13 July, 2006

a bleedin' disgrace


I am writing in response to your recent Blood Donation Drive. I would like to inform you that my body is currently filled with about 5-and-a-half litres of rich, fresh blood. This blood is type O-negative which - as I'm sure you know - is highly sought after because it can be given to a recipient of any other blood type. As an extra selling point, when tested I have always been shown to have unusually healthy haemoglobin levels. Yep, I guess with my super oxygenated, O-negative blood, I really am the quintessential "Universal Donor"!

Unfortunately, despite all your efforts to obtain more blood from donations, you won't be getting a single drop of my precious, luscious blood. This is not due to unwillingness on my part. I would happily spend half an hour at the Blood Bank, and trundle out with my free milk-shake and party-pie, knowing that I had just helped someone through illness or emergency. In fact, I would love to!



Alas, dear friends at the Red Cross, you will be getting none of my oh-so-useful blood, and you have no-one to blame but yourselves. You see, it so happens I am a male who occasionally likes touching rude-bits with a person of my own gender. And I happen to have done this several times (at least) over the last twelve months. I've had sex with 4 different partners over the last year. Only 4! That's not many, is it? I've never had a tattoo or been in prison - although I've had (SAFE!) sex with someone who has. I've never used intravenous drugs, and I have no reason to suspect I've ever been exposed to Hepatitis, Mad Cows' Disease, etc. etc.

I know this girl - her boyfriend is bisexual and they have an open relationship; it seems to work for them. How come she's allowed to give blood? If it's too intrusive / irrelevant to ask about her detailed sexual history, why do you feel the need to ask about mine?

I have a cousin - he's a total slut. He's hooking up with a different girl every week. How come he's allowed to give blood? Half the time he doesn't know anything about these girls - even their name. Isn't he more likely to have an STD than I am?

This friend of mine - he plays football. The other week, during a match, this guy tackled him and their heads crashed together. It was nasty. Both their noses were bleeding all over the place. My friend can still donate at the Red Cross Blood Bank though - even though his blood got all mixed-up with that other player's... and we have no idea who he is.

I hope you make good use of all the blood you get from straight people with unspecified sexual histories, or who participate in potentially dangerous physical activities with others. Obviosuly the fact that they're heterosexual and only have sex with people of the opposite gender, means they have excellent, healthy blood. And I, by definition, have icky untrustworthy blood, because I am a hideous dirty faggot.

A couple of further questions - you do use sterilised equipment when drawing, transfusing or injecting blood, right? And you do check all the blood you take, right? I mean, you don't just get the donor to tick the boxes in your shitty little survey, take their word as gospel and pump it straight into blood-recipients, do you? I mean it gets tested for stuff, right?

...Which forces me to wonder why - if all donated blood is rigorously screened in every possible way, as it should be - why is it necessary to impose these stupid, discriminatory rules at all? I mean, I know my blood could save lives. In fact, I feel kind of bad that it isn't out there saving lives. But it's not really my fault. You, dear people at the Blood Bank, are shooting yourselves in the foot by alienating the entire gay male community. That's a lot of healthy people who would be willing to give blood, but aren't allowed.

Of course, we could lie on your survey. You would never know. But you know what? We shouldn't fucking have to.

Anyhoo - good luck with your current Blood Drive. I'm sure you don't need donations from the small percentage of our population made up of the gay males you're excluding. We'll just be over here in our little corner, wallowing in each others' festering juices and contributing nothing to society, 'kay?

Sincerely,

mindlessmunkey, esq.

(...with thanks to Ms Kelly, and to Mr Sam at Culture Strain, who coincidentally both ranted at/near me on this topic recently, and got my blood boiling (har har har).)


Labels:


10 Comments:

Blogger Dr Philm said...

4 People in the last 12 months?!? You lucky bastard! And here I was about to burn the blood bank to the ground!

Well you should think yourself lucky, quite lucky indeed, you're clearly being 'privileged' not discriminated against! ;)

4?!...Bastard...I really need to get out more...

July 13, 2006 11:33 am  
Blogger mindlessmunkey said...

Hush your mouth Dr. You're making me feel like a slut!

Four is not that many. That's quarterly. That's how many electricity bills I received in the last 12 months.

If I have my druthers, the number for the next 12 months will be 1, and only 1... and for many 12 monthses after that.

But this is really not relevant to the topic at hand...

July 13, 2006 11:56 am  
Blogger lili said...

that is a disgrace, munkey!

my mother, who is an ex-employee of the Blood Bank, is shocked.

July 13, 2006 4:34 pm  
Blogger Sponge Girl said...

I utterly loved some wanktoid using the gay donor ban as an argument against adoption rights for gay couples. "Surely they of the tainted blood should not be allowed near innocent children..." and so on. They probably also mentioned how kids are just fashion accessories for gay people. Kind of like ferrets for the Hiltons.

Banning gay donors is narrow-minded and arbitrary. Banning people who've lived in England - in a country like Australia where a hefty chunk of the population has done the "working holiday/going back to visit the relatives/David Tennant stalking tour" - is just stupid.

On top of that, not screening the blood and just trusting that people are honest (and knowledgeable of their or their ex-partners' diseases) is naive, and irresponsible.

Really no point in creating fairly arbitrary categories to weed out "risk", but then accept every pint'o flesh juice donated because - surprise surprise - you've really narrowed down the list of potential donors and are gagging for quantity.

July 13, 2006 5:46 pm  
Anonymous Reth10 said...

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

July 13, 2006 7:50 pm  
Blogger Steph said...

What a backward country we live in.
Meanwhile we're told that there is a blood shortage.
It makes no fucking sense at all.

July 14, 2006 4:10 pm  
Anonymous ASTBURY said...

man monkey, i hate needles but was thinking about giving blood, but you just made me realise i cant, even thought im not a "lucky" as you are hehe

Well i guess my blood and veins are safe from needles for another year or untill they get their acts together and allow us homosexual citizens "give life, give blood"

*hugs*

July 15, 2006 2:29 am  
Blogger la nadine said...

i found out about this recently and it took me a week to scrape my jaw off the floor.

cunts.

July 16, 2006 11:37 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

at the risk of getting my head bitten off, i can see why - homosexual men are in a high risk category and if they include EVERYONE in the blood giving community then they will have to spend more money on screening the blood donations they receive. so if they automatically cut out the high risk groups then they can save on screening.

July 21, 2006 1:44 pm  
Blogger Sponge Girl said...

High risk groups? How about banning those people who have had unprotected sex in the past x months? Cut out the straight and the gay disease risk at the same time. See,the risk isn't in where you stick it...

July 21, 2006 8:21 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home