3 ms·

In the past 5 years have you taken money or drugs in exchange for sex?.. (Men only) In the past 5 years have you had sex, even once with another male? In the U

by cpher 15y ago

In the past 5 years have you taken money or drugs in exchange for sex?.. (Men only) In the past 5 years have you had sex, even once with another male? In the U.S., if you donate blood you are always asked this question, so this is completely acceptable. Do you really want the donation pool potentially contaminated by the HIV virus?

blahedo 15y ago
> Do you really want the donation pool potentially contaminated by the HIV virus? This is FUD. Gender of partner as an HIV risk factor is now much less predictive than a number of other risk factors that they do not check for; it is especially insulting to monogamous couples whose HIV risk is negligible. (The Red Cross is especially odious in this regard, as they are still asking this question not as "in the past 5 years", but iirc "since 1978", which is absurd.)
- magicalist 15y ago
  I agree with you that the policy is wrong, but it comes from the FDA, not individual organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#Uni...
- rdl 15y ago
  If the goal is to reduce the risk of HIV (due to imperfect testing), if they're willing to ask offensive questions and discriminate, at least for blood, it is probably statistically valid to filter based on income/credit score, race, and zip code. I can only imagine how much uproar this would cause.
  - blahedo 15y ago
    The question itself is not offensive, and the idea of the filtering is perfectly valid. The problem arises in that the level of risk being filtered by "sex with another man, ever" or even "sex with another man, last five years" is much less than other risk factors that are more common but not screened---but the presence of the question (and absence of others) has the effect of spreading FUD about the risk factors, and thus has the effect of spreading and reinforcing homophobia even if we generously assume that homophobia is not the reason for the rule in the first place. Reducing the time limit and/or adding other factors to the screening would remove the objections of (most of) the people that complain about this rule.
- cpher 15y ago
  No, this is not FUD. This is a proxy for a pattern of behavior (unprotected sex with the same sex, sharing of needles, etc). They ask you these questions as a primary filter for determining who is at risk of transferring a disease. We still don't know everything about how the disease is transferred, but we know which behavior patterns lead to it. And regarding the 1978 date, we still don't even know how long HIV can lay dormant in humans.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Your grand-grandparent post quite emphatically is FUD. Being MSM is positively correlated with a pattern of behaviour that elevates risk of HIV. So is being a college student. So is serial monogamy. So is being a heterosexual male. Singling out one of these while making no attempt to break down the diverse group MSM by further detailing high-risk behaviour and black-marking it with an ominous question like "Do you really want the donation pool potentially contaminated by the HIV virus?" (who does?) is very much FUD against MSM as a whole.
    - homosaur 15y ago
      MainStream Media?
      - jarek 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
    - jacoblyles 15y ago
      I'm sorry if reality offends anyone's PC sensibilities, but in the US MSM account for 49% of HIV cases[1] despite accounting for a small percentage of the population. MSM are MUCH more likely to get HIV than, say, frat boys who casually hook up with a lot of females. I'm not sure if the ban is completely justified, but there is potential reason behind it. [1]http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final...

by cpher 15y ago

blahedo 15y ago

> Do you really want the donation pool potentially contaminated by the HIV virus? This is FUD. Gender of partner as an HIV risk factor is now much less predictive than a number of other risk factors that they do not check for; it is especially insulting to monogamous couples whose HIV risk is negligible. (The Red Cross is especially odious in this regard, as they are still asking this question not as "in the past 5 years", but iirc "since 1978", which is absurd.)

magicalist 15y ago
I agree with you that the policy is wrong, but it comes from the FDA, not individual organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#Uni...
rdl 15y ago
If the goal is to reduce the risk of HIV (due to imperfect testing), if they're willing to ask offensive questions and discriminate, at least for blood, it is probably statistically valid to filter based on income/credit score, race, and zip code. I can only imagine how much uproar this would cause.
- blahedo 15y ago
  The question itself is not offensive, and the idea of the filtering is perfectly valid. The problem arises in that the level of risk being filtered by "sex with another man, ever" or even "sex with another man, last five years" is much less than other risk factors that are more common but not screened---but the presence of the question (and absence of others) has the effect of spreading FUD about the risk factors, and thus has the effect of spreading and reinforcing homophobia even if we generously assume that homophobia is not the reason for the rule in the first place. Reducing the time limit and/or adding other factors to the screening would remove the objections of (most of) the people that complain about this rule.
cpher 15y ago
No, this is not FUD. This is a proxy for a pattern of behavior (unprotected sex with the same sex, sharing of needles, etc). They ask you these questions as a primary filter for determining who is at risk of transferring a disease. We still don't know everything about how the disease is transferred, but we know which behavior patterns lead to it. And regarding the 1978 date, we still don't even know how long HIV can lay dormant in humans.
- jarek 15y ago
  Your grand-grandparent post quite emphatically is FUD. Being MSM is positively correlated with a pattern of behaviour that elevates risk of HIV. So is being a college student. So is serial monogamy. So is being a heterosexual male. Singling out one of these while making no attempt to break down the diverse group MSM by further detailing high-risk behaviour and black-marking it with an ominous question like "Do you really want the donation pool potentially contaminated by the HIV virus?" (who does?) is very much FUD against MSM as a whole.
  - homosaur 15y ago
    MainStream Media?
    - jarek 15y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
  - jacoblyles 15y ago
    I'm sorry if reality offends anyone's PC sensibilities, but in the US MSM account for 49% of HIV cases[1] despite accounting for a small percentage of the population. MSM are MUCH more likely to get HIV than, say, frat boys who casually hook up with a lot of females. I'm not sure if the ban is completely justified, but there is potential reason behind it. [1]http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final...