Blood Donors

The FDA Should Lift Restrictions on Gay Blood Donors

The FDA' policy makes no exception for gay men who use condoms or are in monogamous relationships.

|

Jerry Rabinowitz, 66, lost his life in the October mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. According to his nephew, Rabinowitz was shot and killed while searching for victims in need of a doctor. Those who knew him as a physician remembered his dedication to patients and were not surprised he remained committed to helping those in need until the very last seconds of his life.

There is a cruel irony in Rabinowitz's death: He had spent his career treating gay men with HIV and AIDS, yet many gay men were not permitted to help the victims of the Tree of Life massacre. Following the tragedy, city officials asked for blood donations to assist in treating the wounded—but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) heavily restricts gay men from donating blood, even if they have tested negative for HIV.

For decades, the agency prevented men who have sex with other men from donating blood under any circumstances, thanks to concerns about the spread of HIV, which had a long dormancy period and could be difficult to detect. But thanks to scientific innovation, screening for the virus has significantly improved. In 2010, the FDA conceded that the previous policy was "suboptimal" in that it allowed "some potentially high risk donations while preventing some potentially low risk donations." In 2015, it eased restrictions slightly to allow gay men who had not engaged in sexual activity in at least a year to donate blood.

Today, tests can detect HIV in as little as two weeks to three months, meaning that the rule is still needlessly excluding many safe blood donors. There are also no exceptions for gay men who use condoms or are in monogamous relationships, even while the restriction does not apply to heterosexuals who do not use condoms or are not monogamous.

This isn't the first time lives have been jeopardized by prejudice against gay men. The FDA's policy prevented several partners and friends of the victims of the 2016 Pulse shooting in Orlando from donating blood to help save their loved ones.

According to Michael Kerr, a former patient of Rabinowitz, the physician was "known in the community for keeping us alive the longest." In the early days of HIV stigma and discrimination, he held his patients' hands without gloves and hugged them after each visit. It's a shame that the community Rabinowitz served for so long was prohibited by an antiquated law from offering support for their doctor and his people.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

108 responses to “The FDA Should Lift Restrictions on Gay Blood Donors

  1. As much as I hate the FDA, I have to say this is a risk versus reward decision that makes sense. A potential three month window to successfully screen for a disease that has no cure, requires a lifetime of very expensive drugs to just likely just reduce symptoms, and still carries an incredible ability to transfer doesn’t lend itself to granting the ability to donate blood so that someone doesn’t have hurt feelings.

    If you want to drive up blood donations I’m sure we can all talk about less risky ways. If you just fell like we have to allow this new risk then we have to talk about additional screening post donation and the ability to alert the recipient to the bloods origination and risk factors. Of course, in today’s climate how long would it take before someone that elected not to receive the blood to become the new pariah?

    1. There are shitloads of factors that disqualify potential donors. I participated in a blood drive last summer for the first time in fifteen years. The screening process took over two hours, and included a partial physical exam. Blood banks and plasma centers are extraordinarily cautious about screening donors.

      Not just queermosexuals.

    2. Agreed; I had lymphoma 8 years ago, I’d have been 7 years in my grave by now if they hadn’t cured it, so I KNOW I’m free of it. And they won’t take my blood, either.

      Compared to that, refusing to take the blood of a group with a high rate of HIV is a shining example of rationality.

  2. No

    There is no “right” to donate blood.
    There are very good reasons for this restriction.

    1. But there aren’t! You can read, can’t you?

      1. That’s not what it said. It just valued risk lower.

        1. It’s risky for gay men but not lesbians. As anal sex is more likely to transmit such an illness relative to bumping fuzzies.

  3. The latest CDC HIV Surveillance Report:

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/re…..vol-29.pdf

    Still, after all these many years, MTM lovemaking and doping with needles are your top methods of getting this bug. Everything else doesn’t even show up on the radar screen.

    Blood bank that has HIV screened out,or one that accepts HIV blood: What would be your choice?

    1. 70% of transmissions nationally are from homosexual male sexual contact. And homosexuals make up, generously, about 5% of the population.

      Yeah, it is just silly to say “It’s a risk factor we’d rather not deal with”

      1. Political correctness is the killer here.

  4. This is a dumb article

    1. Very.

      gay men who use condoms or are in monogamous relationships
      Don’t laugh people, there is one. His name is George and he lives in Phoenix, his partner is a real slut though.

  5. Sure, what is the problem with an innocent injured person getting AIDS when compared to somebody else’s feelings?

  6. In the early days of HIV stigma and discrimination, he held his patients’ hands without gloves and hugged them after each visit.

    So, not a big stickler for basic health safety protocols? Good to hear. The whole “Wearing gloves” thing is done for a reason. If one is not big on wearing gloves, I’m not buying that they are really strict on wearing condoms. Just sayin’.

    There are also no exceptions for gay men who use condoms or are in monogamous relationships, even while the restriction does not apply to heterosexuals who do not use condoms or are not monogamous.

    Do you wish to compare transmission rates for heterosexuals as opposed to homosexual men? Yes, it is a shame we cannot use the “Trust me, I wouldn’t lie about this” mentality when a very nasty disease that can deeply impact one’s life negatively is the potential outcome, but such is life.

  7. Just the other day someone suggested not increasing government funding for AIDS research by quite as much next year and Facebook blew up with manonmansplaining to me how this is LITERALLY the same thing as the Nazis gassing gays to death.

    So, I’d wager it’s still a problem.

  8. So even if HIV could be screened out entirely — or even better, cured! and let’s hope a cure, please — ultimately posing no risk to the recipients, I would wager that god-fearing Christians and other homophobes would still do everything they could to prevent gay men from donating blood out of fear of “catching the gay.” Given that these people typically believe that gay men in the military pose a risk to other service members, that baking a cake will send them to hell for eternity, it isn’t really a stretch to imagine these people being worried about queer blood violating their religious beliefs. One day they are devout, heterosexual followers of Christ, pure and holy, until they receive a queer blood transfusion. Next thing they know, they are dressed in leather and inexplicably cruising gay bars… Gotta be that queer blood. I can see this battle going all the way to the Supreme Court.

    1. Odd…nobody has a problem with lesbians donating blood.

      How does homophobia explain this?

      1. If a lesbian is also a transgender woman, who hasn’t had surgery to remove the offending penis (but who are we kidding, that wouldn’t make much difference to the bigots), I suspect there would be many problems with her donating her tainted blood. After, didn’t you know that public restrooms are the most dangerous place in the world? Gosh, if that danger were allowed to propagate via blood drive clinics, infecting the righteous in America, no one would ever be safe again when having a wee. It would be worse than The Walking Dead.

        1. *After all, didn’t*….

          blast it!

        2. “If a lesbian is also a transgender woman”

          This concept cannot be rationally explained.

          1. Sure it can. But you would choose to disbelieve it anyway, likely. Just like those who think the earth is only thousands of years old, rather than billions of years old. Rational, scientific explanations hardly matter.

            1. Please, explain it scientifically

              1. Jaleme believes that feelings trump genetics.

                Because…science.

        3. If a lesbian is also a transgender woman, who hasn’t had surgery to remove the offending penis (but who are we kidding, that wouldn’t make much difference to the bigots), I suspect…

          So, no answer then. Got it. Thanks.

          BTW, a transwoman is called a man. Women do not have penises.

          1. You’re welcome.

        4. So, an XY individual who has sex with XX individuals?

          That’s identical to any other XY/XX relationship.

          Why would there be any issue at all?

          An individual in an XY/XX relationship would have no problem donating blood.

    2. Yeah. It is all just homophobia. Especially by those damn Christians.

      Muslims have found a cure for homosexuality: flying lessons from the roofs of tall buildings. Funny that Muslims have tied themselves into a Gordian knot with Muslims; hard to explain. Maybe Jalene can clear this up?

      1. “At least we don’t throw gays off buildings! Vote for us! We’re technically not literally the worst!”

      2. Murdering people is a cure? Oh, my. I need to wash out my eyes with sulfuric acid after reading that.

        1. No, turn your sarcasm meter beyond dumb fuck.

      3. “Transmission of HIV by blood transfusion has been reduced. Let’s put everybody at risk.” Are all guy people this obtuse, or only Tony and Jalene?

        Why are progressives so protective of Musselmen, with nothing but contempt for Christians? How do you explain that?

        We are having Christmas dinner tonight with family and friends, some of them gay. I will ask my gay cousin if he has a schizophrenic love for Allah. Maybe I will bake a gay cake for dessert.

        Tony, you are literally the worst.

        Allah akbar. Merry Christmas.

        1. The effort you people make to not understand things is exhausting even for us mere observers.

          Muslims, in America, are a minority especially likely to be targeted for bigotry. You’ve just done it, for example. By contrast, Christians control everything. If you’re a gay person in America, you’re about a zillion times more likely to be persecuted by a Christian than a Muslim, unless perhaps you happen to be from a Muslim family.

          No secular liberal is defending sky-grandpa fantasies of Muslims any more than sky-grandpa fantasies of Christians. Concern for Muslims is about their status as an at-risk minority, that’s all. And the people who put them at risk are Christian assholes.

          1. Muslims, in America, are a minority especially likely to be targeted for bigotry.

            Not by any study I have seen to date.

              1. Citing wikipedia in any comment thread is dangerous. Be careful, Tony. Btw, I agree with your points. The situation would be entirely different if we lived in countries with Islam being the predominant religion. But I would agree with you, because according to damikesc, I can only rationalize and reason via my feelings. My inconsequential, weak feminine brain is incapable of understanding anything scientific, lest I develop typically masculine cranial ridges for my efforts. Naturally, I’d have to go the extra mile and prove that I do understand science without regard to emotion, and gosh, the thought of that just makes me wanna cry.

                1. My inconsequential, weak feminine brain is incapable of understanding anything scientific,

                  If you think you can be a woman because you REALLY think you are one, then no, you’re not capable of comprehending science.

                  1. If you think you can be a woman because you REALLY think you are one, then no, you’re not capable of comprehending science.

                    Thank you. I had been wondering if it was possible to do a quote thingy in replies, and you have shown me that it is. Incredibly useful. I didn’t know how to do it here at Reason. I nearly asked you for help. But that made me feel uneasy. I thought, “Would you tell me if I had asked? Set aside your obvious contempt for me to help out?” Once I settled down my emotions and stopped worrying, I had looksy at the page source and worked it out for myself.

              2. Well, if it’s on Wikipedia, it MUST be true.

                Read your link. It’s an insult to nothingness to refer to it as such. But, for sure, never has so much petty bitching and moaning been so thoroughly documented.

              3. Lol, that Wikipedia article. I think Jalene just spewed more “hate” in her first post than any of the fainting couch examples provided.

            1. “Not by any study I have seen to date.”

              The FBI’s own hate crime stats show the opposite to be true. Hate crimes in America are predominantly against Jews. Muslims are consistently a distant second. Which is quite telling since no Jews are running around screaming “Shalom!”, and shooting, or blowing shit up.

              1. (It’s the same people committing hate crimes against both.)

                1. Nope

          2. I thought the Joos controlled everything.

            Here is a hint for you, Tony. Deriding religious people as “sky grandpa fantasists” is likely to be ineffective. Learn to live and let live.

            1. But I have no choice, unlike the intelligence-challenged believers in sky fairies who, apart from causing nearly every unavoidable catastrophe in human history, continue to fuck with my life and yours because they just can’t help themselves. Live and let live? You’re telling me this and not the religious? Are you high?

              1. Tomy, you talk about ‘sky fairies’, because you have a stunted little mind. Most people of faith in advanced cultures consider God to be woven into the entire cosmos, tied into things like quantum physics and the whole of space and time.

                You know, things that confuse you because they’re beyond taking it up the ass or making snarky comments while you watch the biddies on ‘The View’.

                1. That is the fucking dumbest thing I’ve read today.

                  God is so abstractly defined that you can prove his existence my mere assertion. Your ridiculous fantasy might not even take up any space or energy. It just is, somehow. How very scientific.

                  1. Fantasy……. yes your stunted little mind would see it that way.

                    What a banal little creature you are.

          3. Look at how that tiny minority of Muslims live in the few communities where they’ve become the majority. “No go zones” are a reality in some towns in Michigan. Muslims tend to be just fine when they’re a small minority though. We need to keep it that way.

        2. It would be great if everyone went back to my first comment and re-read the first sentence. It was a hypothetical, a no-risk scenario, not the actual risk scenario we have now.

          Ecoli, I don’t have contempt for anyone based on their faith. I do have enormous, near-infinite amounts of disdain for any person who would use their faith to discriminate against or harm another human being. To believe in any god and religion is a personal choice… free will, and I would never interfere with one’s human right to believe in their faith. But when that choice is misused to cause harm to another, it’s absolute evil. It matters not at all what the religion is in that case.

          1. Jalene,

            My apologies. You did descend into a whole lot of Christian bashing, though.

            I agree with your second paragraph. Where we would part company, I suspect, is that you seem to support coercing others to participate in celebration of gay marriage, etc, against their will, and in violation of their religious beliefs. Forcing others to violate their religious beliefs, or face poverty, is no way to win friends or influence people. Destroying the lives of other people just because you can makes you just as reprehensible as the people you rail against.

            It would never occur to me to intimidate and abuse a Christian, Muslim, gay person, or any other person to violate their own conscience. Activist homosexuals have done exactly that, and for no other reason than they have a big enough club to do it. My respect and sympathy for homosexuals has taken a nose-dive as a consequence of their bullying behavior. A short hand way to summarize my feelings toward activist homosexuals is that they are ass holes. I don’t associate with or support ass holes.

            Just for the record, I am an atheist. But I believe in leaving people alone.

            1. Thank you for the apology. 🙂

              Actually, we are more in line than you might think. I do not support the current activism of hardcore LGBT activists who are attempting to force their beliefs on others by way of legislation and the stifling of free speech. I tire of them just as you do. I believe those activists are going about it all wrong. I do not believe in coercion. I think the people who are setting up the baker, for e.g., are assholes just as much as I believe the baker himself is a bigoted asshole. Clearly, the LGBT folk could have and should have gone to another baker. And I also believe that most Christians fail to understand their faith. I have yet to find anything in the bible that says providing any type of service to the heathens is an ungodly act. Jesus would have baked the fucking cake, and he would have shared it with all sinners and righteous alike. Which is more or less what he always did throughout the bible.

              1. My gay, Christian cousin agrees with you, and so do I. If I was the baker, I would have made the cake; unless, of course, the happy couple had threatened me and then dropped a turd on the way out the bakery door.

                I think you are being a bit hard on the baker though. He had no problem serving gays, he just refused to make a cake specifically celebrating a gay marriage. To me, he seems like a decent person. Live and let live.

                I am not going to tell a religious person he/she doesn’t understand his faith. That would turn into an endless, unwinnable argument.

                Which is more important and valuable, “public accommodation” or free speech and freedom of association? My answer to that question should be clear.

                1. I don’t know, Ecoli. I certainly see and understand your point. I disagree that I’m being hard on the baker. I support his human right to be a bigoted asshole 100% – because I believe he is that. And I will say that people don’t understand their faith when it’s patently clear they do not. Jesus gave one commandment. Just one. (Well, I suppose it could be two, semantically.) Ask the majority of self-identifying Christians in person what Jesus’ commandment was and be utterly stunned by how few of them know what it is. It’s not necessarily their fault — most people believe whatever they are told to believe when it comes from their religious leaders.

                  The public accommodation versus freedom of association argument doesn’t wash with me. Historically, Americans have used their religion to deny accommodation to people of color. I see no difference here. The problem isn’t religion. The problem is people using it as a stick with which to beat all others who do not conform to their worldview – whatever that view is.

                  1. Have gay people no moral duty to accommodate the beliefs of others? To me it is simple, live and let live. Use your own property and your own labor as you see fit. I might think you’re an A-hole as a consequence of your actions, but I certainly won’t persecute you because of it.

                    Using the force of government (guns, prison, bankruptcy, death) against others is only justified in very few circumstances. Your last sentence is just as valid in arguing against public accommodation laws as in support of public accommodation laws.

                    1. Your last sentence is just as valid in arguing against public accommodation laws as in support of public accommodation laws.

                      Is it? I’m not so sure about that, but perhaps you’re right. Do you know any heterosexual folk who are discriminated against solely due to their sexuality? Any religions that discriminate against heteros? Any governments that deny services to heterosexual people? Any hetero person can go in to any gay establishment and enjoy all the services just as the gay clientele enjoys, if they so choose to do so. And you know what? They do. And they aren’t killed, beaten or humiliated or discriminated against for being hetero in a gay business. They’re customers. It has nothing to do with morality or amorality. It has everything to do with being a kind, decent human being.

                      The right to freely associate with like-minded people is something I believe in. I don’t view private businesses as public accommodation. If a business chooses to discriminate against people for any reason, fine. I don’t want government to use force to make anyone do something they don’t want to do. I do think that those who choose to discriminate should be called out as bigots, regardless of their religious beliefs.

                    2. “The right to freely associate with like-minded people is something I believe in. I don’t view private businesses as public accommodation. If a business chooses to discriminate against people for any reason, fine. I don’t want government to use force to make anyone do something they don’t want to do. I do think that those who choose to discriminate should be called out as bigots, regardless of their religious beliefs.”

                      We agree. I am not gonna spend much time or energy in calling out bigots because life is short and there are better ways to spend my time. I would go out of my way to buy a pastry from the guy being persecuted by the state of Colorado and a few loud-mouthed homosexual activists, just to show my solidarity with somebody being unjustly treated. That doesn’t mean that I hate gay people, it means that I hate ass holes and bullies.

                      Government services should be totally unbiased and apply equally to its citizens. Nobody should be treated better, or worse, for their life style or beliefs or any immutable characteristic.

              2. “Jesus would have baked the fucking cake”
                The hell he would have. He was a first century orthodox Jewish rabbi of the Pharisaical tradition with some Essene apocalyptism thrown in. He may have loved sinners, but he certainly wouldn’t endorse a mock marriage for perverts.
                Outside of 21st century intersectionalists and their postmodern enablers, nobody would. Not Siddhartha, not Moses, not Mohammed, not Jesus, not Zoroaster, and not the Pontifex Maximus, Rex Sacrorum, fifteen flamens, and the Vestals. Even Dawkins would be a little creeped out.

                1. You know nothing, Fancylad Snow.

                  1. He makes a great deal of sense. You just don’t like it.

    3. Talk about your drama queen.

      1. Tony?

    4. All those strawmen crammed into one little post. You seem to have as good a grip on theology as you do libertarian legal issues.

  9. Statistically speaking, all blood donations come with some risk, and screening out any higher risk demographic makes the overall risk lower. Sorry, but that’s science.

  10. I have a gay friend who gives blood regularly and just lies about his sexual orientation. I, on the other hand, use this policy as a pretty good excuse not to bother giving blood. You don’t want it, fine, I’ll not be stuck with a needle on my lunch break.

    1. I have a gay friend who gives blood regularly and just lies about his sexual orientation.

      Uhh, Zuri, when you comment “There are also no exceptions for gay men who use condoms or are in monogamous relationships, even while the restriction does not apply to heterosexuals who do not use condoms or are not monogamous.”…this is why there are no exceptions. Because people will lie about it.

      1. But you can lie about being gay. Even if you are swishier than a carwash. It’s just a checkbox on a piece of paper.

        1. You know its a crime to knowingly infect others with diseases live HIV?

          1. Tony doesn’t care. Other than progtarded platitudes I’ve never seen him express anything approaching genuine empathy. Which is logical, as he is a sociopath, and incapable of real empathy.

            This is also why he is a progressive. Progressivism is a magnet for sociopaths.

  11. What does the murdered Dr. Rabinowitz have to do with this?

    1. So far as I can tell… nothing.

  12. OK – let gay men donate blood. But label it. If I’m going to be subject to risk, I want to control it. How many people would opt in to a gay man’s blood when other blood was available?

    1. Let me give you a clue.

      If you are getting a blood transfusion you likely have little idea what is going on if any.

      There are no gay labels. After about 12 years one could learn hemotology.

      1. you likely have little idea what is going on
        But if you’re going in for surgery, you could request low risk blood in advance.

        There are no gay labels
        That’s why he said he wants labels.

        1. labels?

          This is not AppleBees.

          .

    2. Blood banks just don’t take blood from high risk group? tough shit if some homos get offended by that. The rest of us have rights too. Including the right to stay alive.

      1. That’s not what you told the 37 hookers in your crawl space.

        1. True, but then they didn’t bitch half as much as the 89 sodomized twelve year old boys in yours.

    3. “OK – let gay men donate blood”

      Why do we need to increase risks to our nation’s blood supply, or the cost of managing that risk, to accommodate ANYONE? Blood banks don’t exist to lift self esteem for gay men, or anyone else.

      All this accommodation for the so,e purpose of feelz needs to end. Or maybe the people pushing it should end.

  13. That’s regulation for you; enacted in a time of blind panic and never touched once in later decades.

    Just like anything, there will be massive resistance for made-up “reasons” by people with some interest in maintaining the status quo.

    Hell, just look at the national disgrace that is circumcision for proof of that.

    1. I can’t speak for anyone else, but a circumcised penis tends to be more aesthetically pleasing than the snake-in-a-turtleneck look — subjectively speaking, of course. I wouldn’t discriminate, but I know plenty who do and it’s an absolute deal-breaker for them. Love be damned and all that for the sake of penile vanity. 😉

    2. Don’t touch an ember to the circumcision fuse. There lie monsters.

      1. Like Loch Ness?

        1. Is the Loch Ness monster a turtle of some sort?

          Just for the record, I am not circumcised. “It” is beautiful.

          1. Turtle? Nah. It’s aquatic, if it ever existed. I was thinking more of a monstrous water snake or an eel slithering through the waters of a Scottish loch, daring to poke its head above water when it gets excited.

            1. It is a sturgeon. Or several sighted over the years.

    3. Circumcision actually reduces the transmission of STDs….

  14. This article fails to understand Bayes theorem (ie pre-test probability) and how the accuracy of a test is based on what percent of people in a given population who have the disease. 40% of HIV+ men do not know they have it, and the tests have too many false negatives in this given population. I don’t believe the author understands basic statistics. Also, there is no blood shortage in the U.S. We have started transfusing at a Hgb threshold of 7, no longer 10+.

    1. I feel I was a bit harsh in this comment. The author probably knows about general statistics, she just doesn’t account for the relevance of Bayes, in this instance. I do enjoy her writing, in general.

      1. I don’t think your comment was harsh. But I know nothing about hematology, how blood is tested for any disease, when and how it is determined safe for use, what Hgb means, nor am I a statistician. I thought your comment was thoughtful and reasoned given that you obviously have a clear understanding of all of those things. Perhaps the author should get in touch with you. 🙂

        1. Just one easy thing.

          Hgb is shorthand for hemoglobin. It is the molecule in red blood cells that carries oxygen around. Easy measured.

          So if your hemoglobin level drops you have fewer cells capable of transporting oxygen where it needs to go.

          What the writer is saying is that the level of hemoglobin where transfusion is indicated is lower than in the past.

          You are correct because blood is a very difficult subject. You change one parameter and others change.

  15. Look, I’m sure they’ll adopt a science-based public-health policy which appropriately weighs the risks, without messing around with politics. The policy will be administered by a rainbow-riding unicorn.

    1. Sign me up for the unicorn ride! Who doesn’t love unicorns? I mean, seriously! I’d fucking vote for that! 😉

      1. Hi.

        1. Oh, no! Please don’t slaughter the mythical creatures.

    2. If the ban were political, lesbians would be included. They are not, nor should they be.

      1. +100

  16. “Hey, man- you cover the wagon when it goes down the trail?”

    “Of course I do.”

    “Great! Have a seat and make a fist! Orange or red Gatorade for after? Yer gonna feel woozy.”

    “Uh…got any Smirnoff Ice?”

    “THE FUCK OUTTA HERE, COCK-WRANGLER!”

    Gaydar will detect you homos trying to give the gift of the gay along with the gift of life! Only heterosexual buttsecks is totally safe!

  17. Gay folks are high risk.

    The gay men community have an epidemic of intestinal worms from eating other dude’s asses.

    If that risk group cannot even take care of their health involving a 100% preventable parasite, I dont want them giving blood and costing the Red Cross and other blood donation groups more money making sure our blood supply is safe.

    I have donated gallons of blood over decades. Kids in high school love to get partial days off as incentive for giving blood.

    1. Gay folks are high risk.

      The gay men community have an epidemic of intestinal worms from eating other dude’s asses.

      Only gay men rim each other? Gay women never do it? Heterosexuals never do this either and therefore have no risk or pose no risk to the blood supply? Are you seriously suggesting that?

      Anyone got figures on rimming prevalence among heterosexual couples and lesbians? I’d also like to stats on this so-called intestinal worm epidemic caused by men licking other dude’s asses, please. Coming up a bit short with a Google search. Thanks!

      1. Read.the.comment.

        Gay men as a tiny population have an epidemic of parasite worms based on their sexual habits.

        Hetero people do all sorts of sexual things and do not have an epidemic parasite worm problem.

        That is where the risk comes from.

        You.troll.socks.

  18. Just like a leftist to make an issue of blood supply safety an issue about some entitled victim class.

    1. Pretty much

  19. Fag blood killed Ryan White.

  20. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    http://www.geosalary.com

  21. Australian Assignment Help is providing nursing assignment help to students of best quality standards.

  22. Student Life Saviour is the best company in becoming life saviour for all students by providing them first quality assignments, essays and dissertations.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.