Tuesday, June 28, 2016

It's 2016 and gay men still can't donate blood

Well, only sexually active men having sex with men, but still. So sayeth the upset headline.

Here's an alternate headline: it's 2016 and men having gay sex are still a humongous AIDS risk.

Not quite as much pep, but honesty sucks like that.


Anonymous said...

I saw a video of a gay guy who went without sex for a year in order to be able to donate blood.

This was considered some sort of heroic sacrifice/political statement. "A year! A WHOLE YEAR! A GAY MAN DIDN'T STICK HIS DICK UP SOMEONE'S ASS FOR 360 DAYS!!!!!"

Somehow I was less than impressed.

Crude said...

Somehow I was less than impressed.

I am actually impressed that a sexually active gay man can swear off sex with men for a year.

More seriously, the blood thing strikes me as emblematic of the whole 'gay rights' movement. It's entirely reasonable they're denied, and it's only against the sexually active who have a documented AIDS risk but how DARE they ever feel singled out EVER in a negative way.

I swear, if a woman put in her dating profile 'No gay men or men who have sex with men, please' these guys with pitch a fucking fit.

GoldRush Apple said...

I'm currently a candidate for an MSW and this would considered social injustice and fear mongering on behalf of the quarantine prudes, and then, maybe, someone will passive-aggressively blame Reagan for his inaction to help the beloved homosexuals and non-straights. Because, reasoning follows, if Reagan did more to fight the AIDS epidemic this would not be an issue. You can have anal sex and donate blood like sneezing into your hand and using that hand to greet a stranger. No biggie.