Red Cross blood donation questions

[rabbit16]

You should not donate if you are at risk for contracting HIV (the virus that causes AIDS). The following activities would cause you to be at risk:


If you have ever used a needle, even once, to take any illegal or non-prescription drug.
If you have ever taken money or drugs for sex since 1977.
If you are a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has taken money or drugs in exchange for sex since 1977.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has ever used a needle for illegal or non-prescription drug.
If, in the past 12 months, you have given money or drugs to have sex with you.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has taken clotting factor concentrates.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has had AIDS or tested positive for the AIDS virus.
If, you are a female who, in the past 12 months, has had sex with a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977.
If you were born or have lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, Nigeria, since 1977.
If, since 1977 you have received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of those countries listed above.
If, you have had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of those countries listed above


Kind of seems like some of these don't make much sense to me. So I could have had sex with someone that tested positive for AIDS in 13 months but if I have EVER had sex with another male (doesn't specify if protected-condom-or not) then I can't give blood unless it happened before 1977? Seems kind of anti gay/bisexual to me with a few questions. Granted-still only been with a couple females but it appears if I ever do get with a male I am done donating blood. And since I can donate to 1/2 the populations with my blood type that sucks.

Basically-just as long as I stick only with females and don't pay them for it in any way it appears to be fine by the rules? I could meet a different one every day and not even be protected and be fine?
Thoughts/comments? I am all for safety-just hard to believe that if I would have had male to male sex Dec 31 1976 I am safe but Jan 1st 1977 I am not.

[Waylon]

Does the definition of "having sex" include receiving fellatio from a woman or a man? What about performing fellatio or cunnilingus on a woman?

[æonpax]

Study could end ban on gay men donating blood - The federal government has one study in a planning stage and three studies under way that could eventually provide evidence to end the ban on blood donations from all gay men, a federal official said Wednesday.

The key question is, “Can blood safety be maintained or improved under a revised blood-donation screening criteria that would permit donations by lower-risk MSM [men who have sex with men] donors?” Health and Human Services official James Berger told a meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration.

HHS “is committed to continuous improvement in the safety of the nation’s blood supply,” said Mr. Berger, the acting director of the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability. - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/16/study-could-end-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood/?page=all

`
In order to insure a reactionary nation that their blood supply was safe, draconian measures were installed to reduce the possibility of HIV blood contamination. The problem is, is that tests indicating HIV can take up to three months to get results. ( http://www.avert.org/hivtesting.htm ) The CDC is working on "Rapid Testing" ( http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/rapid/ ) which could change all of that.

[darkeyes]

The Red Cross does not take blood donations in the UK but is quite happy with what it can get from the various national blood donation agencies... for Scotland the criteria is


Common reasons you might not be able to give blood today:


Weight
If you weigh less than 7st 12lbs (50kg) you will be unable to donate.
Pregnancy
You are unable to donate blood during pregnancy. Please wait nine months after giving birth before donating.
Travel
Holidays or other travel abroad in the last year may influence your eligibility to donate. Please read our travel related risks leaflet (http://www.scotblood.co.uk/media/11586/SNBTS_Travel_Leaflet1.pdf) for information on malaria, West Nile Virus (WNV) and other travel related infection.
You have to wait 28 days after travel to a WNV area before you can donate. This only applies to travel between 1st May and 30th November. WNV areas include:USA, Canada, Italy, Mainland Greece, Romania, Albania, Israel, Turkey, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia.
Dentist
If you have visited your dentist within the last 24 hours or had a tooth extraction or root treatment in the last seven days you will be unable to donate at present.
Tattoo/Piercing
You must wait for 12 months after a tattoo or piercing before giving blood.
Surgery
If you have had an endoscopy in the last six months you will be unable to donate. You may be able to give before this if you have had minor or keyhole surgery.
Coughs, colds and other minor illnesses
If you are unwell, please wait until you have recovered before giving blood.
Blood tests and other investigations
Please wait until you have received your results from your doctor before donating. There is no need to wait for the results of routine screening tests such as a smear or mammogram.

We are unable to accept donations if you:


have received, or think you may have received, a blood transfusion since 1980
have HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C or HTLV
think you need a test for HIV, HTLV or hepatitis
have ever injected illegal drugs
have ever been given money or drugs for sex

My partner cannot donate blood because she is a heroin addict even although she has not used for some 13 years. I am unable to donate blood because I am (at present) 7 stone 4lbs or 46 and bit kgs... funny the difference in criteria 'tween different branches of the same organisation...

[nitrog100]

darkeyes, the reason they will not take blood from the UK, from people that lived in the UK during certain years, or take blood from people descended from people living in the UK during those years, is because of the widespread bovine spongiform encephalitis outbreak. Mad cow disease can take anywhere up to 50 years to show up and say hi, so in the meantime, they're just being careful. The weight thing is just logical, since they can't go taking too much blood from a person. I'm fine with the IV drug ban, but the prostitution and m2m sexual contact is just unreasonable.

[Bishyguy1958]

The Red Cross was calling me on a weekly basis...until I had cancer in 2008. Once I told them I had Chemo, the calls stopped.

[DuckiesDarling]

I was getting calls and reminder cards until I had to put that I had unprotected sex with a man who had sex with men... oops they didn't like that. I even said we were both tested and were clean and was told he could be lying lol. I told them not to call me anymore then I said take me off your disaster relief team and cross me off the call schedule for training CPR. I did a clean break from the ARC over that little bit of bias.

[æonpax]

darkeyes, the reason they will not take blood from the UK, from people that lived in the UK during certain years, or take blood from people descended from people living in the UK during those years, is because of the widespread bovine spongiform encephalitis outbreak. Mad cow disease can take anywhere up to 50 years to show up and say hi, so in the meantime, they're just being careful. The weight thing is just logical, since they can't go taking too much blood from a person. I'm fine with the IV drug ban, but the prostitution and m2m sexual contact is just unreasonable.

Why? The statistical curve for possible contamination falls well within the standard model for determining such factors. If the scientific criteria and logic are the same, why is one acceptable but not the others? Would you not also degree that when certain data is unknown or undetermined, it would be best to err on the side of caution in protecting public safety and health?

[ExSailor]

Why? The statistical curve for possible contamination falls well within the standard model for determining such factors. If the scientific criteria and logic are the same, why is one acceptable but not the others? Would you not also degree that when certain data is unknown or undetermined, it would be best to err on the side of caution in protecting public safety and health? As usual your bigotry, biphobia, homophobia, and pozphobia strike again!
While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. Other countries do not have any sort of ban on bisexual or gay men donating blood. When you donate blood it's tested for HIV and other diseases. I can't donate blood but I do know HIV- gay and bisexual men who are angry at how the red cross bans them from donating blood so they just lie and donate blood anyway since it's going to be tested, they get a free HIV test, and even if they are HIV+ or have other diseases their blood will not be used.

[ExSailor]

I was getting calls and reminder cards until I had to put that I had unprotected sex with a man who had sex with men... oops they didn't like that. I even said we were both tested and were clean and was told he could be lying lol. I told them not to call me anymore then I said take me off your disaster relief team and cross me off the call schedule for training CPR. I did a clean break from the ARC over that little bit of bias. Again more pozphobia with your use of the term "clean". People who are HIV+ are not "unclean" or "dirty", it's not like we don't bathe regularly. We just happen to be people who are living with HIV or in some cases AIDS and it does not make us "unclean", "reckless", or all the other BS that pozphobic seronegatives who brag about being "clean DDF" while not always practicing safer sex go on about.

[tenni]

Well, I think that people use the word "clean" a lot to refer to not having X. It is an interesting point though to raise. It may show a lack of empathy and support for people living with HIV.

Interesting, I tried to get specifics from the organization that collects blood in Canada. As far as same sex actions, it is rather evasive on the cover page on any website. It refers you to send an email to ask questions. One thing mentioned that I don't normally think of is Malaria. If you have been in countries with high rates of malaria, you are not permitted to give blood for a certain amount of time after your return.

[darkeyes]

It isn't a word I would use in respect of HIV or any std is "clean".. "clear" maybe,as we say about any medical test if we were seen to be free of illness or infection... but my partner uses the expression when discussing her heroin addiction almost casually.. she is "clean" and has been for a long time.. I don't think it to be a sign of phobia, more an almost thoughtless and absent minded pick up of a commonly used expression...but having said that.. having been tested frequently for HIV and other std's over the years, "clean" isn't a word I have used and neither does Kate for she too has been tested regularly and frequently... "free" or "clear" are most commonly used in my experience and more accurately descriptive of the reality of testing for any virus, infection or illness... even a narcotic addiction, Kate me luffly... :bigrin:

[tenni]

I see your point darkeyes. I also see it as a wake up call to those of us who are not living with HIV to be more sensitive. I think that people have connected HIV with being dirty and diseased infected rather than living with HIV. Just as calling a group of persecuted people by names that they do not want due to all kinds of negative connotations, we should be more sensitive. Sometimes it does feel better to be called a Sex Trade Worker than a slutty hooker. Sometimes it feels better to be referred to as a person living with HIV than a dirty infested AIDS guy.

[DuckiesDarling]

holy fucking christ clean is not a fucking term signifying anything other than clean. get off your fucking high horses you idiots who seem to want to start a war over any fucking word that is fucking used, that enough dirty talk for you or should i clean it up?

[BiDaveDtown]

holy fucking christ clean is not a fucking term signifying anything other than clean. get off your fucking high horses you idiots who seem to want to start a war over any fucking word that is fucking used, that enough dirty talk for you or should i clean it up? Actually the term is HIV negative or (insert STD name here) negative.

[ExSailor]

I see your point darkeyes. I also see it as a wake up call to those of us who are not living with HIV to be more sensitive. I think that people have connected HIV with being dirty and diseased infected rather than living with HIV. Just as calling a group of persecuted people by names that they do not want due to all kinds of negative connotations, we should be more sensitive. Sometimes it does feel better to be called a Sex Trade Worker than a slutty hooker. Sometimes it feels better to be referred to as a person living with HIV than a dirty infested AIDS guy. As someone who actually was a male prostitute as a young adult I have no qualms over the terms prostitute, hustler, slutty hooker, male whore, etc. Calling people like me a "sex worker" is just silly even when I was not "working" as a hustler or male prostitute I was still out having sex! I just did not charge whoever I was having sex with for having sex with them.
holy fucking christ clean is not a fucking term signifying anything other than clean. get off your fucking high horses you idiots who seem to want to start a war over any fucking word that is fucking used, that enough dirty talk for you or should i clean it up? These people who say "I am clean" or "I'm DDF", many of them already have STDs and some STDs are forever, you know! For example anal warts and/or herpes even cold sores, and hepatitis. You can't change your HIV+ status, and you dont need to waste your time with ANYONE who divides the world into "cleans" and "dirties". Using the word clean to describe the state of someone's sexual health implies that those of us who live with hiv or other STDs are "dirty". Anyone who in this day and age still uses "DDF UB2" or "I'm clean UB2" is rather tacky and an idiot. They wouldn't get anything from me or my HIV neg partners. This "clean" idea is very common in many languages. I think it's related to seeing sex as something "dirty". Very stupid and offensive. That DDF/Clean BS is a really great indicator of where someone is, intellectually and emotionally. It means that they are not only trying to sero-sort based on internet commentary and BS that people claim about how they're "clean/DDF" or HIV- but really are not or have no idea if they are, but that their sexual practices will reflect this. Forget the crap about their insisting on safer sex. They won't. If you use the word clean to ask people about disease you are not only being rude and ignorant but also stupid. When I hear clean I think of a clean body or personal hygiene, or certain sex acts like some men and women will say how they will only eat or rim a "clean" ass and that's what I will answer to. I tell everyone who I'm sexually active with that I'm HIV+ and my profiles on sites say this about me. I'm clean, I just got out of the shower about ten minutes ago. Oh, and by the way, I'm hiv positive. Deal with it. :D If you shower, and have decent hygiene then you're clean.

[æonpax]

Semantic piffle, ambiguity or equivocation are the realm of the trolls and uninformed. An argument from this position would be something taking a piece of a statement, or a selective portion of a statement, and making a, perhaps, logical point from it. Such as a parsed quote, a quote out of context, or ambiguous grammar. Which means that there is no actual argument made, it's a mistake and a misinterpretation only. Which, of course, can be difficult to spot, if we're not careful about what kind of words we're using but common when posting online

Conversely, it's important to understand that overinterpreting semantic ambiguity is what some posters and most politicians will bank on that their audience will fall for. The same for arrogant ****s who think they're clever. So questioning what people say - "what did you mean by that?", and "how come this refers to this and not that" - is important to be able to do. For your own arguments, as well as for arguments others make. If you can't dazzle them with facts and knowledge, baffle them with quibbling.

It's of course also typical that people use different terminology for the same things. And so argue against another position based on different semantic meanings - which is utterly fruitless, and for those whom are educated, is a false argument.

[darkeyes]

holy fucking christ clean is not a fucking term signifying anything other than clean. get off your fucking high horses you idiots who seem to want to start a war over any fucking word that is fucking used, that enough dirty talk for you or should i clean it up?
Yes you should.:bigrin:;)

[DuckiesDarling]

Yes you should.:bigrin:;)

Asks Kate for permission, grabs Fran and heads to the showers :D

[darkeyes]

Asks Kate for permission, grabs Fran and heads to the showers :D
ooooo darlin' darlin'.. didnt kno u cared..... *laffs*

[darkeyes]

Semantic piffle, ambiguity or equivocation are the realm of the trolls and uninformed. An argument from this position would be something taking a piece of a statement, or a selective portion of a statement, and making a, perhaps, logical point from it. Such as a parsed quote, a quote out of context, or ambiguous grammar. Which means that there is no actual argument made, it's a mistake and a misinterpretation only. Which, of course, can be difficult to spot, if we're not careful about what kind of words we're using but common when posting online

Conversely, it's important to understand that overinterpreting semantic ambiguity is what some posters and most politicians will bank on that their audience will fall for. The same for arrogant ****s who think they're clever. So questioning what people say - "what did you mean by that?", and "how come this refers to this and not that" - is important to be able to do. For your own arguments, as well as for arguments others make. If you can't dazzle them with facts and knowledge, baffle them with quibbling.

It's of course also typical that people use different terminology for the same things. And so argue against another position based on different semantic meanings - which is utterly fruitless, and for those whom are educated, is a false argument.
It is only semantics if we set aside the feelings of others..

[CurEUs_Male]

Does the definition of "having sex" include receiving fellatio from a woman or a man? What about performing fellatio or cunnilingus on a woman?

Depends on who, sitting in the White House, is answering this :)

[æonpax]

It is only semantics if we set aside the feelings of others..

Within the context I was referring to, that makes no sense. Please explain. I'm talking about argumentative fallacies.

[tenni]

Post 16
While I respect your first hand experience as a sex trade worker in the past. In my area of the world, there is a self empowering effort for sex trade workers to wish to be referred to that way due to the negative power of words previously used. There is actually a collective or union of sex trade workers. Ther issue of HIV involving sex trade workers is a prime interest of this union. How sex trade workers are dealt with by the police and medical profession is important to them. They chose the term sex trade worker for semantic and political reasons. Presently, where I live there are no laws governing sex trade workers but within the past few month positive legal steps have been made to destigmatize the sex trade and legalize brothels so that sex trade workers have a safe place to work. I'm not sure if sex trade workers are banned from giving blood.


Post 17
"It's of course also typical that people use different terminology for the same things. And so argue against another position based on different semantic meanings - which is utterly fruitless, and for those whom are educated, is a false argument."

I do not see the connection to blood donations with this post? The poster failed to connect her words to anything posted previously? What post is she referring to?

The reason that semantics becomes important is so that you may be discussing a point with a common understanding of our use of language imo. In this sense I think that I agree partially with post 19 in this area.

What is poster 17's education since she keeps referring to (her?) intelligence and education?

[æonpax]

I do not see the connection to blood donations with this post? The poster failed to connect her words to anything posted previously? What post is she referring to?

The reason that semantics becomes important is so that you may be discussing a point with a common understanding of our use of language imo. In this sense I think that I agree partially with post 19 in this area.

What is poster 17's education since she keeps referring to (her?) intelligence and education?

Of course you don't understand.

The objection to the word “clean” in post #10, reeks of a dysfunctional child desperately looking to be offended by something. Especially in colloquial discourse online, the casual use of certain words which can be used interchangeably, is normal and most importantly, rational. A person finding objection to the use of a word which is clearly not intended to be disparaging or otherwise demeaning, has lost all objectivity and has (in this case) become a pariah to his own cause.

It was in post #10 where this ceased to be an adult conversation about a matter of concern, and becomes a staging ground for another one of his mindless and illogical rants. The use of the word “clean” also became another “false argument.”

In the informal world of argumentive conversation, #10’s objection to a mere semantical nuance comes out as false, in in this particular case, childish.

Why does the poster in #25, keep asking insubstantial rhetorical questions?

[tenni]

hmm I think that it might have been best for Aeon to add to her post 26 "in my opinion". All that she writes is an opinion and a rather hostile opinion to boot.

In post 10, a man with HIV points out that using the word "clean" has a derogatory meaning to people living with HIV. It makes a poz person feel "unclean and reckless". He uses the word pozphobic.

Just because a heroin addict is comfortable using the word "clean" to refer to not using heroin doesn't equate with the use of the word "clean" when referring to poz people. They have had different societal reactions and histories. Both negative but the phobia towards poz people has been much more reactive in a hostile manner due to the spread of both being seen differently. Heroin addicts can become poz but not as frequently sexually and not originally from practicing unsafe same sex activity.(which has its own bag of phobia attached to it that heroin addicts don't have).

Some posters , all female, have responded hostile toward post 10 imo. In my opinion this is cruel and not the way that I would expect bisexuals and those who claim to be supportive of bisexuals should react on a bisexual site. What is wrong with you women that you can not show some empathy, sensitivity and support with you language? An HIV positive person points out insensitivity and you spend time on this thread arguing that his feelings and other poz people are of little significance to you.

Poster in number 10 is not disfunctional to add more slurs to Aeon's other posts. He is HIV poz. Is she inferring that he is disfunctional because he has HIV or because he has referred to poster 26 as biphobic and pozphobic? It seems to me that both posters of 26 & 7 seem to be in deed pozphobic and rather hostile with their use of slurs towards a HIV positive biman. I may be wrong but did not Saylor state in another thread that he became poz through a rape? What kind of cruel people are you two? Would you post in this manner if Saylor were a woman complaining about how a man was writing about rape victims and the language used towards female rape victims who had become HIV? I doubt it.

[Brian]

You should not donate if you are at risk for contracting HIV (the virus that causes AIDS). The following activities would cause you to be at risk:


If you have ever used a needle, even once, to take any illegal or non-prescription drug.
If you have ever taken money or drugs for sex since 1977.
If you are a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has taken money or drugs in exchange for sex since 1977.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has ever used a needle for illegal or non-prescription drug.
If, in the past 12 months, you have given money or drugs to have sex with you.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has taken clotting factor concentrates.
If, in the past 12 months, you have had sex, even once, with anyone who has had AIDS or tested positive for the AIDS virus.
If, you are a female who, in the past 12 months, has had sex with a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977.
If you were born or have lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, Nigeria, since 1977.
If, since 1977 you have received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of those countries listed above.
If, you have had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of those countries listed above


Kind of seems like some of these don't make much sense to me. So I could have had sex with someone that tested positive for AIDS in 13 months but if I have EVER had sex with another male (doesn't specify if protected-condom-or not) then I can't give blood unless it happened before 1977? Seems kind of anti gay/bisexual to me with a few questions. Granted-still only been with a couple females but it appears if I ever do get with a male I am done donating blood. And since I can donate to 1/2 the populations with my blood type that sucks.

Basically-just as long as I stick only with females and don't pay them for it in any way it appears to be fine by the rules? I could meet a different one every day and not even be protected and be fine?
Thoughts/comments? I am all for safety-just hard to believe that if I would have had male to male sex Dec 31 1976 I am safe but Jan 1st 1977 I am not.
I think the Red Cross (and its equivalents, ie Canada Blood Services here) in a lot of western countries are behind the times (that is behind the latest science/medicine) on this stuff. There was an article in my local paper on this a few months back, but I cannot find it now.

After completely bungling (I am hesitant to say bungling as it may be too generous considering that, depending on your jurisdiction and opinion, the actions could be described as "criminal") the original AIDS/HIV epidemic they have rules now that they are hesitant to change. Considering their record on the subject, maybe they *should* make changes VERY slowly. But there is some science-defying injustice there I think. One of those little things perhaps we just have to accept as unchangeable for now considering the Red Cross` record on wise diligence.

- Drew :paw:

[Long Duck Dong]

there was a few issues in NZ where I live, where the blood screening test failed, and it was found that the screened blood was not safe to use..... it actually turned out to be the outfit that screened the blood, was not doing it properly at all.....

anyways, we have some of the oddest rules in NZ on blood donations.... http://www.nzblood.co.nz/Give-blood/Donating/Detailed-eligibility-criteria

Lived in the UK - can I donate blood if I have lived in the UK, France or the Republic of Ireland?If you lived in the UK, France or the Republic of Ireland for a total of six months or more between 1980 and 1996 then unfortunately you will be permanently deferred from donating blood in New Zealand.
This is because of CJD and vCJD – the human form of “mad cow disease”. We simply do not know enough about these conditions and how they are spread. At present there are no tests available to detect these conditions in blood donations. As a result, New Zealand and many other countries have introduced this criteria. People who have visited or lived for 6 months or more between 1980 and 1996 in the UK, France or the Republic of Ireland where there may be an increased risk of acquiring vCJD may not give blood donations. The same applies to people who have received transfusions in these countries since 1980.



there is a 5 year stand down period for giving blood if a male has had protected or unprotected sex with another male, and I actually know that its cos of the cost of the hiv / aids screening test in NZ, its more expensive to screen blood for hiv / aids than for most other issues...

[DuckiesDarling]

hmm I think that it might have been best for Aeon to add to her post 26 "in my opinion". All that she writes is an opinion and a rather hostile opinion to boot.

In post 10, a man with HIV points out that using the word "clean" has a derogatory meaning to people living with HIV. It makes a poz person feel "unclean and reckless". He uses the word pozphobic.

Just because a heroin addict is comfortable using the word "clean" to refer to not using heroin doesn't equate with the use of the word "clean" when referring to poz people. They have had different societal reactions and histories. Both negative but the phobia towards poz people has been much more reactive in a hostile manner due to the spread of both being seen differently. Heroin addicts can become poz but not as frequently sexually and not originally from practicing unsafe same sex activity.(which has its own bag of phobia attached to it that heroin addicts don't have).

Some posters , all female, have responded hostile toward post 10 imo. In my opinion this is cruel and not the way that I would expect bisexuals and those who claim to be supportive of bisexuals should react on a bisexual site. What is wrong with you women that you can not show some empathy, sensitivity and support with you language? An HIV positive person points out insensitivity and you spend time on this thread arguing that his feelings and other poz people are of little significance to you.

Poster in number 10 is not disfunctional to add more slurs to Aeon's other posts. He is HIV poz. Is she inferring that he is disfunctional because he has HIV or because he has referred to poster 26 as biphobic and pozphobic? It seems to me that both posters of 26 & 7 seem to be in deed pozphobic and rather hostile with their use of slurs towards a HIV positive biman. I may be wrong but did not Saylor state in another thread that he became poz through a rape? What kind of cruel people are you two? Would you post in this manner if Saylor were a woman complaining about how a man was writing about rape victims and the language used towards female rape victims who had become HIV? I doubt it.

Quite frankly if you don't like the way you percieve a word, go complain about all the other things that can be used derogatorily like all the colors, all the sexualities, all the phobias all the everything. Anything can be used offensively if people want to take it offensively. There is nothing derogatory about the word clean except in one twisted posters mind but since you go out of your way to let us know what offends you i'm sure someone will do their best to toss it in your face at every opportunity. Your dragging in a rape play against a rape victim does nothing in my eyes, Tenni. Neither do your backhanded insults at Aeon's intelligence or at Darkeyes partner for her being a sober drug addict who uses the word clean to denote her struggle. Open your mind and get rid of your tunnel vision. There is no jihad against males on this site but you appear to be doing a good job at going after females and for all the wrong reasons.

7719

[æonpax]

<snip>.

hmm I think that it might have been best for Aeon to add to her post 26 "in my opinion". All that she writes is an opinion and a rather hostile opinion to boot.
Considering Tenni asks questions he already knows the answer to (either that or he really is uninformed) I daresay he is the instigator.



In post 10, a man with HIV points out that using the word "clean" has a derogatory meaning to people living with HIV. It makes a poz person feel "unclean and reckless". He uses the word pozphobic.
In post #10, a person who was a history of deliberately looking to start fights about every perceived slight he can imagine, took offense to what any normal, well adjusted person, male or female, would overlook, that is the word “clean.” While there may be more exacting terms, considering it was not done deliberately to taunt or insult, his over-reaction was went way beyond what is considered as acceptable and again be properly viewed as a dysfunction.



Some posters , all female, have responded hostile toward him imo.
What you are doing here is NOT addressing the problem, which is #10’s extreme and abnormal reaction and behavior to things he (in my opinion) delusionally perceives to be personal slights. You are trying to prevaricate this topic and deflecting it by making this a gender issue, which it is not. Looks like you joined the Republican party’s “War On Women.”



In my opinion this is cruel and not the way that I would expect bisexuals and those who claim to be supportive of bisexuals should react on a bisexual site.
Your response is called; “An appeal to emotion” which is another false argument (which you are famous for) in trying to change the subject. How many time must you be told that a person’s sexual orientation does NOT include the extremely wide spectrum of personal beliefs they have and that in this case, bisexuals, who do not all think and act the way you want them to.



Is it more anti bi male garbage coming out of women's typing fingers?
This is NOT a gender issue you are trying to force, in order to evade the topic. You again are resorting to misogynistic responses and whining.



What is wrong with you women that you can not show some empathy, sensitivity and support with you language?
Have you read any of #10’s responses? He NEVER discusses anything. It’s either his way or he goes on the attack. No one, least of all females here, has shown a lack of sensitivity or lack of respect to HIV+ men. #10 creates his own problems and those problems have nothing to do with his orientation or HIV status.



An HIV positive person points out insensitivity and you spend time on this thread arguing that his feelings and other poz people are of little significance to you.
Speaking for myself only, it’s not what he says that is at issue, it’s his complete and absolute failure to rationally discuss anything in a civil manner along with his hypersensitivity.



Poster in number 10 is not disfunctional to add more slurs to your other posts.
It’s not a slur if it’s true.


He is HIV poz.
No one ever doubted that and that’s not at issue.



Are you inferring that he is disfunctional because he has HIV or that fact that he has referred to poster in 26 as biphobic and pozphobic?
Are you deliberately playing dumb here? Do you mean to say you missed the tone of his reply in #10 or just about any of his posts? I daresay, he plays the victim (which you are attempting to paint him) in almost every thread he’s in, with or without me.



It seems to me that both posters are in deed pozphobic and rather disgusting with their use of slurs towards an HIV positive biman.
I’ve said this before, thankfully your opinions reflect an almost insignificant part of all the bisexuals in the community….as do mine for that matter.



I may be wrong but did not Saylor state in another thread that he became poz through a rape?
While such a thing as rape is not only criminal and evil, it has nothing to do with this topic and is another of your inane attempts to change it, trying to manipulate sympathy.



Wtf kind of cruel creatures are you two?
You are going overboard with the pathos now. Give it a rest.



Would you post in this manner if Saylor were a woman complaining about how a man was writing about rape victims who had become HIV?
Get back on topic, will you. It’s not the message, it’s the manner in which its conveyed. In my humble opinion, #10 has a few dysfunctional obsessions. I usually blow him off when he attacks me (he doesn’t like women who think) but now he’s doubled down on his attack rhetoric.



I doubt it.
How much did #10 pay you to come to his defense? Whatever it was, it was utterly wasted. He should have hired me. At least I can mount a rational explanation without going into excessive drama, poor logic or lying. You might try writing fiction, you are good at it.

[tenni]

"Considering Tenni asks questions he already knows the answer to (either that or he really is uninformed) I daresay he is the instigator."

All this is is name calling Aeon and deflection away from your own words and behaviour.

I agree that Ex Saylor does tend to have his favourite statements and you are often included. You seem to be a target because of your anti bimale stance in connection to HIV. Is it surprising that an HIV poz biman would find your words offensive? It isn't to me. As I pointed out, he is not within what you consider the normal range. He is HIV poz and became that way when he was raped. He states that he has sex with a woman and she has remained HIV neg. If such a person indicates that the use of the word "clean" is offenisive, I see his point as valid.

Your behaviour Aeon, also does not fall within the "normal" range either. I will not judge your functionality or disfunctionality.

I agree that I did appeal to the emotion because your posts seems inappropriate and unpleasant. It is a fact that it is only women support your stance against being sensitive to the use of the word "clean" when referring to poz people. I see gender as significant to your position but not all women agree with you. There may be other factors. The fact that you are ignoring that is interesting about your own biases as I indicated that your reaction would be quite different if a rape victim was female and became poz from the rape. Your past posts indicate that you would be rather hostile and self congratulatory on your anti biman stance. Whether attaching your behaviour and a few other women to being a part of a war on women is also an appeal to emotion. It is not all women but there is a gender difference in opinion on this thread as to whether the use of the word "clean" is showing appropriate sensitivity to poz people.

On a side note, I think that a person may be pozphobic and rational at the same time. I see myself as pozphobic based upon the premise that I refuse to have sex with a person who is poz. I don't see pozphobic as having to be irrational. It simply is a fear of becoming poz and more particularly engaging in sex acts with poz people. It seems to me that there may be shades or degrees of biphobia and pozphobia. It is quite possible as drew points out that the blood clinics are pozphobic and not keeping up with the results of research. The same may also apply to safe sex practices and HIV. I'm still not convinced. If there were factors where I became involved with an HIV person, I would have to think long and hard.