Wet Willies Spread AIDS

[BigBadWlf]

But only among gay men

Well at least that is what “expert” witness for the Red Cross appearing before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal are trying to claim
For those not in the know – a wet willie is a juvenile prank that is usually performed on an otherwise unsuspecting person, the perpetrator of a wet willy lierally wets his or her finger with saliva and inserts it into the ear of the victim

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal was organized to demand an explanation from the Red Cross as to why gay men are excluded from giving blood. Dr Paul Holland, a former blood source executive testifying for the Red Cross, claimed even digital penetration of the nose or ear would justify the lifetime ban for gay men on giving blood donations. He claims that receiving a wet willie would be an “exchange of bodily fluid and qualifies as sex.”
www.smh.com.au/

I’m amazed the Red Cross didn’t try to claim one can contract HIV from toilet seats

 

[jcook922]

But only among gay men

Well at least that is what “expert” witness for the Red Cross appearing before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal are trying to claim
For those not in the know – a wet willie is a juvenile prank that is usually performed on an otherwise unsuspecting person, the perpetrator of a wet willy lierally wets his or her finger with saliva and inserts it into the ear of the victim

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal was organized to demand an explanation from the Red Cross as to why gay men are excluded from giving blood. Dr Paul Holland, a former blood source executive testifying for the Red Cross, claimed even digital penetration of the nose or ear would justify the lifetime ban for gay men on giving blood donations. He claims that receiving a wet willie would be an “exchange of bodily fluid and qualifies as sex.”
www.smh.com.au/

I’m amazed the Red Cross didn’t try to claim one can contract HIV from toilet seats

Wow, that's strange. The Red Cross usually has its head more screwed on than that. Testing all donated blood for AIDS is the best way to go, if a person donating blood tests positive then at least they can know sooner rather than later, it might save some lives.

 

[cantata]

Wow, that's strange. The Red Cross usually has its head more screwed on than that. Testing all donated blood for AIDS is the best way to go, if a person donating blood tests positive then at least they can know sooner rather than later, it might save some lives.

Firstly, they test for HIV, not AIDS.

Secondly, certainly in the UK and in America, they do test all donated blood, but there's a 12-22 day period (depending on the test) between infection and testing positive for HIV. That's why individuals deemed to be high-risk are excluded from giving blood (including, but not limited to anyone who's ever been to certain countries, men who have had sex with men, and women who have in the last 12 months had sex with men who've had sex with men).

Although the ruling is misguided, it's not political. All kinds of people are excluded from giving blood in order to reduce as much as possible the risk of passing on infectious diseases via blood transfusion.

My feeling for a long time has been that they should have class A blood which has the lowest infection risk, and class B blood which may have a slightly higher infection risk, but which can be used in emergency situations, especially for patients with rare blood types.

It is arguably better to get HIV than die outright.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Firstly, they test for HIV, not AIDS.

Eh... to a lot of non-medical field people or people who don't have some interest in STDs or such, be it for personal reasons or just curiosity, the two can be used interchangeable. Really, HIV/AIDs to most people work as two sides of one coin. One side of the coins gets the coin passed around, the other side will kill you (or cause other things like the common cold to kill you). It's a naming mistake I make alot.

Secondly, certainly in the UK and in America, they do test all donated blood, but there's a 12-22 day period (depending on the test) between infection and testing positive for HIV. That's why individuals deemed to be high-risk are excluded from giving blood (including, but not limited to anyone who's ever been to certain countries, men who have had sex with men, and women who have in the last 12 months had sex with men who've had sex with men).

But saying men who have sex with men is a form of stereotyping. Maybe in a number of places it is justified, but around where I am at, there are statistically more heterosexuals walking around with STDs which can pass via blood than not, assuming the last statistics I read about my campus were correct. Upon talking those around my home, most of them do not like the thought of being given homosexual blood, not because of an increase in risk, but it comes from homosexuals.

 

[lawtonfogle]

And there you go editing the post I quoted as I am typing up my response to it.

I would be interested... and my scared... to see the rate infected blood gets past the system. Does 1 in every 1000000 infected blood gets pass? Do they have a system so good that this system has never once 'leaked'?

 

[jcook922]

Firstly, they test for HIV, not AIDS.

Secondly, certainly in the UK and in America, they do test all donated blood, but there's a 12-22 day period (depending on the test) between infection and testing positive for HIV. That's why individuals deemed to be high-risk are excluded from giving blood (including, but not limited to anyone who's ever been to certain countries, men who have had sex with men, and women who have in the last 12 months had sex with men who've had sex with men).

Although the ruling is misguided, it's not political. All kinds of people are excluded from giving blood in order to reduce as much as possible the risk of passing on infectious diseases via blood transfusion.

My feeling for a long time has been that they should have class A blood which has the lowest infection risk, and class B blood which may have a slightly higher infection risk, but which can be used in emergency situations, especially for patients with rare blood types.

It is arguably better to get HIV than die outright.

I'd rather we didn't give out infected blood.. What do you mean "low infection risk"?? I thought HIV infected blood was a one shot deal, if it's infected blood you get the disease and that's it. I'd personally opt to only be treated by clean blood, maybe I'll have that stamped into my tags.

 

[cantata]

I'd rather we didn't give out infected blood.. What do you mean "low infection risk"?? I thought HIV infected blood was a one shot deal, if it's infected blood you get the disease and that's it. I'd personally opt to only be treated by clean blood, maybe I'll have that stamped into my tags.

I mean blood taken from those who are deemed to be higher risk individuals.

All blood is tested, but if you catch HIV and then two days later you give blood, the blood won't test positive. So, as I said, there are some groups of people - people who've been to particular countries, for example - who are currently excluded from giving blood, because they're deemed to have a higher risk of having contracted an infection. What I'm suggesting is that those in these higher-risk groups, in particular those with rare blood types, should be able to give blood which is then only used in emergencies where safer blood is not able to be found. Remember, all the blood will be tested. We're just talking about taking blood from people who are slightly more likely than others to have an infection. The fact is that even those in low-risk groups could have infections.

 

[Trevorocity]

a wet willie is a juvenile prank that is usually performed on an otherwise unsuspecting person, the perpetrator of a wet willy lierally wets his or her finger with saliva and inserts it into the ear of the victim

Does that mean my classmates in highschool (who did this constantly to each other and to me) were all gay? Cause I gotta say there's something awfully Freudian about the term 'wet Willie'. Incidentally I never gave the wet willie to anyone since most peoples' ears are disgustingly unsanitary. Yet I turned out gay...go figure!

 

[lawtonfogle]

I mean blood taken from those who are deemed to be higher risk individuals.

All blood is tested, but if you catch HIV and then two days later you give blood, the blood won't test positive. So, as I said, there are some groups of people - people who've been to particular countries, for example - who are currently excluded from giving blood, because they're deemed to have a higher risk of having contracted an infection. What I'm suggesting is that those in these higher-risk groups, in particular those with rare blood types, should be able to give blood which is then only used in emergencies where safer blood is not able to be found. Remember, all the blood will be tested. We're just talking about taking blood from people who are slightly more likely than others to have an infection. The fact is that even those in low-risk groups could have infections.

I know, only let virgins who parents only had one sex partner their whole life give blood. Then you should have a low risk chance... though you probably would have you blood donations cuts down by 5+ magnitudes...

 

[wanderingone]

But saying men who have sex with men is a form of stereotyping. Maybe in a number of places it is justified, but around where I am at, there are statistically more heterosexuals walking around with STDs which can pass via blood than not, assuming the last statistics I read about my campus were correct. Upon talking those around my home, most of them do not like the thought of being given homosexual blood, not because of an increase in risk, but it comes from homosexuals.

Do you know how many other groups cannot give blood in the US? -- A Partial list....

Persons who were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger and Nigeria since 1977 cannot be blood donors.

You spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 5 years or more from January 1, 1980, to present, in any combination of country(ies) in Europe, including

• in the UK from 1980 through 1996 as listed in above
• on or associated with military bases as described above, and
• in other countries in Europe as listed below:
  • Albania
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bosnia/Herzegovina
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Ireland (Republic of)
  • Italy
  • Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
  • Liechtenstein
  • Luxembourg
  • Macedonia
  • Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
  • Netherlands (Holland)
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Serbia (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
  • Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Turkey
  • Yugoslavia (Federal Republic includes Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia)

You were a member of the of the U.S. military, a civilian military employee, or a dependent of a member of the U.S. military who spent a total time of 6 months on or associated with a military base in any of the following areas during the specified time frames

• From 1980 through 1990 - Belgium, the Netherlands (Holland), or Germany
• From 1980 through 1996 - Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Italy or Greece.

From January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1996, you spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 3 months or more, in the United Kingdom (UK), or
From January 1, 1980, to present, you had a blood transfusion in any country(ies) in the (UK). The UK includes any of the countries listed below.

• Channel Islands
• England
• Falkland Islands
• Gibraltar
• Isle of Man
• Northern Ireland
• Scotland
• Wales

People who got a tattoo or piercing in the last 12 months

People who have traveled to Iraq in the last 12 months
People who have traveled to any country where malaria is prevalent.

While the explanation of wet willies is bizarre I know there are a lot of limitations based on risk in specific groups of people, and I'm not sure why that answer wasn't what was provided. Obviously all gay men don't have HIV. I'm not sure how much higher the risk of a disease has to be among a group of people for their to be a ban on accepting blood donations. But considering mad cow disease is the reason a lot of the nations above are included and the statistical rate isn't significant it doesn't surprise me that the red cross in the us has retained it's ban on blood from gay men.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I mean blood taken from those who are deemed to be higher risk individuals.

All blood is tested, but if you catch HIV and then two days later you give blood, the blood won't test positive. So, as I said, there are some groups of people - people who've been to particular countries, for example - who are currently excluded from giving blood, because they're deemed to have a higher risk of having contracted an infection. What I'm suggesting is that those in these higher-risk groups, in particular those with rare blood types, should be able to give blood which is then only used in emergencies where safer blood is not able to be found. Remember, all the blood will be tested. We're just talking about taking blood from people who are slightly more likely than others to have an infection. The fact is that even those in low-risk groups could have infections.

The problem is that with few exceptions everyone is at risk for HIV. There continue to be attempts by certain political and religious groups to paint HIV as a disease of gay men but that description is not accurate and probably never was.

The solution is to accept that HIV/AIDS is a disease every population group is at risk for and monitor blood donations based on individual’s risk factors, rather than entire groups. The blood supply remains safe and the Red Cross isn’t left to spout nonsense about wet willies or kissing in an attempt to justify their outdated policy

 

[BigBadWlf]

Does that mean my classmates in highschool (who did this constantly to each other and to me) were all gay? Cause I gotta say there's something awfully Freudian about the term 'wet Willie'. Incidentally I never gave the wet willie to anyone since most peoples' ears are disgustingly unsanitary. Yet I turned out gay...go figure!

Well as noted this “expert” assured everyone that wet willies only transfer HIV among homosexual. You are perfectly safe when getting a wet willie from a heterosexual.

(I wonder where they found someone willing to spout such non-sense)

You gotta wonder if this “expert” thinks that if you received blood from someone of a different race your skin would change color.

 

[cantata]

While the explanation of wet willies is bizarre I know there are a lot of limitations based on risk in specific groups of people, and I'm not sure why that answer wasn't what was provided. Obviously all gay men don't have HIV. I'm not sure how much higher the risk of a disease has to be among a group of people for their to be a ban on accepting blood donations. But considering mad cow disease is the reason a lot of the nations above are included and the statistical rate isn't significant it doesn't surprise me that the red cross in the us has retained it's ban on blood from gay men.

Much better explanation than I managed.

 

[cantata]

The problem is that with few exceptions everyone is at risk for HIV. There continue to be attempts by certain political and religious groups to paint HIV as a disease of gay men but that description is not accurate and probably never was.

The solution is to accept that HIV/AIDS is a disease every population group is at risk for and monitor blood donations based on individual’s risk factors, rather than entire groups. The blood supply remains safe and the Red Cross isn’t left to spout nonsense about wet willies or kissing in an attempt to justify their outdated policy

No organisation is obliged to accept donated blood from anyone. I am quite sure that the organisations which refuse blood from men who have had sex with men do so because statistically you are more likely to be infected with HIV if you are a man who has sex with men than you are if you only have sex with people of the opposite sex. That is, unfortunately, a fact. Yes, everyone is at risk. But men who have same-sex sex are at greater risk. See, for example:

"Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through sexual contact between men. Around 61% of people newly diagnosed with HIV infection in the period 2002-2006 were men with a history of homosexual contact; 19% were probably exposed through heterosexual contact" - Source.

"In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive." Source.

"While safer sex, through the use of condoms, does reduce the transmission of infections, it cannot eliminate the risk altogether. Men who have sex with men continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV and account for 63% of HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK. Epidemiological evidence in the UK also shows that there has been a significant increase in sexually-transmitted infections which can also be blood-borne, such as hepatitis B and syphilis, among men who have sex with men. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, there has been a 117% increase in syphilis infections in men who have sex with men." Source (a page with a link to a PDF) - this is from the UK National Blood Service.
​

It's absolutely true that there are more straight than gay people with HIV in the world, but there is a disproportionately high number of gay men with HIV (and other infections). Unfortunately whatever one's political and ethical views, one is not permitted to lie about or ignore the facts because they are troubling.

I think that the Red Cross and other blood donation organisations are, frankly, entitled to save money by excluding certain groups rather than interviewing every individual qualitatively and probably embarrassingly about their personal sexual behaviours. Hey, I've been hit by the rule - I had a bisexual boyfriend for a while and couldn't give blood for a year afterwards. I've also had my ears pierced - that's a no-no too. But really, a medical organisation is not obliged to take risks in order to be politically correct. It is obliged to protect patients. I recommend reading the PDF I linked to above. It states the UK National Blood Service's position on accepting blood from men who have sex with men very clearly, concisely, and reasonably.

 

[wanderingone]

Much better explanation than I managed.

Except apparently I can no longer manage their, there and they're in a sentence.. LOL.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Secondly, certainly in the UK and in America, they do test all donated blood, but there's a 12-22 day period (depending on the test) between infection and testing positive for HIV. That's why individuals deemed to be high-risk are excluded from giving blood (including, but not limited to anyone who's ever been to certain countries, men who have had sex with men, and women who have in the last 12 months had sex with men who've had sex with men).

The rules are absurd though. As a man, having protected sex with another man makes me ineligible for life to give blood. But a woman could have just had unprotected sex with a bunch of strangers before going to give blood, as long as she didn't have sex for drugs or money.

If they test all the blood, why exclude anyone? And, more importantly, if calling us 'high risk' isn't a leftover of homophobia, why aren't they more discerning than just sexuality? When I went to give blood, I couldn't because I'd received oral sex from another man about 12 months previously. I don't really think that makes me high risk, certainly not more so than the people that can legitimately have unprotected heterosexual sex at any time before giving blood. My mate had unprotected heterosexual sex with a woman he barely knew the night before he gave blood for the first time. Surely that makes his blood more high risk than mine.

Whilst there's still no national NHS database, I might go to give blood and pretend to be straight and/or a virgin. As patronising as the state is, I'm not so stupid not to be careful or to be unaware of having an STI. I have a lot of straight friends who aren't careful at all when it comes to having safe sex, but they can give blood fine. Whereas I have to give intimate details of my sex life to a nurse in a little booth and then be rejected purely because I'm gay. If that's not homophobia, what is?

 

[cantata]

The rules are absurd though. As a man, having protected sex with another man makes me ineligible for life to give blood. But a woman could have just had unprotected sex with a bunch of strangers before going to give blood, as long as she didn't have sex for drugs or money.

If they test all the blood, why exclude anyone? And, more importantly, if calling us 'high risk' isn't a leftover of homophobia, why aren't they more discerning than just sexuality? When I went to give blood, I couldn't because I'd received oral sex from another man about 12 months previously. I don't really think that makes me high risk, certainly not more so than the people that can legitimately have unprotected heterosexual sex at any time before giving blood. My mate had unprotected heterosexual sex with a woman he barely knew the night before he gave blood for the first time. Surely that makes his blood more high risk than mine.

Whilst there's still no national NHS database, I might go to give blood and pretend to be straight and/or a virgin. As patronising as the state is, I'm not so stupid not to be careful or to be unaware of having an STI. I have a lot of straight friends who aren't careful at all when it comes to having safe sex, but they can give blood fine. Whereas I have to give intimate details of my sex life to a nurse in a little booth and then be rejected purely because I'm gay. If that's not homophobia, what is?

As I say, they test all the blood but there is still a window during which a new infection won't test positive.

They do it on the basis of whom you have had sex with, not your sexual orientation. That's why women who have sex with women are allowed to give blood, as are homosexual men who have never had sex with a man. Heterosexual men who have had sex with men are not allowed to give blood. So I repeat, it is not on the basis of sexual orientation, but with whom you have had sex.

I urge you to simply read the National Blood Service's own explanation for their decision. I would say that it basically comes down to cost. It's much easier and cheaper to say, "Have you ever done x, y, z?" on a form than to interview individuals to ascertain whether or not they are responsible enough in their personal sexual habits to be permitted to give blood. Because really, that's what it would take.

They have the following warning on their website:

"Please don't give blood if you THINK you need a test for HIV or Hepatitis, or if you have had sex with someone in the last year you think may be HIV positive or Hepatitis positive. ... We rely on your help and co-operation."

One of the questions is:

"Have you had sex with someone during the last 12 months who is, or may be, HIV positive, or a carrier of Hepatitis B or C?"

Your friends, therefore, should have been more careful in answering questions when they went to give blood.

 

[BigBadWlf]

As I say, they test all the blood but there is still a window during which a new infection won't test positive.

They do it on the basis of whom you have had sex with, not your sexual orientation. That's why women who have sex with women are allowed to give blood, as are homosexual men who have never had sex with a man. Heterosexual men who have had sex with men are not allowed to give blood. So I repeat, it is not on the basis of sexual orientation, but with whom you have had sex.

I urge you to simply read the National Blood Service's own explanation for their decision. I would say that it basically comes down to cost. It's much easier and cheaper to say, "Have you ever done x, y, z?" on a form than to interview individuals to ascertain whether or not they are responsible enough in their personal sexual habits to be permitted to give blood. Because really, that's what it would take.

They have the following warning on their website:

"Please don't give blood if you THINK you need a test for HIV or Hepatitis, or if you have had sex with someone in the last year you think may be HIV positive or Hepatitis positive. ... We rely on your help and co-operation."

One of the questions is:

"Have you had sex with someone during the last 12 months who is, or may be, HIV positive, or a carrier of Hepatitis B or C?"

Your friends, therefore, should have been more careful in answering questions when they went to give blood.

No disqualification is based on sexual orientation.

And homophobia is rampant enough that gay men is the only minority they would dare do something like this with

In North America 40% of all HIV cases are in African American women yet the Red Cross does not exclude (nor would they attempt to exclude) that “high risk” group.

 

[cantata]

No disqualification is based on sexual orientation.

I take it you mean "No, disqualification is based on sexual orientation."

And homophobia is rampant enough that gay men is the only minority they would dare do something like this with

And bisexual men, and straight men who have had sex with men.

And people with tattoos and piercings, and people who have acupuncture, and people who inject drugs (including body-building drugs), and people who have had sex with people who might be HIV positive or carriers of Hep B or C.

In North America 40% of all HIV cases are in African American women yet the Red Cross does not exclude (nor would they attempt to exclude) that “high risk” group.

Well, I am speaking only for the UK National Blood Service - and in this country, you are excluded if you have had sex in many African countries, or if you've had sex with someone who's had sex in those countries, or if you've spent more than a certain amount of time in Africa or South America. Which would automatically exclude a lot of black people.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

The homophobia isn't direct, as being gay and having same-sex intercourse are different things. But it is the assumption that gay males are less careful and inherently more likely to have a disease that is homophobic.

How does it save money if they test the blood anyway? And if new infections don't come up for a time, why is it that a man who had protected sex with another man (or a woman that has had sex with men who have slept with men) 50 years ago is still not allowed to give blood? Does it ever take that long for a HIV positive result to come up?

Anyone may be HIV positive or have hepatitis, but people who have straight/lesbian intercourse are considered intelligent enough to guess if a partner has or may have a disease, whereas gay men are treated like we're all getting high on crystal meth and whoring ourselves out on the street.

At the end of the day, the policy of banning gay men is no more scientific or egalitarian than the idea that you can get AIDS from a toilet seat. In the minds of the backwards people that made this decision, being a gay male = having AIDS and having AIDS = being a gay male.