Male “pill” further along in development
by Carder
A pill that provides a safe, effective and reversible method of contraception for men has been brought a step closer by scientists.
Researchers identified two proteins that can be blocked to prevent the launch of sperm cells from the testes during ejaculation. Knocking out the proteins in genetically engineered mice resulted in male animals that were completely infertile, though they continued to mate normally.
A similar goal could theoretically be achieved by suppressing the proteins with drugs, scientists say.
~ The Guardian, December 2
[HT: Laura Loo; Photo Credit: Feminspire]
Dec.04, 2013 6:00 am |
Contraception |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
My immediate reaction is exactly like the guy in the picture: “EEK! No way! This has got to be hurting me somehow, and I don’t even know if it’s going to work like it’s supposed to!”
And it punches me again that we are so complacent about female contraception. Why do we tolerate making the women we love to face so many dangers and health risks?
Can we lobby for a law that any man who credits himself as “pro-choice” be required to ingest one of those monthly? Such pro-abort men are fine with subjecting women to risks you speak of Del but if the onus were put on them? And if they refuse, how about 10 percent penalty on their income tax? I would call it “the weasel penalty.”
Exactly Del.
I remember that they’ve been saying that a male pill is coming soon for a loong time. I wonder if this is something we will ever actually see.
The argument that took place on the other thread regarding whether Plan B kills a human would be moot on this thread.
If he really loves you, he’ll take his Pill.
Wishful thinking Praxedes :)
I really hope young women wouldn’t fall for the “I’m totally on the Pill baby, we don’t need a condom” if they are having a fling or whatever. I guarantee that a lot of scummy dudes will use that line and not even bother to take their bc.
Anyway, if this actually comes to be this time and is safe enough it’s great. Just like the dude in the relationship should get a vasectomy instead of insisting his wife get the far more dangerous tubal, if there are little to no side effects this would be safer than hormonal bc for women.
“The argument that took place on the other thread regarding whether Plan B kills a human would be moot on this thread.”
Yup, if sperm never goes anywhere no one has to worry about interfering with implantation. It’s much preferable if a couple is going to insist on using bc anyway. More effective than condoms or other barrier methods supposedly.
Great idea — but will they take it?
Can we lobby for a law that any man who credits himself as “pro-choice” be required to ingest one of those monthly? – fine with me, although perhaps the couples involved could have a choice about who was going to do what in regards to contraception, would that be ok with you? I took the lead in contraceptive care when I was married and had ‘the snip’ as soon as the appropriate time arrived.
I remember that they’ve been saying that a male pill is coming soon for a loong time. – flying cars might prove more reliable.
Great idea — but will they take it? – now that is the $64,000 question. Men don’t get pregnant. Not quite the same level of incentive or motivation to remember to take it.
Seems you are the exception rather than the rule “reality” – bummer, but either way you made the right choice :)
It truly is a bummer Thomas R. I am constantly feeling let down by my fellow man (and I do mean ‘fellow man’ in a gender specific way).
We’ve all heard the stories about women who have ‘got their man’.
I think with men it would be more a case of being generally careless and/or not caring so much because they won’t be facing any medical risks.
I think most “got their man” types situations are her simply forgetting the pill, or thinking it’s 100% effective, rather than anything deliberate. The small minority of women who actually lie to their partners about birth control shouldn’t be conflated with the way, way more women who just mess up (though the dude might claim “she said she was on bc!!” and he might think it was deliberate). To err is human. I imagine it will be the same if dudes are the ones taking anything. Most mess ups would be mistakes, and a small percentage actually being dishonest or malicious.
Maybe we should stop trying to chemically circumvent the natural processes of sexual intimacy, and employ fertility awareness/nfp methods and self control instead.
Could help stop the spread of AIDS in the homosexual community.
As far as I know it blocks the release of sperm truthseeker, not semen.
Whatever can help stop the spread of AIDS in the homosexual community would help stop the spread of AIDS in the entire community.
I believe that proteins play a role in how sperm acts as an accellerant in the replication of HIV. If this knocks out the proteins in the semen it would reduce the potency of the AIDS and help slow the spread of AIDs.
IMO homosexual sex leads to the death of the soul and this won’t help stop that except for maybe keeping them alive longer so they might find their way out of darkness and into compliance with God’s design for sexual relations.
If the science is as you believe truthseeker, then it is as I stated – the entire community would benefit, not just the homosexual community. There are no HIV transmission methods which are unique to homosexuals.
IMO homosexual sex leads to the death of the soul….. – no science there then.
imo AIDs had it’s genesis in the homosexual community. But it is true it can be spread between heterosexuals and through the blood so the whole community would benefit.
HIV is a mutation of SIV, a virus that infects certain types of simians in Africa. Like most viruses that jump the species barrier, it most infected humans who ate or otherwise handled infected chimpanzees. It did not get it’s “genesis” in the gay community.
It is true that the first big epidemic in the US was predominately among the gay community, back before anyone knew what it was or how it was spread. That doesn’t mean that everyone who got it was gay or engaged in anal sex. IV drug users were and are at exceedingly high risk because of needle sharing, bad hygiene and immune systems, and indiscriminate sex in the drug communities. Basically, HIV spreads through blood and other body fluid contact, and being gay doesn’t Increase your risk if you avoid the risky practices (that aren’t exclusive to gay people).
Being gay does increase your risk if you practice homosexual intercourse.
Being a human who engages in anal sex, especially with someone from a population with higher rates of HIV, increases your risk no matter your orientation. It’s the sexual practice that’s the risk, not whether someone is in a relationship with another dude. Focusing on “omg it’s those dirty gay dudes” does everyone a disservice in my opinion, the transmission depends on what risky behaviors that people partake in, and straight people increase the risk of HIV through those behaviors too.
I hear you Reality – the male desire for intimacy and thus sexual behavior is more primitive, direct and on a level aggressive. This is the reason I can understand why pro-abort man so quickly would drag the woman to a PP “clinic.” It is indeed a bummer Reality.
“I hear you Reality – the male desire for intimacy and thus sexual behavior is more primitive, direct and on a level aggressive. ”
It does not have to be.
Jack: for a woman to sleep with a man she has to “like” him first. For a man an intimate connection does not matter. Does putting it this way make more sense? Women are relational in intimacy but men think that make-up sex will solve anything :)
I think there are definite differences in sex drives in human males and females, but there are women who indulge in casual or meaningless or “make up” sex and men who do not and don’t want to. And I do think that rationality and self-control can overcome or regulate any evolutionary urges that people have. I think gender essentialism fails when it’s kinda like “oh well this is how people are” and doesn’t account for individual differences or rationality.
Yes there is always more variance within a homogenous group than between groups but in general biology dictates for men to to respond side-by-side and women face-to-face (those are real terms btw).
Well like I said, we’re not bound to biology. Men can insist to themselves that they are going to be caring and compassionate and sexually responsible and we can teach boys that what you want isn’t always what you should do. I know you don’t disagree with that though.
No I don’t disagree and that is actually what I am attempting to impart on my sons. I just think that we cannot discount the innate biological differences that make us male/female and if you think that you we are not bound to biology that is defintely something you may want to examine a little deeper.
I’ve been accused here of being too hard on males. Ask yourself what may the possible reasons be..
And anyone who disagrees that men respond side-by-side and women face-to-face may want to examine their marriage/relationship closer. Just sayin’
I think the bound by biology stuff has been used to excuse a lot of awful behavior on the parts of both males and females (but mostly guys), so I tend to discount it. We may be animals, but luckily we evolved strongly sentient brains that are capable of rationality and denying our base urges when they are inappropriate. I think that’s the argument that many people use for LGBT people to live “straight” or at least celibate, so I’m not sure where the controversy would be.
“I’ve been accused here of being too hard on males. Ask yourself what may the possible reasons be.. ”
Lol I swear the only person I’ve seen talking about how you’re hard on dudes is you, lol. :p And maybe me, probably because I was raised by a rather vicious man hater and I really don’t like the “men are destined to be thoughtless, aggressive beasts” thing, it screwed me up for a long time. I do think that men tend to be more promiscuous by nature but that doesn’t mean they HAVE to be, or that it’s inevitable that dudes are just gonna be “boys will be boys” and women have to valiantly resist, lol. Even males are capable of denying inappropriate urges and wants.
I don’t know what you mean by “side by side” or “face to face” to be honest and google didn’t give me a clear explanation.
Jack: you are definitely face-to-face and that is a quality more men need to embrace.
I hear you Reality – the male desire for intimacy and thus sexual behavior is more primitive, direct and on a level aggressive. – why is it that you go off the rails so quickly and easily?
This is the reason I can understand why pro-abort man so quickly would drag the woman to a PP “clinic.” It is indeed a bummer Reality. – being pro-choice is not the cause, being a mindless, misogynistic thug is. ‘Those types’ demonstrate that sort of behavior whether abortion is legal or not. You know, the ones who arrange a little kicking or punching or poison or whatever it takes to ‘hurry things along’. That’d be those ‘aggressive’ types.
For a man an intimate connection does not matter…..Women are relational in intimacy but men think that make-up sex will solve anything – speak for yourself ‘dude’.
And anyone who disagrees that men respond side-by-side and women face-to-face may want to examine their marriage/relationship closer. – again, don’t tar everyone with your brush ‘dude’.
Sorry, but no.
Actually men and women come in all sorts of different relational types. And it’s possible to have a healthy, vibrant marriage where the man is also face-to-face or both or neither or whatever. There are plenty of different ways a healthy marriage can look.
Just sayin’
Sorry, Thomas R. It’s just that it makes me irate at how much gender stereotyping goes on!
While, yes, males do *tend* to be more aggressive, I do think a large part of that is because they are expected to be. And guys who aren’t usually don’t want to speak up to the contrary in fear of being ridiculed or called gay. (Which is totally disrespectful, I think). The whole “boys will be boys” mentality is frustrating and like Jack said, has covered up some despicable things.
And unfortunately, so many people we hang out with just go with it. It irks me! Women are expected to sit around and talk and guys are expected to go elsewhere to talk or do other (read: fun) things and it’s just so frustrating.
Sorry. Clearly I have issues. lol
It is not “love” if it makes your life a hell on earth or in the hereafter. If it breaks your heart or your wallet as in paying for a STD or an abortion, it is really an act of lust on someone’s part, not love. STDs or abortions? As Tina Turner would sing, “What’s Love Got to Do with It”?
Can hear some now saying, “But they are so-o-o-o HOT!” As hot as the flames of hell or as hot as you will feel when embarrassed by the devil as he throws it back at you? Use cold logic before you get involved.
http://www.cdc.gov/Std/Gonorrhea/arg/default.htm
“The emergence of multidrug- and cephalosporin-resistant gonorrhea in the United States would make gonorrhea much more difficult to treat. …
Gonorrhea has progressively developed resistance to the antibiotic drugs prescribed to treat it. Following the spread of gonococcal fluoroquinolone resistance, the cephalosporin antibiotics have been the foundation of recommended treatment for gonorrhea. The emergence of cephalosporin-resistant gonorrhea would significantly complicate the ability of providers to treat gonorrhea successfully, since we have few antibiotic options left that are simple, well-studied, well-tolerated and highly effective.”
I agree with Jack in his first paragraph. The guys that are dirtbags will Lie about taking this pill.
The woman is the one at risk of being pregnant and she’s going to 100% trust that the guy who Isn’t at risk of being pregnant remembered HIS pill ?
NO……I don’t Think so.
A woman needs to use a backup of some sort, “just to make sure”…If the guy has a problem with that, he can Leave.
Well, from what I am reading we may as well promote a society of a unisexual human being. Differences don’t matter so why have a man and a woman that possess those separate biologically – determined qualities? Wait, we are already on the way of a unisexual society, where the lines btw a male and a female are constantly blurred. We don’t celebrate differences and what’s worst cannot even utilize them appropriately.
What differences do you want celebrated Thomas? And what claimed differences do you think are not being utilized appropriately?
The assumption that everyone is at the same risk for HIV, Hepititis B and C if they participate in the same sex acts as homosexuals is not correct. I can give you the FDA’s link for why they ask homosexuals to self-defer from ever donating blood (1) if they have ever had sex with another man (MSM) (2) even if they practice “safer sex” using condoms (3) even if they are in a “monogamous” sexual relationship because they are the group that is at the HIGHEST level of risk for transmitting blood and body fluid diseases including HIV. Darn research.
Yes, they do ask male and female IV drug users and prostitutes and women who have had sex with men who MSM or if they have had sex with men who are IV drug users to also self-defer but MSM are still the highest risk group. The LGBT agenda activist along with the pro-homosexual legislators like IL Sen. Durbin have been trying for years to get this regulation overturned because to them it is more important to be PC than to protect the nation’s human blood supply. The blood recipient takes on all of the risk, the donor takes none.
There was an organ transplant recipient in Chicago who received an HIV infected cadaveric organ and was only told the donor was “a healthy man” but not told the donor was a homosexual (he missed the window for testing positive because there must be a threshold viral load for someone to test positive) so she was not even given the right of informed consent to decide if she wanted the organ from a person at highest risk for HIV, she is now HIV positive. You won’t hear much about this, it is being hushed up, it is not PC. I have family members and friends who were and are on the waiting list for organs, I am telling them to ask if they get the call for a organ to ask about the sexual and drug lifestyle of the potential donor. These are very serious potential health consequences created by the PC political climate of normalizing homosexuality and bi-sexuality. For those who want to shoot the messenger that is your prerogative. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts. I think it was Jill who wrote in an article ”Where are the health warnings?” Those who dare to speak out will be persecuted, maligned and called a hateful bigot.
I quite literally said that engaging in anal sex raises your risk, *especially with populations with higher risks of HIV* (gay men and IV drug users). There are simply far more gay men than there are IV drug users, so of course there are more people with HIV who have sex with other men than there are IV drug users with HIV, but I’m pretty sure the rates are different. Something like 60% of the IV drug users down here have either HIV or hepatitis, the rates in the gay community down here are not anywhere near.
African Americans have much higher rates of HIV too, for similar reasons to why it’s so prevalent in the gay community. A lack of safe sexual practices, smaller dating pool, and higher rates of promiscuity.
Focusing in HIV as a problem with being gay doesn’t help, because it’s a risk associated with a sexual practice that can be practiced by anyone, not an orientation. People should be taught that HIV risk is associated with certain ways of transmission, instead of tying it to an orientation. You don’t know how many idiot teenagers I have met who think that HIV is a gay thing and that they will never get it because they aren’t gay, when they are engaging in risky practices themselves.
People who point out truth shouldn’t be maligned, but those who deliberately misread statistics for their agenda and bias should be corrected.
Simply put Jack I want boys to be boys and girls to be girls if that makes any sense. There is no time to discuss in detail how that is being MANIPULATED by our society, especially by the public school system (where being male is a disadvantage anyway). And I think you are aware of the societal manipulation quite well.
I have spent many years working with teens and young adults (it’s part of my life’s work as an employee and as a volunteer) and I have also met many idiot teens who think they are invincible and won’t get ANY STDs or be involved with any unplanned pregnancies either but the “it doesn’t matter what sexual orientation you practice” idea still doesn’t fly. The risk is still significantly greater. I agree Thomas R. this is being MANIPULATED by our society. I want every person especially teens and young people to get the truth about the health risks of ALL sexual activity heterosexual and homosexual but I especially want them to know the health risks of homosexuality because it is NOT true that everyone is at the same risks. It is a PC smoke screen to normalize the most risky sexual behaviors. Our kids still deserve to know the truth, so they can make an informed decision whatever decision they make.
The FDA and CDC estimate male homosexuals are at greatest risk for HIV, Hepatitis B, C, Herpes and syphilis than any other sub-group; they account for only 3% of the US population but have a 44X higher rate of new HIV infections and their have a 60X higher of HIV than the general US population.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm
For those who really want to know the truth read the article by the FDA. They answer the questions “Why doesn’t FDA allow MSM to donate blood? Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory? Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?
WSW and bisexual women are at risk also because the percentage of these women who have sex with men is higher than most people realize (a San Francisco study found that 81% report sex with men in the last 3 years) they have higher rates of IV drug use themselves and have high rates of having sex with gay/bisexual men and IV drug users.
This is published by the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies UCSF, AIDS Research Institute article “What Are Women Who Have Sex With Women’s HIV Prevention Needs?” which is not a gay-bashing, right-wing, religious publication.
I believe your intentions are good Jack but misguided by the culture. Yes, old folks like me will eventually die out but I believe unfortunately a lot of young people will die younger than they should or reap a lot of painful physical and emotional consequences because of the indoctrination of the sexual revolution “safe sex” peddlers like PP who will make millions to billions of dollars off of them with pills, patches, shots, Plan B, colored and flavored condoms, STD treatments, HIV cocktails, infertility treatments, dental dams, sex toys, and when the b/c fails the ultimate money-making machine “we’ll take care of your little problem” abortion.
“Simply put Jack I want boys to be boys and girls to be girls if that makes any sense. ”
See I actually don’t know what people mean when they say things like this. How are boys not being boys and girls not being girls? My kids both play with trucks and dolls. Do you think that only my daughter should by playing with dolls and my son should be confined to trucks? Obviously that’s a silly example but I genuinely don’t get what people complain about here. I honestly think men and women have far more in common than not, generally, and even within general differences there is a lot of variability so what is the big deal? I just want people to be themselves.
“The risk is still significantly greater.”
Which I’ve literally said. Twice now. The rates of HIV are higher within certain populations, especially gay males and IV drug users, so if you’re engaging in anal sex with someone from a high risk group you’re taking an extra risk. I’ve never denied that. Why I’m saying is regardless of the relative risk, people should be taught that certain sexual acts REGARDLESS OF THE ORIENTATION OF PEOPLE INVOLVED, carry inherently greater risk. Especially considering it’s quite easy for a bisexual man or someone who’s otherwise engaged in intercourse with another man to not inform his female partner of his past and then she would be put at risk if she’s not aware that certain sex acts put you at greater risk inherently. To put it bluntly, a woman engaging in anal sex with a man doesn’t know 100% what his sexual past is, and should not let the lower rate of HIV and STDs among exclusive heterosexuals lull her into being unsafe with her sexual health. That’s what I’ll teach my kids at least, I suppose you can teach yours whatever you want.
“For those who really want to know the truth read the article by the FDA. They answer the questions “Why doesn’t FDA allow MSM to donate blood? Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory? Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis? ”
We’ll, you also aren’t allowed to give blood if you are a male who was ever raped by another male, because of the higher risk. They don’t explicitly tell you on their publications, but if you call a blood drive they’ll tell you. Or if you have travelled to certain countries within certain time periods. I don’t think it’s discrimination, people getting safer blood is more important than hurting someone’s feelings. It might be unfair you can’t give blood because you were raped, but whatever. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up, whether you can give blood or not doesn’t mean much except that you can’t give blood without greater risk. I don’t think it says anything about the morality or health of someone if they can’t give blood, necessarily.
And I do not believe that heterosexuals should be allowed to give blood either if they engage in high risk sex acts with many partners, but I don’t know where the line should be.
And if you spent any time around the gay community, you’d probably find that a lot of the WSW who have sex with men on occasion are having sex with bisexual men (higher STD risk) which probably helps account for the higher disease rates in that community. That’s just a personal observation of mine though, I don’t have stats for that. And I think lesbians and bisexual women tend more liberal anyway, which generally means higher promiscuity rates unfortunately, which might be another factor.
By anyway from my reading it’s pretty clear to me that the higher STD rates in the gay community come from a couple factors. Like I said, one is that anal sex is an inherently risk sex act that make so easy to spread diseases, and many (but not nearly all) MSM engage in that act. There’s also a much smaller dating pool. If you have a group of 100 people and two have an STD, even with some promiscuity it probably won infect everyone. However, if you have a group of ten people and two have an STD, it’s pretty easy to infect everyone. That also a contributing factor in the higher STD rates in the black community. And then there’s the fact that men in general are more promiscuous than women, and gay men are no different. The difference is that straight men date people who tend less promiscuous (women consistently are found to have less sexual partners than), while gay men date people who tend to have higher promiscuity rates (other men). So that contributes too. Then there’s the issue with condom use no being as prevalent as it should be in the gay community in general. None of these things are exclusive to being gay except for the men being generally more promiscuous, but they do contribute to the higher rates in the gay community. Other groups with similar issues also have higher STD rates.
But that’s what I’ll teach my kids and any young people I have the authority to teach. None of its wrong or not factual and I think it’s more helpful to explain the factors in detail and emphasize that even If some groups have higher STD rates, some activities carry much greater risk than others and that doesn’t necessarily depend on the gender of you partner.
And some people are just gay or bisexual, that’s just how it is. They may choose to be celibate, or a bisexual may choose to only date those of the opposite gender, but they are still bisexual or gay. It really doesn’t matter your orientation, it’s the behavior that’s the concern. It’s okay if you aren’t straight even if you have a moral problem with not straight behavior.
Can we stop these gazillion references to anal sex, which the past three days are replete of here! I am having trouble eating lunch :(
Well if people would stop pretending that HIV happens because of what orientation you rather than what behaviors you partake in, I probably wouldn’t have to be so specific.
It’s okay to make a point once and just move on my cyberspace compadre. I think people got it, well at least I did. But like Jenny McCarthy said on Stern not too long ago – ”who wants to go there, its a ………?!” (the second part of her summation is too graphic for these pages).
That should sum it up for everyone…
(I can’t believe I’m having this conversation, please don’t tell my wife, Jill and the mods) :)
Well I want it to be clear that it’s okay if you aren’t straight if you are taking care of yourself properly and not engaging in risky behaviors (but that goes for everyone, everyone should take care of themselves and their sexual health or at least understand what risks they are putting themselves through if they choose to engage in particular sex acts). I just feel like people think there’s a problem with the orientation of being gay or bisexual instead of focusing on how certain behaviors are problematic no matter who you’re doing them with. I mean even if it is wrong to engage in sex with another man, isn’t it okay if you’re not straight but avoid homosexual activity? It cant make you a bad person just if you are bisexual as long as you don’t do anything immoral? You can’t really help your orientation, so if people would just focus on what behaviors are bad instead of implying it is bad to just be what you are, I think that would be more fair or accurate.
But Jesus does say thoughts are the same as actions so maybe it does make you wrong as a person to not be straight. Life isn’t very fair. But anyway, if it’s bad to be gay or bisexual even if you don’t act on it, the fact remains that you still won’t get HIV if you avoid sex with other men, especially if you avoid a certain sex act that makes Thomas uncomfortable when mentioned. Being a gay or bisexual man itself doesn’t give you HIV, it’s something you get from actions not orientation.
Just an FYI Jack – to be fair I am not the only one who thinks that anal sex is, to be brutally honest, nothing to be nonchalant about (I am putting it mildly). There is an entire industry promoting it between a man and a woman (you know what industry it is). This act does not define sexual activity by any stretch of the imagination and logic. And it also carries high risk of tissue tear and other health risks discussed on these pages. And again, Jenny McCarthy put it best…
No, it does not make me uncomfortable to discuss it Jack (nothing does actually). The last paragraph from my comment above was written in humor.
LOL!!! Wow, Jack you are still beating that horse I see. I agree with your points on everyone avoiding risky sexual activity that is why I stated “I want teens and young people to get the truth about the health risk of ALL sexual activity whether heterosexual or homosexual.” It’s ok that you don’t agree with me but disagreeing with the CDC (CDC Fact Sheet: HIV and AIDS among Gay and Bisexual Men” is available online) and the FDA (link given earlier) is kind of interesting. I am pretty sure the CDC and FDA fact sheets go where the research takes them and they would have emphasized that heterosexuals who engage in certain sex acts are also a part of the high risk groups but they don’t because the evidence-based research does not confirm this (at least not at this time). I can tell you this they are under a lot of political pressure right now to change the rules (see what I said about organ transplants) and if the LGBT activists can get their way things may change before BHO gets out of office. That is why they changed the filibuster rules in the Senate so they can load up the courts before he leaves office so lawsuits will only be considered that fit their agenda and the court decisions will go pretty much their way.
Sincerely Jack, I think I get where you are coming from you think I’m gay-bashing but actually I’m not. I will let it go and not irritate you any further. Take care. It’s almost Christmas and I hope you and your family will have a special Christmas and New Year.
Thomas R. I do appreciate your posts.
I’m not arguing with the CDC or irritated. The CDC DOES want to classify certain groups of heterosexuals as high risk, btw. Like I said, you’re only seeing what you want to see.
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.987085
And like I said, it’s not just gays. IV drug users or men raped by men can’t give blood either, unless they lie I guess.
I guess it’s the heterosexual agenda that yet haven’t classified those who have more than two sex partners a year as high risk. Maybe the heterosexuals changed the filibuster rules so this could happen.