Coward.

Jesus you people are stupid on this site. I mean, I can't believe someone pays you to blog when whatever basic education you received failed so badly on its face. You should ask whatever shitty liberal arts school you graduated from for a refund.

My understanding is that Black and Latina women do not have a statistically significant higher rate of infection than the population at large. So no. Even if they did, it is again just a cost-benefit call. If they had rates that were the same as men who have sex with men - and they don't - then there would be little…

Your reasoning is faulty. If a blood center has a limited amount of money to spend on testing blood - and they do - then, yes, they have a very good reason to continue this practice. If men who have sex with men have a significantly higher rejection rate for their blood donation, then rejecting them outright before…

per dollar spent, you fucking dipshit.

They do with respect to IV drug users. As to Black and Latina women, I don't think that is the case. The rates are higher in Black and Latino communities but that is due almost elusively to the behavior of the gay men within that community, who tend to be poorer, less educated, more stigmatized and less likely to…

What is it that you think this demonstrates? Wapo is of course good enough for me, but I don't think you understand the significance of what you are posting. Anyway, this thread has become tiresome. Gay men have higher STD infection rates than other groups and blood centers don't want to spend more money than they…

That the HIV infection rate and the chance a blood donation cannot be used is significantly higher for men who have sex with men than other groups.

Yes, they test the blood. And it costs money to do so, which is wasted if they can't use that blood. So they cut out groups with a statistically significant higher chance of it not being used.

What do you think that WaPo article proves? You want to know what a "strong vigilance program" means to the people running blood programs? It means they spend a lot more money for less blood they can use.

1. It isn't about the the fact that some heterosexuals like anal sex, it is about how many.

The transmission rate is 18 time higher in anal intercourse than it is in vaginal intercourse.

That this is based on homophobia and not statistics is an absurd claim.

really need to dig deeper.

Honestly, not trying to troll but the fact is the HIV infection rate among gay and bisexual men is orders of magnitude higher than it is in the heterosexual population. The chances of transmitting it through anal intercourse are something like 18 times higher than through vaginal intercourse.

It is in fact harder to transmit HIV through vaginal hetero sex than through rectal sex. Like 18 time easier or something like that. This isn't just bigotry. It is statistics.

Not nearly as many as who would be saved if like Europe, the default rule is that you are an organ donor and you need to opt out.

It is something you are highly susceptible to getting and spreading. Even if you are robust and can fight it off pretty easily. Much of the resurgence of whooping cough is due to adults who don't get boosters and contract it - but it seems like just a cold to them - and then they spread it to kids, who are…

Perhaps this is a wakeup call to all journalists to do their job with the requisite diligence. It certainl shows how damaging false accusations of rape can be and why it is important to preserve due process over such allegations without calling such due process misogyny or rape-culture.