accomplishments that gay men have created in the last 40 years. The creation of healthy gay families is another. The continued gay contributions to culture, education, relationships, and positive living are another. I suggest celebrating our shared successes each day as a way to deal with the lies and negativity we all deal with on a daily basis.

34 years of activism has taught me that diversity is healthy though often contentious, people believe what they believe with or without factual proof, and the creation and sharing of love is to be encouraged and applauded. Best wishes to all.

“I think many of you are ignorant to the concept of true “safe sex…”

Before you denounce our ignorance question your own. There is no such thing as “safe sex”, only safer sex. It is a fact that full protection, while necessary, may still not be 100% safe. Many have contracted STDs, including HIV, while responsibly engaging so called “safe sex” practices they were told would protect them. Pretending otherwise is dangerous. More importantly, approaching ideas and people in absolute terms is neither helpful nor transformative nor accurate.

“…but I also recognize that many people will tell themselves whatever helps them to do what it is they’re so hell-bent on doing.”

So…The Gays will rationalize their destructive behavior because they’re so selfishly “hell-bent” on getting AIDS and giving it to everyone. For someone doing “post-graduate coursework in human sexuality and psychology” that is sloppy. It is also a very good example of how “academic” and “intellectual” are two very different things that rarely occur in the same person. Indeed most actual intellectuals I know of won’t go near the academy (for obvious reasons).

“Once again, ‘safe sex’ is something that’s easy to say but nigh impossible to practice when you consider how frequently people are having sex.”

Is it the lack of safer sex practices that bothers you? Or the fact that people have too much sex? Or that Gay men have sex at all?

pardon me if i have a hard time your respecting your positions on sex and sexuality when you claim to be some sort of academic authority on the matter, but are shocked (naivete!) and disgusted (moral judgment!) by a little piss; something which is firmly on the mild and common end of the spectrum of shocking and disgusting human sex acts.