Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Young black gay men, black women and white gay men in their 30s and 40s are much more likely to be newly infected with HIV than other groups in the United States, according to a new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
...
It shows 53 percent of the estimated 56,000 cases of new HIV infection in 2006 were among gay and bisexual men, and 46 percent of the infections occurred among blacks. Within the gay and bisexual group, young black men (13 to 29 years old ) were roughly twice as likely to get infected as young white and young Hispanic men. And among women, black women were almost 15 times more likely to get HIV than white women and almost four times more likely than Hispanic women.
*emphasis mine
Still obviously a problem, is it not? Black women still pose a significantly higher risk yet are freely able to distribute their blood to the wiling millions.
I'm with the other guy. We should only be accepting blood from Asian and Pacific women...it's "best for society" that way.
Then we come to the risk of HIV transmission, which can't be ruled out even for those who believe they're in a monogamous relationship. Though research is thin, one study claims unprotected anal sex subjects a heterosexual woman to between 20 and 500 times the risk of HIV infection compared to unprotected regular sex. One problem is that backdoor sex often means lower condom use. A California study of female participants in heterosexual anal sex showed 74 percent never used condoms; a survey of midwestern college students showed condoms were about half as likely to be used during anal sex as vaginal.
Can anyone explain why MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the US each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections)?
HIV is easily transmitted via anal sex, and men who have sex with men are already more likely than others to be carrying the HIV virus. Of course, neither of these facts answer the more pressing question: Are blood donations tested for HIV or are they not?
I do not think that gay men should be giving blood due to their lifestyles and high chance of possibly carrying HIV.
Really? How about gay men who are celibate or who have never had anal sex? If you're going to make generalizations and assumptions, then you should also be against black heterosexual women donating blood.
Really? How about gay men who are celibate or who have never had anal sex? If you're going to make generalizations and assumptions, then you should also be against black heterosexual women donating blood.
we should also be against men and women who have multiple partners and don't practice safe sex too
Ya know what? I'm not saying people have to like gays or whoever. But I find it disgusting that the homophobes try EVERYTHING they can to keep gays and lesbians from anything. It can be the smallest thing on the planet, it can be something they could not care less about. No gays teaching in schools, no gays in the military, no gays as blood donors, no gay-marriage etc. It is not of your business. Of course they check the blood. Most of you just agree with the ban because they don't like gays, and not because they are genuinely concerned about it. Give me a break. If you could get away with it, those who voted yes would probably also like to see blacks on the list... And how is "there are false tests taking place all the time"an excuse for that? Such bull****. Hate to break it to you, but straight people have AIDS too, you know. BTW, it's spelled "disease"....
Bottom line: You don't care about any risks, you just care about your homophobie.
So true. It's the same people, time and time again. They're against gays in the military, they're against gay relationships, they're against gays teaching in the schools, and on and on. If they could ban gays from voting, they would do it.
Don't forget heterosexual couples are presumably engaging in vaginal intercourse as well as anal. Transmission rates would be different.
Here's a very shocking statistic:
Quote:
Among heterosexuals reported rates of condom use are nearly universally lower for anal than for vaginal intercourse. U.S. survey and other data suggest that, in terms of absolute numbers, approximately seven times more women than homosexual men engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
