Become A Member | Forum | Profiles | Personals | Classifieds | See Who's Online ...
 
View Topic
  Message Boards : Love / Health : View Topic : 148 Posts, Page 10 of 10
  HomeNewNoticesHot TopicsPollsStatsBlogs Login / Register
 
Homosexual Blood Donation
 
# 136 : Monday 30-1-2017 @ 11:02
 
 
Someone said :

Which categories?

Loads. Offhand if you've been in the U.K. for a certain time frame. If you've had a tattoo or piercing in the last year. Its all on the form you fill in.
Their website should have all the categories of people that have a one year defferal period.
Reply
 
 Recent Message Board Topics
Fair City (Fairly Shitty)
Insomnia.
Taxi Fares To Increase
Non Random Thoughts..
How Do You Feel Today? Part 3
Android Vs Apple
Ryanair
Whats For Dinner Tonight? Part 4.
 
Hey! If you enjoy shooting the breeze with like-minded people, check out
our Message Boards
• Advice • Coming Out
• Computers • Current Affairs
• Discussion • Food & Drink
• Going Out • Humour
• Health • Music
• Newbies • Sexual Issues
# 137 : Monday 30-1-2017 @ 11:11
 
 
Someone said :
Theres a one year deferral period for lots of categories of people.

Yes, all of which referring to what is considered an increased risk based.
It means that the wife with a philandering husband is considered to be a lower risk than any gay man in a strictly faithful monogamist relationship. Just because they are 2 guys.

She is not asked to not have sex for a year, or to take extra precautions.
Reply
 
# 138 : Monday 30-1-2017 @ 12:55
 
 
I'm just pointing out some of the exemptions. Thats all.
Reply
 
# 139 : Monday 30-1-2017 @ 12:59
 
 
Someone said :
I'm just pointing out some of the exemptions. Thats all.

Why mention it if you are "just saying"?
Mentioning it suggests at least that it's not such a big deal, just one exclusion amongst others. Otherwise there are many things that can be pointed out pointlessly, like the font size of the policy...

Reply
 
# 140 : Monday 30-1-2017 @ 13:01
 
 
Just saying like.....
Reply
 
# 141 : Monday 30-1-2017 @ 22:11
 
 
Someone said :
Just saying like.....

It seemed almost like an excuse really
Reply
 
# 142 : Tuesday 31-1-2017 @ 09:50
 
 
Someone said :

It seemed almost like an excuse really

A bit of a point of looking at the overall picture. Its not just men who have sex with men that have exemptions. An excuse cannot be in black and white.
Reply
 
# 143 : Tuesday 31-1-2017 @ 14:12
 
 
Someone said :

A bit of a point of looking at the overall picture. Its not just men who have sex with men that have exemptions. An excuse cannot be in black and white.

The point is that the other exclusions are justified: taking drugs, being tattooed, having surgery, living in a country during a known prionic outbreak. They are rational, and based on risk-analysis of a behavior.

A blanket ban on all male homosexual is irrational and prejudiced, even if it is a temporary ban. It suggests that any and every sexual behavior of gay men are risky.

It is biased and ineffective. As opposed to the other bans.

It would be like banning any christian from teaching, on the basis of the abnormally high incidence of pedophiles in catholic priests. When the reasonable thing would be to only ban the priests

Reply
 
# 144 : Tuesday 31-1-2017 @ 16:03
 
 
Swiss is doing the same, and one of the reasons for a 12 months ban on sex is that it is "similar to the policy for when 'people' change partners".

So gay sex with your own faithful husband is like swinging every week-end
Reply
 
# 145 : Tuesday 31-1-2017 @ 17:23
 
 
I don't get the bans at all, sure you could just lie.
Reply
 
# 146 : Tuesday 31-1-2017 @ 18:23
 
 
Are gay men, putting their savings in the sperm bank?
Reply
 
# 147 : Wednesday 1-2-2017 @ 20:12
 
 
Someone said :
I don't get the bans at all, sure you could just lie.

That would be utterly unethical, and even criminal in the unlikely event that you turn out to have something wrong with your donation.

That is one of the reasons donations are not paid, as opposed to what happens in the States: there should not be a vested interest in providing erroneous information, or thinking that we are smarter than the system.

It would be utterly arrogant of us to say "they are wrong so we will lie". What if they are right, after all?
Reply
 
# 148 : Wednesday 1-2-2017 @ 20:12
 
 
Someone said :
I don't get the bans at all, sure you could just lie.

That would be utterly unethical, and even criminal in the unlikely event that you turn out to have something wrong with your donation.

That is one of the reasons donations are not paid, as opposed to what happens in the States: there should not be a vested interest in providing erroneous information, or thinking that we are smarter than the system.

It would be utterly arrogant of us to say "they are wrong so we will lie". What if they are right, after all?
Reply
 
Prev 12345678910Next