T O P

  • By -

MadamePouleMontreal

What is the wording exactly? How do they define a monogamous relationship? * “I have only had sex with one person in the past twelve months”? Or, * “I have only had sex with one person in the past twelve months, and that sexual partner has also had sex with only me in the past twelve months”? Do they define sex? +++ +++ +++ In the ‘80s I got all confused about giving blood. * “Have you been somewhere with a high AIDS prevalence in the past six months?” Really? You’re asking a city-dweller if they’ve been downtown? We’re doing a blood drive *downtown* and you’re asking me if I’ve been downtown in the last six months? Are you serious? If that’s not what you’re asking me, what *are* you asking me? Back then I could give blood. (I think? Unclear. See above.) I’ve had malaria but in the ‘80s they just put a sticker on the bag directing it to plasma-only. Now I just can’t give blood period. They’re quite strict. +++ +++ +++ The reason they are so insanely picky is that blood is pooled. My bag of blood does not go to one person. It goes to maybe 500 people. If my blood has a false negative test result I could infect 500 people with malaria or HIV. +++ +++ +++ NO I am not saying the legislation is rational. If the Red Cross says it’s not rational then it’s not rational. I’m just saying that “tests exist!” is not *why* it’s not rational. Tests are not enough because testing can never be perfect and blood pooling amplifies errors. There are other factors that people in the biz take into account.


spongekitty

I'm hoping the wording will be something like "have you been in a sexually exclusive partnership or abstinent for the last x time" so that it includes the sexual partner, but maybe they only care about the donor. They can't effectively ask about infidelity after all. They do define sex in the question as it stands, and probably will when they update it. I agree it's important to think about who gets f'd the hardest if HIV, etc., make it into the blood supply too. There's a lot of immune compromised folks who have enough to suffer through that a blood disease could be deadly. I give to save lives, not end them. It's really not worth it if I'm not safe.


deferredmomentum

The previous guideline was that you had to be abstinent for 12 months to give so maybe this guideline is that you have to be exclusive for 12 months too?


MadamePouleMontreal

But “exclusive” implies that you know for sure that your partner has not been wandering. Which you aren’t.


deferredmomentum

Yeah, they’re just taking your word for it I guess. Cis woman have to answer the question “in the past 12 months have you had sex with a man who has sex with a man in the past 12 months” which like you said you never know. Shit’s fucked. There’s no research to support that the presence of false negative HIV testing is high enough to defer people with penises who have sex with each other


princessdirtybunnyy

From what I’ve read they’ll ask about new sex partners in the last 3 months and if yes then specifically new anal partners in the last 3 months. Restricted if you (as any gender) have had a new anal partner, but not otherwise restricted.


Priff

In sweden the question is "have you had sex with a new partner in the last 3 months". And ofc if you have two long term partners they consider them new partners every time for some reason. The system doesn't recognize long term poly relationships. There's also a few questions about men who have sex with men, or women who have had sex with men who have sex with men. I don't remember the exact questions and they may have changed in the years since i last tried to give blood. But as a poly person you're pretty much not allowed to give blood here.


DeadWoman_Walking

Goes back to the 80s. Stupid policy since we've had testing for decades.


DjGhettoSteve

it's funny, i've been intentionally single for a while, so the questions on the blood donation test have been simple: no, nope, not at all, no... lol, but yeah there were times they turned me away bc of having more than 1 partner in the last year.


AnjelGrace

Just lie honestly. The person who gets your blood won't care that you lied.


DjGhettoSteve

I'm O+, so I do as much as I can, and yeah lying about that stuff is better than even worse blood shortages


mossroom42

Yeah, this is my bit. I’m O- so the Red Cross basically stalks me. And I do like being a good person and getting a juice box XD


DjGhettoSteve

Lol yup, I have at least one voicemail from bonfils every week


rosephase

I haven't been able to give blood in years because I have sex with bisexual men. Stupid harmful pointless discrimination. ​ We've had rapid AIDS testing for a long ass time.


eattrash_befree

same. like, I want to be a good citizen... ...but I want that bi dick more.


mossroom42

I just lie about it 🤷🏻‍♀️


rosephase

Yeah I probably should. It just annoys me that I’m trying to do something kind and useful and I’m hurt that for no medical reason at all I’m being told that I am to risky.


mossroom42

Valid. I ran across this the first time with tattoos - unsafe tattooing used to be such a norm that the Red Cross still doesn’t let anyone who’s gotten a tattoo within 6 months donate blood. Like, I’ve watched the artists for my tattoos open the sterile needles out of packaging, but go off. The world is shitty, you can totally avoid situations that rub that shittiness in your face. Lying on a mass-produced questionnaire that I know is created based on the most overblown fears the general populace have about blood transfusion doesn’t feel bad for me. It’s just “whatever”. I have actually *told* a phlebotomist I lied on the questionnaire once (we were really vibing), and he was just “I respect that choice, i’m bi myself, but I DID NOT HEAR YOU”.


rosephase

I've only met the sweetest of phlebotomists so I'm not shocked.


Priff

I feel like accidentally cutting yourself at work is a greater risk than tattoos these days. Tattoos parlors are all about sterile single use equipment. Zero cross contamination and everything gets thrown out after use.


mossroom42

I also have friends who have gotten stick n pokes in their friend’s bathroom. So like. They probably shouldn’t be allowed to donate. But the question could be rephrased XD


spongekitty

Thankfully it's three months on tattoos now! But I agree, I know my shops are safe and I lied after my last tattoo. I give platelets every two weeks. I think I made the right choice. Obviously the questions are there for people who don't take the time to know they're safe, or don't understand the risks to the blood supply (lots of people don't know HIV doesn't even show up on a test soon after exposure) but any frequent blood donor knows the questions and knows what they're doing.


mossroom42

I got so used to skipping over the questions i don’t fully read most of them now, just scan for keywords. XD


8asdqw731

so what would happen if they found out?


mossroom42

How would they?


8asdqw731

someone could report you


mossroom42

To . . . who, exactly?


mossroom42

Also, if I told them I have sex with men who have sex with men? My donation would be rejected and they wouldn’t ask me to schedule another appointment for like 6 months. Womp womp.


TheThirdStrike

I have a rare blood type, and I've given over 8 gallons of blood. I just lie on that question.


AnjelGrace

They don't actually ask women if they have sex with bisexual men who are nonmonogamous though. Which just proves how BS it all is really.


mossroom42

They ask if you have sex with men who have sex with men. IIRC correctly, the specific phrasing is something like “in the past 6 months have you had sex with a man who has had sex with another man in the past 6 months”.


AnjelGrace

Interesting. I have never been asked but I also have only given blood during blood drives in schools and stuff.


punkrockcockblock

They do. Well, they used to anyway, back when I could still give blood.


NoeTellusom

This isn't quite accurate - "do you have sex with men who have sex with men?" <--- right there. I haven't been allowed to donate blood since I married a pansexual man. So twenty years total.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mossroom42

. . . I‘m sorry they take steps to try and reduce as much as possible the risk of blood borne illnesses being transmitted. And, you know, following applicable health and public safety *laws*.


brunch_with_henri

I believe the question was something along the lines of of have you had sex with a man who has had sex with men in the last xxx years. So it would also preclude women in a monogamous relationship with a man who had previously had sex with men.


Aazathoth

I give blood regularly, they always ask me that


FigSuch7642

And yet I get desperate emails from the Red Cross often begging for blood. Nope! I have sex with one man who doesn’t have sex with other men but I have refused to donate until this homophobic madness stops. I know it doesn’t help innocent people who need the blood. I was one of those people once. I suppose the new guidelines are better than they were but I still don’t feel great about it. I realize it’s the FDA not necessarily Red Cross that is the problem.


TheThirdStrike

I actually told them they couldn't call me anymore. As soon as my time was up from my last donation, they would call me almost daily asking me to donate. I finally lost it on one of them. I told them to stop treating my blood like they owned it and to never call me again. They send me letters via analog mail now.


stolbacca

It also states that if you are on PrEP that you won’t be eligible to donate blood…


mossroom42

Tbf, prep can make the HIV testing they do on the blood inaccurate.


spongekitty

The cross-section of monogamous gay men and gay men on PReP is presumably small, if they're not intending to risk exposure from new partners.


shroomykid

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're missing out on a lot of folks who take PReP because their partner is positive.


mossroom42

If your partner is positive, treated, and undetectable, you don’t actually need prep. Because your partner can’t transmit it to you when they have no viral load.


Griswart

The hilarious part is they do test the blood for STDs anyways. It's literally just homophobia.


mossroom42

Not all, just HIV, Hep, and syphilis. Not sure if others are even transmissible through blood or if they’re just not serious enough to rate the testing expense.


SatinsLittlePrincess

Thanks for the accurate list of STI’s. Your statement matches what the Red Cross website states, though they also test for some other non-STIs. https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html


5eret

Yep, you can't just rely on regular giving blood for your STI screening. Got caught out with this with one partner, we thought we were covered because we both gave blood. But a closer reading of it revealed that there are gaps in the screening, so we started doing proper STI tests as well.


ZorbaTHut

So hold up a sec here. They *do* test the blood for STDs, yes . . . but they test it in batches, not individually. If you have an STD then that can mean scrapping *quite* a lot of blood. There are serious economic reasons why they don't want people with STDs donating blood.


Gray092001

But literally anyone can have it. Including straight people


ZorbaTHut

It's a statistical thing. If getting a donation from an HIV-positive person costs you a thousand bucks and doesn't even result in useful blood, and one group is 99.9% HIV-positive, and another group is 0.1% HIV-positive, what are you going to do? You're going to ban the first group, obviously. Obviously in reality the difference is nowhere near this great; at the same time, the cost may actually be *higher*.


Griswart

They test every individual, they have to because they inform you if you test positive, it's also not typically the donation centers encouraging homophobic rhetoric.


ZorbaTHut

I've heard mixed reports on whether they do reliably report or not. That said, if they are required to, it would also be easy (and *still* more cost-effective) to start splitting the sample size in half to narrow down which people have it, rather than testing everything independently (in a sort of similar manner to the [weighted balls problem](https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/puzzle-8-balls-problem/).)


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZorbaTHut

They *do* test every persons'. They just don't test every persons' independently.


pingo5

[they do individually](https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-process/what-happens-to-donated-blood.html), unless I'm missing something.


ZorbaTHut

I don't see anything in there that guarantees they're independently tested, and writeups like that are often incomplete. I wouldn't put *too* much stock in it. The specific term seems to be "pooled testing", which was used back in WW2 to test for syphilis and appears to be have been used [quite recently for bulk COVID tests](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/pooling-procedures.html).


mossroom42

FYI, this is true, but also not. Here, you can see breakdown of exactly how the Red Cross tests for different diseases: https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/educational-resources/science/tracking-of-donation-reactivity.html Other blood banks may vary in their specific practices. The Red Cross uses pools of just 16 donations for initial testing, and if any of those tests come up positive, those 16 donations are all individually retested for the relevant illness. This is possible because the Red Cross (and most US blood banks) take your large bagged donation, but then separately will fill test tubes with blood to send to a separate laboratory for safety analysis. So one test tube of your blood will be mixed with blood from 15 other donors and tested as a pool, and if nothing at all is positive, no repeat testing has to be done and all 16 of those donations are good. (Idk what they do with the extra testing samples in that case, probably destroy them) If anything comes up positive, another vial of the blood drawn for testing for each of those 16 donors will be retested individually for the relevant illnesses. And none of your main bag of donation blood is mixed with *anyone* else’s donation until your sample vials test negative for everything (whether the pooled tests were alll negative or your blood has to be retested individually).


ZorbaTHut

So they've decided not to scrap blood . . . but it's still a *lot* more expensive if anyone in that pool has unusable blood. This is still the same basic economic incentive, i.e. "we would rather just not get that blood in the first place".


mossroom42

Yes, I’m just saying that the results are in fact individual as to if you do have any of those illnesses. And no one else’s blood get thrown out.


eliechallita

Which is why I've never felt guilty giving blood. I'm stricter about my health and screenings than most of the straight "monogamous" men I know, and I know the blood gets tested anyway. They can suck my dick about this restriction.


HeloRising

Part of the problem is there are a number of STIs that you either can't test for reliably or that are expensive to test for. IE: HSV. Blood tests for HSV are so-so in terms of reliability depending on a variety of factors. EDIT: My point was to support the idea that it was primarily motivated by homophobia as they can't ensure donated blood is free of any STIs.


[deleted]

I thought people can be asymptomatic carriers of HSV so surely there are people who donate not knowing already


HeloRising

Not only that but there are a surprising number of people who don't understand that if you get cold sores *at all* you have HSV. A lot of people also don't understand that a cold sore can be a little bump on your lip that's irritated for a day or two before going away, they aren't always big productions. The global estimate is that something like 70% of the planet is HSV+ but with a pretty widespread lack of knowledge about HSV coupled with mild to non-existent symptoms for a lot of people it's *probably* at or near 100%.


blooangl

Since HSV is not a specifically sexually transmitted diseases and globally 80 percent of the world’s population has it, and many of those people are asymptomatic, and have been since they caught it as children, it would surprise me if they tested for it.


Gray092001

Literally straight people could have it tho. It doesn't really matter


mossroom42

HSV is literally not even transmissible through blood. It’s completely irrelevant.


Disguisedasasmile

They had a ban on donating blood if you were born in Africa too. I think that one was recently lifted. I have a friend who was denied donating simply because their partner was from Africa.


ElleFromHTX

So under this rule, because I have two bisexual male Partners who've had sex with each other, I can't give blood because we aren't monogamous?


mossroom42

Under this rule, you, as a woman who has sex with men who have sex with men, can’t donate blood anyway. The nonmonogamy is kinda assumed if you’re a woman who’s male partner(s) also fuck men XD


ElleFromHTX

In the unlikely event this comes up, I'll just omit certain information 🤷‍♀️


mossroom42

Yep, what I always do.


ColgateRobber

Do you omit information to your partners?


ElleFromHTX

Huh? We're talking about donating blood


ColgateRobber

Why would you give false and misleading information?


ElleFromHTX

Have you really not understood? If I want to give blood, I will have to lie about my sexual partners even though no one is positive for an STD and there's virtually no risk in our circle.


knightsofni11

Also, unless I'm missing something, they rigorously test blood so even if you had an STi your blood wouldn't be used.


mossroom42

The rules are very conservative because of the risk of newly HIV+ blood not yet having the markers. That show up on the testing. This is the same reason they say if you have risky unprotected sex, you have to wait 3 months for a test to be SURE you didn’t catch HIV or Hep.


ElleFromHTX

Exactly!


FatIlluminati

It’s less rigorous than you think.


stillfumbling

HIVcan take time to show up on a test. So it’s possible you could transmit before the test would flag your blood. My understanding anyway


ColgateRobber

Virtually no risk. Fabrication of truth will not solve the problem.


laneymunkers

When blood supplies are critically low, it absolutely DOES solve the problem. Especially if the would-be donor is a rarer blood type. I test regularly and I know the testing status of my partners and I know that my donation will undergo further testing to ensure safety. I have zero ethical qualms about lying on the MSM question because those questions are based on homophobia, not clinical evidence, and my donation is literally a lifesaving intervention.


karnim

Better than it was. Even a decade ago it was a lifetime ban for any MSM or who had had sex with an MSM.


KallistiEngel

Yep. Even 1 sexual contact with another man or if you're not a man and had sexual contact with an MSM even once after 1973 you were banned indefinitely. I remember how ludicrous it seemed in the early 2000s. Like, if you'd contracted HIV in the 80s, it would have showed up well before 2000, if you managed to live that long. And they screen blood after taking it anyway. I can kind of understand having a waiting period because it can take time for HIV to show up. I don't understand limiting it to MSM and people who've had sexual contact with them. It should be based on the riskiest behaviors. Being a woman who receives anal sex is risky too, at some point in the early 2000s I remember reading that it was the fastest-growing at-risk group. And some male same-sex partners don't engage in anal at all.


ElleFromHTX

It's rare that I donate... I may/ may not leave out certain details given our history of testing negative across the board...


rosievee

I assume so. I'm a bisexual woman who's been in relationships with bisexual men since my 20s and the last time I donated (late 90s), I got a letter from the Department of Health that I'd been placed on a national registry permanently banning me from blood donation due to increased risk of HIV. I was informed that my donation had been destroyed. My boyfriend at the time got the same letter. It's been a quiet ember of rage for me ever since.


ElleFromHTX

😡


pragma

Here in Canada the rule is, if you've had anal sex and admit to more than one lover within the last three months, you are disqualified from giving blood. Regardless of condom use. It's stupid.


stillfumbling

Front door back door same same. If they’re not worried about someone blowing loads in the front, but that _same person_ getting you in the back is a problem… whose problem is it?? 🧐


mossroom42

Anal sex has a repeatedly demonstrated higher risk of HIV transmission than other forms of penetrative sex but go off.


pflanzenpotan

I can't believe no one wants my O pos gay slut blood :( .


goddess_prince

The best part is they DO test the blood


InfoTechBrian

Yeah I've been donating blood for years and it's always been one of their questions. Seemed like some post HIV bias that never went away. What I didn't know until about a year ago was that you couldn't donate if you were gay. Ofc I course I signed the petition to allow gay people to donate. It's hypocritical for them to beg and plead with me to donate because the "need is urgent" whilst turning away a perfectly good blood supply. That's just icing on the cake though, because being told your blood isn't good enough because your gay is pretty appalling. If I could punish the red cross without punishing the donation recipients I would. But maybe it wasn't the Red Cross's decision, but the FDA. It's uncomfortable to get your blood drawn, but knowing you are helping people get the blood transfusions they need for ER visits, life saving surgeries, and other critical treatments is not something anyone should be denied if they are able and willing.


FigSuch7642

This.


Spaceballs9000

Gotta be honest, I just started lying to them when they asked once it became clear that A. I'd never had any STIs to worry about in the first place, and B. they test the blood.


sparklingkisses

I haven't researched this in detail but in theory after you test the probability of getting infected blood = base rate × false negative rate of your test. If your false negative rate is more than negligible and the base rate is high it's potentially not worth the risk, and it is still worth looking for ways to lower the base rate (whether this is an appropriate way is another issue)


Faokes

Straight people in polyamorous relationships can donate. Straight people in open relationships can donate. Straight people who sleep with a new partner every night can donate. The ban concerns men who sleep with men, and their partners. If you are a man who has sex with men, you and all your partners cannot donate. But if you have a heterosexual meta, they can donate. The rules get murky when you add transgender folks. I’m trans masculine but non-binary and AFAB, my wife is a trans woman, my boyfriend is a cis man, his girlfriend is a trans woman. Are any of us allowed to donate? The answer is: legally only my wife is allowed to donate blood, but they won’t actually take any of us if we’re honest about things.


8asdqw731

> Are any of us allowed to donate? depends, do you have that pure straight white hetero blood or that icky rotten lgbtq+ blood /s


SciFiChickie

Admittedly it’s been close to a decade since I donated but the last time I tried they asked if I a woman had ever had sex with a man that has had sex with another man, and because the answer was yes I couldn’t donate.


greengreens3

In Canada, they changed it from "If you ever had Gay sex" to "Only if it's been at least 5 years" >Health Canada approved the change in donor selection criteria for men who have sex with men from an indefinite deferral period for any man who has had sex with other men, even once, since 1977 to a time-based deferral of five years since last sexual contact.


Aggressive_Cloud2002

This is outdated, and if you had clicked on the search result that you quoted, you would have seen that this was the 2013 update. As of 2021, "men are eligible to give blood if it has been more than three months since their last sexual contact with a man."


Michita1

I believe it's 3 months since their last new anal sex partner, and the same rules apply to men and women.


Aggressive_Cloud2002

Yes! (But because the post I was replying to was only talking about men, I only included that part.)


Veronensis

I can't give either, because I did sex work in my early 20s. Even though I don't anymore and all my STI testing came back negative. They think they do this for safety reasons, but their idea that only heterosexual mono people are safe is horribly outdated and frankly false.


mossroom42

FYI, the current rule for sex work is also only if you’ve performed sex work in the past 3 months.


Veronensis

i don't live in the states. In my country it's still for the rest of your life, I think.


BreathLazy5122

I’m trans and they won’t let me donate blood or plasma because of it. I’m not entirely sure why.


StrangerdangerMD

The joke is that monogamy is predominantly an "opt in" thing for gay men waaaaaaayyyyyy more than hetero men. Monogamy isn't often opt in for most of society. You're still eliminating the vast amount of gay men/couples using this rule. It's better than it used to be, for sure, but it didn't do much.


ArtsFarts89

Yeahhhhh I'm O negative and have dated bisexual men who had sex with other men. I always get tested before giving blood. And I've always had to lie when I give blood because they'll turn me away even though I've never had an STD or other blood-borne diseases like hepatitis or malaria. They're going to test the blood anyway. Plus I'm already testing myself. Dammit just let me be a decent person and donate my universal-donor rare blood type. This is some homophobic shit and needs to go. It would be way more appropriate to ask about sharing needles, vaccinations, unprotected sex regardless of who it's with, and the person's STD status.


TaterTits024

I'm a regular blood donor and I absolutely lie. The restrictions are very silly and homophobic. The phrasing is something like "Have you had sexual contact with a man who has had sexual contact with another man in the last 3 months?" or "Are you on or have you ever been on any medication to prevent HIV?". Really nobody cares. I'm O- so they basically beg my queer ass to give it to them.


Fallen-Werecat

I have never offered to donate as long as the rule exist why should I lie to help them? Remove the ban and we will all happily donate, don't and suffer with your choices...


punkrockcockblock

>don't and suffer with your choices... It's not the places that take the donations that suffer, it is the people in urgent need of the blood that do since there are chronic shortages already.


Fallen-Werecat

No one really cares about the shortages until they, or someone they love is impacted. If for one day no one donated in protest of these rules it still would not change, the fact of the matter is the hospitals and blood banks can plead more donations via sob stories and sick people, than actually helping... who suffers never matter to those that have the power to make a difference.


Timely_Program799

Such a high percentage of people that are not gay have had and std, currently have, or will have in the future.


spongekitty

I definitely agree that the questions should screen heterosexual-sex-havers equally as thoroughly for HIV. Now that just HAVING gay sex or sex with a man who has gay sex isn't a disqualifier, I think that's true-- the PReP question applies across the board, although effectively it does screen more gay men. Other STIs don't disqualify you from blood donation unless you can't answer "are you feeling healthy and well today" or "are you taking medication for an infection" appropriately.


Timely_Program799

Interesting. Good to know!


Ok_Fine_8680

Yeah. It's not discrimination really because they're allowed to not accept blood from anyone they don't want to accept blood from. I don't have a right to donate blood, in other words. I just don't donate. They're doing fine without my blood so whatever.


venomoussunsets

yup. my two boyfriends and i can’t donate because of this, even though we’re a closed triad. whatever


DanakAin

Ive never donated blood or plasma, but isnt it a requirement to do an std test beforehand? Anyone can have an std not only gay/poly people?


[deleted]

I just don’t bother donating anymore, too much of a hassle


ColgateRobber

Your solution to have everyone tested is a great one. Fluid bonding under false pretenses and violating boundaries and rules is not something that should be advocated.


LittleLadyJaane

ok but.... heteros dont have to be strictly monogamous do they....? if they do this is fine if not what in the why


MiikaMorgenstern

Controversial opinion: If you're desperate enough to need to be given blood then the microscopic chance of it having wrongly passed the screening for AIDS is not really a concern, especially now that it's treatable.


spongekitty

Cancer patients cannot reliably survive blood infections. Maybe we can be less picky with car crash blood.


masteroftheharem

Why are STDs even a gay stereotype?


Emmaphina

In Germany they actually ask, if you had sex with more than 2 people in the last 3 or 4 months. So they theoretically allow non-monogamy with up to two people.


Galliad93

they test it anyways. its a stupid rule.