I wrote this post without bias just as I do each of these discussion posts. Comments are for debate, which is where I share my opinion, which is independent of and not necessarily in line with that of Neatorama. As for your censored comment, I haven't deleted any. But I'm not the boss around these parts, just the chick who writes here sometimes. If your comment was removed then it either contained profanity, an assault of character, or was deemed overly vitriolic by someone in charge of determining whether the comments have gotten out of hand. Personally I think your remark about JohnJ's math skills was out of line, but you can see it's still there.
Statistically, black men are the largest ethnic demographic for HIV incidence according the CDC. Should we now ban blood donations from black men?
Statistically, female sexual partners of MSM are more likely to contract and pass along HIV than a male, yet they are deferred for 12 months from exposure.
Statistically, the incidence of confirmed HIV contamination of donations was not higher after than before the ban was lifted in Australia. The total number of donations were higher, though.
The good thing about the US being behind in this particular area is that we can watch hard data roll in from countries who have loosened the MSM donor restrictions to see if there is evidence of increased public risk. If not, then perpetuating the ban is senselessly limiting the available resources for people who need blood transfusions based on an imaginary risk perpetuated by a willful disregard for evidence against it. Statistically, this would mean that more people will die from a lack of available blood than from contracting HIV from a tainted transfusion.
Any group will represent something statistically that is not true for the group as a whole. So rather than targeting a demographic that represents the highest risk, why not target the source of the problem, which in this case is being in contact with HIV any time in the previous 12 months. Anyone can catch it, anyone can spread it, and anyone can engage in the behavior that encourages both of these things. So ask the questions that determine the individual's risk rather than assuming it exists (or in the case of everyone who isn't a gay or bisexual male, assuming it doesn't exist).
The silliness here, in my opinion, is that they already test all the blood for HIV anyway, defer patients for other risky behavior anyway, and ask donors most of the pertinent questions regardless of their Kinsey scale rating anyway. If all of the systems are already in place to open donations from gay men, then why restrict further what is an already limited resource?
JohnJ's point about risky behavior is made nicely by Ginsberg in the interview linked in the article: If a monogamous gay couple who test negative for HIV are banned from donating blood, why then is a woman who was exposed to HIV over 12 months prior allowed to donate? The deferral makes sense, and a continued ban on donations for a risk that can easily be tested for is simply discriminatory.
I donate platelets regularly because a friend who works for the Oklahoma Blood Institute was born in Germany and has a lifetime deferral. (Employees are required to donate or have someone do it on their behalf.) The questionnaire is definitely intense, but I always laugh. "Nope, still haven't had that brain membrane transplant. Still haven't used intravenous drugs with a recycled needle. Still not a man who sleeps with men."
A reader emailed to ask for clarification on my use of the words "traditional" and "new" in the last paragraphs of this post. To which I replied:
The definition of "new" that I use here is one which describes marriage as we are familiar with it--husband, wife, kids--defined for us by our parents and theirs in the 20th century. That is, specifically, a marriage sought on the basis of affection rather than material gain (property, wealth, nobility or familial ties), which was common in the preceding centuries. It also was meant to include only a husband and wife; as marriage transformed to the union for companionship and affection that we know now as "marriage," the commonly kept and acceptable mistress and secret lovers of past centuries became declasse and, in general, wholly prohibited. So in short, the marriage that we would now define as "traditional" is one founded on love and exclusivity, which we come to expect from a traditional marriage. Historically, neither of these things were expected or particularly valued in a marital union, as couples were aligned for the purpose of protection of land, property, wealth and bloodline.
In the last half-century, the rising acceptance of alternative marital arrangements (open or polyamorous marriage, common law, same-sex and second, third, fourth spouses) has veered strongly from what modern Americans would call "traditional."
I think Rumson and Alex make good points--people do live longer and expect to know people who don't live within their immediate vicinity. The fact that we're all here discussing this speaks to that. And I do agree that remaining unmarried is a better alternative than marriage that will likely end in divorce (or worse yet, a couple or three of them) when there are kids. Though the nuclear family is ideal, people should be realistic about their relationships and what they expect of themselves and for their kids. I would prefer to see kids growing up with happy-but-unwed mothers than in a household where marital tension affects their ability to develop strong and healthy relationships in the future.
As for Bolick's points--if you're happy and don't feel that being married is something you require to maintain satisfaction with life, then why marry? Critics of her article say it's "sad" and that she's atoning for bad decisions. I disagree; I think she found what works for her and is eager to show other women in similar situations that it's ok.
My big concern here is that allowing a kid to get a nose job in response to being bullied is that you tech kids that there's something wrong with not looking exactly like everyone else. It reinforces aesthetic homogeny and the (terrible) idea that if someone dislikes something about you that you should change it. When you're 14, you get teased. Everyone does. Kids are evil little things and that's not to say that it's ok, but there are different (and less invasive) ways to fix a bullying situation that will improve a child's character rather than their face.
Statistically, female sexual partners of MSM are more likely to contract and pass along HIV than a male, yet they are deferred for 12 months from exposure.
Statistically, the incidence of confirmed HIV contamination of donations was not higher after than before the ban was lifted in Australia. The total number of donations were higher, though.
The good thing about the US being behind in this particular area is that we can watch hard data roll in from countries who have loosened the MSM donor restrictions to see if there is evidence of increased public risk. If not, then perpetuating the ban is senselessly limiting the available resources for people who need blood transfusions based on an imaginary risk perpetuated by a willful disregard for evidence against it. Statistically, this would mean that more people will die from a lack of available blood than from contracting HIV from a tainted transfusion.
Any group will represent something statistically that is not true for the group as a whole. So rather than targeting a demographic that represents the highest risk, why not target the source of the problem, which in this case is being in contact with HIV any time in the previous 12 months. Anyone can catch it, anyone can spread it, and anyone can engage in the behavior that encourages both of these things. So ask the questions that determine the individual's risk rather than assuming it exists (or in the case of everyone who isn't a gay or bisexual male, assuming it doesn't exist).
(Paragraph 2, Donor Policy Fact Sheet: http://www.donateblood.com.au/files/images/Male%20to%20male%20sex%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202010.pdf)
JohnJ's point about risky behavior is made nicely by Ginsberg in the interview linked in the article: If a monogamous gay couple who test negative for HIV are banned from donating blood, why then is a woman who was exposed to HIV over 12 months prior allowed to donate? The deferral makes sense, and a continued ban on donations for a risk that can easily be tested for is simply discriminatory.
The definition of "new" that I use here is one which describes marriage as we are familiar with it--husband, wife, kids--defined for us by our parents and theirs in the 20th century. That is, specifically, a marriage sought on the basis of affection rather than material gain (property, wealth, nobility or familial ties), which was common in the preceding centuries. It also was meant to include only a husband and wife; as marriage transformed to the union for companionship and affection that we know now as "marriage," the commonly kept and acceptable mistress and secret lovers of past centuries became declasse and, in general, wholly prohibited. So in short, the marriage that we would now define as "traditional" is one founded on love and exclusivity, which we come to expect from a traditional marriage. Historically, neither of these things were expected or particularly valued in a marital union, as couples were aligned for the purpose of protection of land, property, wealth and bloodline.
In the last half-century, the rising acceptance of alternative marital arrangements (open or polyamorous marriage, common law, same-sex and second, third, fourth spouses) has veered strongly from what modern Americans would call "traditional."
As for Bolick's points--if you're happy and don't feel that being married is something you require to maintain satisfaction with life, then why marry? Critics of her article say it's "sad" and that she's atoning for bad decisions. I disagree; I think she found what works for her and is eager to show other women in similar situations that it's ok.