If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Comments
Saying that the greater risk extends to oral sex is actually very much disputable. Oral sex is much lower risk than anal or vaginal intercourse.
Umm aren't we taking risks already? Straight people who have unprotected sex with a different partner every week can give blood...
Trying to lump gay people together with paedophiles is a discredited and nasty weapon that homophobes have been using for too long.
Do you 'wonder' about 70 year old millionaires shagging 24 year old page 3 girl wanabees? Or 45 year olds paying 19 year old Eastern European girls for sex in red light districts around the country?
As for paedophilia (which is slightly different to the above) there have been many horrific cases of young children; boys and girls being abused by 'gay' and 'straight' people. Not really sure what the point is you're trying to make.
I'm presuming you experienced some kind of abuse when you were younger.
Abuse and a consensual relationship are not comparable.
If a girl (abused by a man) later said how perverse heterosexuality was it would sound slightly odd to me. (Although perhaps a young girl abused by a man is more likely to be a develop same-sex feelings, I don't know).
You are 'wrong'. Your interpretation of your own experience does not necessarily make your view 'right'. You undoubtedly have issues that you are still trying to deal with (in my opinion, more to do with your own self-loathing), but it is insulting and hurtful for you to proclaim that the 'gay' men that you encountered when you were younger, are cut from the same cloth as the rest of us. There is another poster on these boards whose experiences as a child puts your past experience in the pale, but he is not so self-obsessed that he tars every gay man with the same brush. Pull yourself together, grow up and move on.
well said!
Whilst I agree with the sentiment - that J should not tarnish all with the same brush because of his experiences - I think saying 'grow up and move on' is very harsh, and you have no right to judge him if you've not been in his circumstances.
I also think it's unfair and hurtful to say that he should be able to deal with his issues because other people have it worse, especially since obviously his issues (which I hope he's getting help with) seem to be from what I can see, affecting him a lot.
Whilst this is not the time or place for a debate about J, we should all remember most people find TheSite.org when they're looking for help or advice - and that's because most people have problems. Some of them might just have a funny itch round their private parts and want to know where to go, but some as we've seen over the years have deep seated issues all we can advise to do is see a professional, and give our sympathy.
Though I think in all honesty in a P&D boards someone should have reported J's posts and they could have been removed so as not to cause offense.
Like several have said, while the NBS guidelines may seem to be archaic and discriminatory when you look at risk factors men who engage in anal sex are significantly more likely to be HIV carriers than the general population.
Until the statistics change I'm more than happy to see some kind of restriction stand, although possibly a time constraint should be added.
I said that because he has raised the topic in many of his past and equally irrational posts over the years. I am surprised that you think his right to 'judge' supersedes mine, though.
I did NOT say 'other people'. I mentioned one other person who posts on this board. Big difference. And why should I keep quiet when someone spouts hurtful inaccuracies - just because he has 'issues'? I cannot allow J to rant on unchallenged when his posts consistently try and make out that all gay people and the gay lifestyle are wrong and promote sex with young boys.
I do not disagree with you. But understanding that he may need the advice of a professional is no excuse to accept him writing bullsh*t.
Lol, a wise holy man? Ask an evolutionary biologist if you want a real answer. But then it might not be the answer you want.
Then state it as your 'experience' ... not as some undeniable fact. I had no experience of sexual abuse like you did, but I had to go through my teens, puberty etc being bullied and victimised by spiteful people - years before I even had my first sexual experience - living in a world that stigmatised and laughed at me. Meanwhile, my persona was being shaped by my internal changes - never by the sexual act itself.
Well, if you are that 'bothered', why don't you take that up as your life's ambition and diligently work towards getting these wrongs corrected? Help to save other youngsters from the same fate? probably too much work, eh?
And how many of these old men ACTUALLY want to reproduce? Most old men with young girls on their arm are often looking for status, or have some misguided concept of regaining their virile youth. "Lust more like... Vanity more like..."
There you fucking go again!!!! 'Maybe gay men' ... ? WHAT 'gay' men? ALL gay men? Not a single one of my gay friends has ever given any indication that we like 'young boys'. I find you incredibly insulting. Abusers were often abused themselves. Neither I, or any of my friends, were ever abused so don't assume that we have the same dark thoughts that you might harbour.
I think you are ignorant. Period. Perhaps a homosexual is a 'break in the chain' and something is 'amiss', but do you feel the same distaste for people born with handicaps and diseases? They are not 'normal' either. What is THEIR purpose? Being gay is just part of being human.
The reason gay people 'shout' about it, is because the majority heterosexual law makers do not allow us the same rights (NOTE : not more rights - just the SAME rights) which until recently, for example, meant that we could not leave our possessions or pensions etc to our partner's without either being taxed heavily or worse. THAT is what gay pride is about! To raise awareness of inequality.
Any true wise holy man would tell you that the deeper you delve into enlightment, you realise how much bigger the Sea of Knowledge really is. Anyone that claims to know everything, is the one that you need to be fearful of.
'Mine says honour your parents.'
What has that got to do with anything? What book DO you read from?
What do you mean by pro-gay? If you mean that pro-gay is to try and make all straight men homosexual, then I agree with you that being 'pro-gay' is wrong.
If pro-gay means having the social and spiritual maturity to let people live their lives as they choose without hindrance from society or state, then I disagree with you. In which case, it has nothing to do with political correctness but just displays your own ignorant prejudices.
I have no problem with people not liking gays ... but I have a problem when that dislike impinges on my personal life.
But I've done that for yas all.
Getting abusive in a thread like this isn't moving the discussion on, neither is posting views that are sailing so close the the wind.
Lets get back on topic before stuff starts getting deleted/thread gets closed.
I emailed a blood donor website and got the following response:
There is no rule that specifically applies to people who self-harm but the
Donor Selection Guidelines ( UK ) state 1.That the skin at the site where
the needle is to be inserted should be free from disease, injury or other
lesions, and 2. People must not donate for 12 months after the date of any
inoculation injury, in which there could be contamination or infection from
a needle or other instrument.
With regret, it is unlikely that a self harmer would be able to give blood.
It seems like I'd isinterpretated something I think.
It is, but the fact is that homosexual men are more likely to have, or to contract, HIV and hepatitis than homosexual women or heterosexuals.
Having oral sex isn't as risky as anal or vaginal intercourse, but the act is only part of the risk.
If you're sexually promiscuous you can't give blood because you cannot give the correct answers to the questions about sexual history.
Women who have had sex with men who've slept with men can't give for 12 months, if memory serves me right.
Maybe an automatic bar is a bit much, but it doesn't really make any difference. The only people who would be affected would be men who had homosexual sex as a one-off, or homosexual men who have not been sexually active for some time.
That said, it is only recently the number of heterosexual HIV infections has gone past those of homosexuals. Given the relative population sizes, I am forced to admit it is a reasonable risk indicator (the alternative is a lengthy and embarassing lifestyle interview - that's not going to go down well with the tea and biscuit regulars )