Reader comments · HIV charities surprised at gay blood ban reports · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


HIV charities surprised at gay blood ban reports

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I think you would be hard pushed to find anyone who hasn’t ha sex for 10 years let alone a gay man that hasn’t had sex for 10 years :-). Basically gay men are still banned from donating blood.

    1. For one I haven’t had sex in the past 10 years (though I wont go into the reason why) and two you forget about bisexuals who this could apply for

      1. screw you blondie!

        1. Is that a “screw you” as in a joke. If not, what part of what I said makes you say that

    2. Seems to be a bit of knee jerk politicking by the government

  2. Ask but don’t tell. Sounds familiar?

  3. Perhaps they should let the review continue and get an answer which can then produce an informed solution

  4. Just lumping us all into one category and having one rule for gays and another for straight is wrong….the same rules should apply to both, a risky straight person is no better than a risky gay person, a non risky gay person should be treated in the same was as a low risk straight person ….why the discrimination soley on sexual orientation…? You can’t trust anyone not to lie, gay or straight

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:10pm

      Yeah it should. If screening was done properly, with the proper questions it would exclude all those at high risk weither Gay or Straight and ban them and also allow those not risky, Gay or Straight to give blood.

      Much fairer and not discriminating.

    2. But due to differences between gay and straight people, there is different degrees of risks involved.

      1. Such as? I’m not sure what the difference is between me, being partnered off for the last 25 yrs , and my sister is ,who has been married to her husband for a slighlty longer period than me. Neither of us have HIV, we have the same blood. The complete ban was introduced yrs ago when the attitudes towards gay people were different. Changing the complete ban to one that all gay peopple can’t give blood unless they haven’t had sex for 10 yrs is rubbish. CPs, for instance, was introduced beucase there was a recognition by all that gay couples are able to live in stable partnerships. There was a change in attitute towards gay lifestyles. This ban of 10 yrs shows that there has been little change in attitude really.

        1. Such that if a gay person and a straight person was to have the same number of unprotected one night stands, the gay person would have much higher risk of HIV. But I fully agree there are gay people who are banned who have significantly less risk of having HIV compared to some straight people and I do want the ban to change. I just disagree with the idea that gay people and straight people should have the exact same rules on the matter.

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:58pm

            Thats fair enough.

          2. I don’t know what the rules , questions etc should be and I accept the figures that show that 42% of the people who have HIV are gay (note it’s not 42% of the gay poplation , it’s 42% of the figure that has HIV) but to have a blanket rule based on sexual orientation only is discrmination and means that a huge part of the UK population are excluded from the British blood bank. Me , being gay, doesn’t mean that I am also high risk. I’m not unique in the gay world. It pissed me off when life insurance companies insisted on blood tests and this pisses me off as well.

          3. @Blondie

            Quite a rational argument … and am almost in agreement …

            My problem is that by having rules based on orientation and not on specific individual risk then the system does discriminate against those who engage in non-risky activity and who are gay

          4. I completely agree and when I (assuming I get the chance to) get banned it will end up annoying me.

            My point was merely that you can’t make it exactly equal rules for both gay and straight people.

          5. I do want a system that takes into account people’s individual risk rather than an overall ban. But gay people will be (on average) more at risk .

          6. Simply saying if GAY then must pass 10 yr rule is nonsense. Someone who is not sexually active with other partners apart from the partner they’ve been with for 25 yrs is at no risk regardless of his or hers sexual orientation. The questions that need to be asked is the sexual history of the person. The rules are the same. It’s making assumptions about straight people’s behaviour. The answer may show that gay people perform say anal sex more but you can’t just assume that the anal sex question is exclusive to gays …We’re all potentially at risk and since we’re only allowed straight blood then I hope their screening is pretty severe as well…..Admittedly I don’t know what questions they currently ask but honestly just saying if GAY then no sex for 10 yrs is bollocks…

          7. Good point, I suppose the rules could be similar if you follow that principle but you still have to take into account the higher portion of gay people being HIV positive.

          8. I do agree the 10 years is unreasonable and unrealistic and doesnt appear to be based on any medical evidence

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:33pm

        Actually Blondie unlike a lot of people and governments HIV and STD’s don’t discriminate. If we treat HIV education as seperate we can expect the message to only also be seperate.

        1. Maybe not discriminate specifically on sexual orientation but viruses are more easily spread through the sex associated with gay men.

          1. I cant deny anal sex is riskier. I cant deny anal sex is associated with gay men (and there are some fetishes associated with some gay men which are even riskier).

            You don’t deny that some gay men are not risky in terms of blood transfusion.

            All that being the case, discriminating on behaviour and recent test is a far more appropriate method than on orientation

          2. Of course there are some gay men who aren’t risky with the blood transfusion thing, I for one.

          3. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 8:02am

            Actually Blondie, I would say go to a GU clinic and see for yourself, you clearly would be surprised at the level of ‘Straight’ men and women filling out the waiting room waiting for treatment.

            It’s may seem easier because for Gay people to get STDs but that is really only because you only tend to hear that side of things. Occasionally you get that Chlamydia is at epidemic levels as is Gonorrhea within the Straight community but usually they only focus on the Gay side of things. It’s almost a case of denial. Either that or the media focus on the Gay side for effect.

          4. I probably wouldnt, I am aware of STDs between straight people. But due to the actual differences between anal sex and “straight” sex, for example, the damage caused during the action, HIV and other STDs are more easily spread (though I’m not saying anal sex don’t happen between straight couples, just less frequently). As well as the fact there is a higher percentage of gay people with HIV then there is straight, which increases the chances of a gay person getting with someone who is HIV positive then compared to a straight person

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:34pm


        I have to also point out that my Partner and I have been together nearly 18 years and whilst I am HIV+ my Partner isn’t.

  5. How about Ann Milton shuts her gob until the review is complete.
    It looks like the Government is doing the absolute minimum possible in order to try to stay within EU equality requirements.
    With only ” non-practicing” homosexuals allowed to give blood, this sounds rather like Christian-based pseudo-science concocted by the anti-gay industry.

    1. I wonder if Dr Hans Christan Raabe is on the SaBTO advisory committee??

  6. What about straight men, single and married, who have indiscriminate sex with many females? They’re immune to STD’s including HIV?

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:11pm

      No, no they’re fine!!

  7. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:08pm

    Lets hope 10 years is just a starting point like other countries which have ended up dropping the ban limit over time.

  8. I totally agree with Johns comments. There should be one rule for all and so blood should only be taken by heterosexual people who have not had sex for 10 years in that case. I base my judgement on the fact that adult movies made for heterosexuals always feature unprotected anal intercourse or the product doesn’t sell. We are all capable of the same behaviour regardless of our gender or sexual orientation so it is pointless to discriminate.

  9. This so called Government is in actual breach of it’s own Equality Act – I suggest Anne Milton exploit her position as Health Minister and read the bloody thing – before we sue our own parliament for dicrimination.

  10. “Sorry darling I can’t have sex for the next 10 years. I want to donoat blood.” I can’t see anyone saying that.

    I still want to know why I can’t donat. Nowone in the busness can tell me.

  11. why is it that when i ask anyone who works at a blood drive or in a hospital why i cannot donate blood cos i suck dick!! no1 knows.

    1. Actually – sucking dick is quite ‘low risk’ in terms of HIV spread. Especially if you use a condom!

  12. What a crock of bull-poopie! What is ‘gay sex’ anyways?! How presumptive that all gay men have anal sex i say!
    Much better to properly screen everyone to assess risk… better screening would then filter out the ‘high risk’ people.

  13. so agree that gay and straight should be treated equally. Blood donation as mentioned should be screened on basis of risk not whether you are gay or straight. I have been with my partner in a monogamous relationship for 11 years and under these rules I can not give blood for no reason except I am gay.
    This is discrimination in the first degree. So a man or woman who sleeps around and is straight is allowed to give blood but not me.

    1. Staircase2 11 Apr 2011, 4:48pm

      It shouldnt be screened on “basis of risk” either.

      ALL donated blood should be screened as if it is ALL high risk.

      Thats the only way to protect the supply.

      As I understand it the problem is to do with the 12 day or so window between becoming HIV infected and it potentially showing up in screenings.

      In which case why cant they test it once at the beginning and then again 12 days later?

      Am I missing something? Im assuming it doesnt need to be used immediately does it?

  14. Somehow I get the feeling that it’s not the risk of HIV positive blood they’re afraid of, especially since they should be screening it before giving it to other patients….it’s paranoid delusions of someone “catching” gay, if that’s even possible assuming a gay gene or some other trigger exists in blood. HIV as we all know is just as much a problem for people who engage in heterosexual sex only as it is for people who engage in gay/bisexual sex. So why a ban on blood from homosexuals only? It’s not logical and the discrimination couldn’t be more blatant.

    1. I think you are right on the button Jon, people are so superstitious they fear they will become gay if they get blood from a gay person.

    2. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 8:04am

      Jon, Excellent comment.

      I think deep down your right. It is blatant homophobia.

      I wonder how long it’ll be before someone tries a court action along those lines too.

  15. Lets turn the tables then. What if this were predominantly a straight disease with very few gays succombing. Would gays still have to wait ten years to donate? I would think YES. The same rules should be applied to straights. Do the people involved in this report actually believe that straights never engage in anal sex, not that its the only way to contract the virus? I suppose they wouldn’t view it as risky since they’re straight.

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 8:06am

      If you listened to the homophobic preachers you would certainly think so. There does seem to be a huge level of denial or just thickness amoungst the powers that be as well as a slightly over obsessive quality regarding anal sex from these so called straight people.

  16. I’ve been in a relationship with someone for 8 years, telling him no sex for the next 10 years would possibly destroy that relationship, is that what they want? Taking away sex in any couple of particular group is denying that person or group basic rights. Tell your basic straight man ‘Mate you can’t have sex for the next 10 years’ how do you think he’d react? But then I forget its ok if we want to have sex with a woman.

    Blondie – I have a lot of gay friends wh are thankfully negative and 3 straight friends who unfortunately are positive. Now if my staight friends ignored their condition or hadn’t tested then they could have given blood no problem at all. Believe me there are straight men out there who become infected and deliberately spread HIV through unknowing female partners or by giving blood just to get ‘revenge’.

    Stu – Yes anal sex is risky but going back to my straight friends, they enjoy having anal sex with their female partners so its not that that is at question.

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 8:08am

      All good points Marcus. Gotta agree.

  17. Ok, maybe i’m missing something here but can anyone tell me why Gay men are still unable to donate blood anyway?
    The HIV infection rate has been higher among heterosexuals for the last 3 years than it has for gay men and therefore statistically a person would be more likely to contract HIV from a straight donor than from a gay one.
    As a gay man myself i have never engaged in penetrative sex with another man. However, as a matter of principle i refuse to donate blood to the service and would reccomend that all gay people do the same.
    Pink Power works!!!!
    Stand up and be counted.

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 3:04pm

      You make good points Dave. There is no need. What is needed is a fairer system that allowed those who are no risk and Gay to donate and those who have risky sex and straight And Gay denied from doing so.

      In countries that have repealed this law evidence shows that over the years HIV transmission through blood decreases significantly.

  18. Will we get the better fashion sense? If we get the fashion sense (and possibly the better dancing), then I am 100% in!!
    (written with TOTAL respect to the LGBT community)

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.