Who wants to be hypnotized when they could be hypnotouched*?

(It's ALL) About Me (yeah, right!)
I am about many things...to box me into ONE would be a very big mistake.
People experience me as intelligent and offbeat, with a perspective that is NOT down the worn path.
Those who enjoy speaking with me quite frequently find things they didn't even know they were looking for.
If what I have to say seems interesting or might be helpful to you, let's talk!

There is a chat box in the right column,
feel free to chat with others when I am not there, or with me, when I am.
(If you're hearing *blips* while visiting, there is likely to be conversation going on at the time).

Saturday, June 12, 2010

I just saw this news article about gay men being
banned from giving blood. I had no idea that
there was such a ban.

I find this an intriguing idea because I have to
wonder how anyone would know if a person lied.
Is there something that can be verified if a
person claims to be straight?

What about the straight man who has an experience
with another man? He isn't likely to admit to it.
Given the many calls I have had with straight men
who have had this experience, or are tempted, there
would be many more in this category than most would
realize.

This is one of those times that labeling doesn't
seem to be helpful, at least not to me. Anyone
out there know something I don't know?

Anyone can get anything at any time. It is the
nature of the sexual roulette game we play. It's
nice to think that we can stay healthy, that only
the healthy contribute to the banks, and/or we
can test out those donations that are unsafe,
however one just never knows.

At the same time, blood donation is an important
and life saving thing for someone to do, and there
are always requests for more donations. I'd like
for the blood supply to be safe, however I have
to wonder if a ban like this truly makes any kind
of sense.

Anyone know?
Posted by at
Labels:

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousSaturday, June 12, 2010 at 1:51:00 PM EDT

    Isis,

    I'm not familiar with this restriction but can only surmise that it was started because of AIDS. I don't know if there are better screening processes these days or not but there was some contamination of the blood supply for transfusions -- which was how we lost Arthur Ashe.

    I don't think it makes sense, especially if there are extensive tests that are run before donation.

    cdbtoo

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isis THE EnchantressTuesday, June 15, 2010 at 4:15:00 PM EDT

    Thanks for the comment cdbtoo.

    From what the article said that was exactly why they did it. However, still interesting to consider, I am sure even back when that was enacted there were men on the "down low," and if they "said" they never were with a man, their blood would have been deemed safe (or at least safer), which of course isn't necessarily true.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)