You’re absolutely correct - the numbers paint a strong image. Equally right is that HIV rates have been increasing; an unfortunate side-effect of the success of HIV/AIDS activists in removing the stigma associated with the disease, as well as progress in medications. We have a whole generation of LGBT youths who have…

In general I agree with you, especially in a perfect world where sex between men carries no inherent increased risk over any other sort of sex. But the numbers don’t bear that out, and the numbers are what the FDA cares about. Per aids.gov, sexually active gay men remain the group most affected by HIV, and it’s not…

Your last sentence is what resonates with why I find myself so upset over this ruling. I recently married my partner of 10 years. He’s one of a handful of sexual partners I’ve had - and we both regularly get tested to support awareness of knowing your status.

Allow me to offer some civil discourse, since you interpret my embellishments above as arrogant rather than hyperbole.

The argument is that gay men have risky sex and such more often than straight folks and therefore have higher risk of being infected with HIV, but even if such a thing is true, they test every blood donation for the common STIs anyway. This seems like a needless restriction.

Good info, but that is the worst most jumbled info graphic I’ve ever seen. The only thing you can glean at a glance is that it is green.

I keep hearing from people who say “we’ve got to get out of the 2 year cycle mentality. People should spend the $600-$800 on a new phone and plan to keep it for four or five years. Phone technology has plateaued sufficiently to make that a good option.”