It lowers the risk- just as keeping promiscuous straight people out would as well.

...and it is about offense- too many people are getting their knickers in a twist over the rules.

At the moment the rules are based upon false logic and allow some of the very people who can taint the blood pool to donate while keeping others who can contribute to the blood pool out based solely by their sexuality. Change the rules and I know I'd untwist my knickers. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I kinda enjoy my knickers being in knots, gives me a special feeling in that special place.

That sounds like a personal problem... :p

But that's the problem, it DOESN'T lower the risk. That's the myth. Blanketing like that removes viable doners just as it removes at risk ones. So they've done nothing other than fool people into THINKING they've lowered the risk, which serves no purpose but to increase the risk in the long run.

I can't help but wonder if these 'rules' are thought up by the same people that that developed the new air travel regulations, zero tolerance public school rules, and the IRS.
I mean, really- all a person has to do is lie about their lifestyle, if they are that desperate to donate. Our local blood bank pays for 'deposits', and the usual group congregated outside it's doors bears little resemblance to what the rules would lead one to believe a typical donor looks like. The city had to order the nearby shops to stop selling fortified wine to these guys.....:rolleyes:

It's nice to know that as a single Gay man, I fall into the same category as a promiscuous straight person.

Which, apparently, is somewhere below boozehound.

Wish I was gettin' some.

And that, my friend, is the gist of why this whole conversation annoys me so. It feels like a second class status has been placed upon a class of people who didnt ask to be classified.

ack.. I broke my own rule and went into a thread that aggravates me.

Boozehound.... interesting word.