Bad Blood

I run the risk of being "gay STD" boy by posting this one, but i find this to be another relevant fight.

Although the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America’s Blood Centers have declared the ban on accepting blood donations from gay men and MSM (men who have sex with men) to be "scientifically and medically unwaranted," the FDA has redeclared its stance that taking MSM blood is just too dangerous. Despite the fact that several other countires around the world have lifted this ban, the FDA claims that the screening technology is hardly infallable and it's too easy for a new case of HIV to go unnoticed; conseqeuently, they need to eliminate high risk patients through their questionaire. While it is an undeniable fact that unprotected anal sex and the general sexual practices of MSM are high risk factors for AIDS/HIV, the HIV case rate is actually highest in the United States among blacks, particularly black women, but you see no stipulation that you cannot donate blood if you've been a black woman since 1978. Of course not- that would be racist and sexist. And this is homophobic.

I am not a medical professional, nor much of a scientist at all, but I can't help but think there are other screening questions that could be effective in blocking out a fresh case of HIV. Other countries, such as Spain, allow MSM who haven't had sex with a man in the past year to donate. That's a step forward, but I think we could do better: "Have you had unprotected sex with a man since you were last tested negative for HIV? Have you had sex with anyone outside of the context of a monogamous, protected relationship since you were last tested negative for HIV?"

And, again, not a scientist, but isn't men having anal sex with women also a high-risk activity? There's just as much likelihood for semen to infect the blood stream in anal sex with a female as there is with a male. So, by the FDAs standards, shouldn't there be a ban on blood donations from ANYONE who has participated in anal sex since 1978, regardless of whether or not it was MSM? Furthermore, if the FDA is primarily worried about their screening technology not catching new HIV infections that have yet to fully manifiest, then why ban donations from every man who has had sex with men since 1978? Wouldn't "since 2008" suffice?

While anal sex is a potential pollutant of blood, being gay does not mean being polluted. HIV/AIDS is and has been a problem in the gay community in the Untied States, but it is hardly just a gay problem. Furthermore, blood drive organizations frequently cite the shortage of donatable blood and their need for more blood for more transfusions. If the FDA continues its policy that denies MSM without addressing the real risk factors, it will continue to harm our understanding of HIV/AIDS, our understanding of gay people, and the lives of those in need of blood transfusions that are denied access to healthy blood due to a homophobia-induced shortage.

-Adam

The Gender Politics of HPV

It's almost common knowledge by now that an HPV vaccination for women has developed that is readily being administered to young girls. As HPV is an STI that disproportionately affects women, this is, indeed, a huge step forward for the medical field in gender justice. At the same time, it's that same old sorry song and dance: women, even in a progressive discourse on sex, are the ones regulated, the ones obligated to take preventative measures. Women are the ones on birth control; women are the ones asked to resist and tame man's animalistic sexual urges; women are the ones called to civilize young men; naturally, women are the ones called to take preventative measures in the transmission of STIs. While HPV may occur moreso in women than men, men are nonetheless transmitters of the infection and possible sufferers of its symptoms; shouldn't the burden of prevention lie just as much on men as it does on women? The expectation that women should be the bodies we "use" to regulate public health is a small part of a series of sexist institutions that we like to pretend no longer exist.

What's worse is that the approach is not only sexist but HETEROsexist; the theory that the regulation of women will put an end to HPV is only effective if all sexual exchanges are between men and women. Those of us not living under an Adam & Eve rock are aware that this is not the case. Men, and particularly men who have sex with men, are more susceptible to oral, throat, and anal cancer as well as genital warts as they contract HPV. The vaccination of exclusively women not only unfairly forces women to regulate sexual health but it ineffectively does so, concentrating the disease largely to men (who have sex with men).

So what can we do as men and women? Insist that men be given an HPV vaccination that is effective and fair. We can't expect to live in a world of gender equality if we discriminate in sexual health; we can't expect to live in a world that recognizes the human beauty of all people if we blanketly ignore homosexuals in medical discourse. Let's not make HPV another artifact our culture assigns as a "girl thing."

UPDATE:
As of 10/23, the CDC has announced that the HPV vaccination will be made available to men. While women are still to the ones most encouraged to get vaccinated, men will be informed about the possibility and benefits of an HPV vaccination (like an avoidance of genital warts, a smaller chance of anal/oral cancer, and an 89 percent chance that men won't be carriers to their partners). Obviously, my blog was convincing:). Now, of course, the vaccination DOES cost $130, making it feasible only to to those middle class and above and potentially reducing HPV to a lower class disease. But this is a fight for a different day.
-Adam

One2One Challenge-October 17th

On this one night, we invite you to take part in a nation-wide moment.

On this one night, supporters of GEMS: Girls Educational and Mentoring Services all across America will accept the challenge of spreading the message of love and support for survivors of child sex trafficking by taking part in a nation-wide viewing of the critically-acclaimed Showtime documentary Very Young Girls (see previous blog post).

On this one night, we challenge you to pick one person in your life who has yet to see this ground-breaking film. Then donate $10, $25, $50 or any amount to GEMS in honor of the person with whom you have chosen to share the big night. And finally, watch the film with this person on October 17th and report back on Twitter and Facebook about their experience.

That's the challenge. One night. One person. One goal: to send a collective message to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children across the nation.

They are not forgotten. And they are not for sale.

Accept the challenge at http://bit.ly/one2one

Visit the challenge website at: http://councilofdaughters.ning.com/events/join-the-one2one-challenge

The film is available through Netflix on DVD and instant viewing on your computer

Girls are not for sale

Just wanted to let everyone know about a powerful documentary on teenage sex trafficking in the United States that was recently released on DVD. The film is called "Very Young Girls" and the website for the film is http://www.gems-girls.org/girlsarenotforsale.html. They have launched a campaign titled "Girls are not for sale" and I think there may be couple opportunities for us to get involved as a group and individually. They are also encouraging film screenings, so that is something we could consider for the future!