![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
frost a cupcake
♥thanks for the memories♥
these thoughts are sweeter than the spring
27 April 2009 @ 02:42 pm
Okay, so generally I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to fanfics. It takes a lot for me to consider it "badfic" or "badfuck". But this... oh god. Usually I'll offer concrit and try to help the author out, but in this case... it's not even just the smut that's bad/awkward/does not use lube. It's just... DX Everyone but Ayame is OOC, and *shudders* one of the characters actually said "WTF". Fanfic does not = IM. I could not get past chapter 2 of this one.
Here are some quotes:
"Get up Ayame I want you on all fours because now im gunna put it in your great little ass"
"you have to prepare me first my wonderfull ass cant take the brute force of just being shoved into Kyon-Kyon"
Damn ;_;
Link: http://anime.adultfanfiction.net/st
I'm not even sure what it was about this one that made me cringe... it just did. The OOCness and grammar were probably it, though.
Here are some quotes:
"Get up Ayame I want you on all fours because now im gunna put it in your great little ass"
"you have to prepare me first my wonderfull ass cant take the brute force of just being shoved into Kyon-Kyon"
Damn ;_;
Link: http://anime.adultfanfiction.net/st
I'm not even sure what it was about this one that made me cringe... it just did. The OOCness and grammar were probably it, though.
27 February 2009 @ 09:29 am
So, the first time I went to donate blood last year, of course the question "Have you ever had sex with a male who has had sex with another male, even once, since 1970?" came up. Why?
"Well, homosexuals aren't allowed to give blood."
The reasoning? AIDS.
My question for United Blood Services of America is: All factors taken into account, should it even matter what someone's sexual orientation is? Straight people having unprotected sex can receive and transmit AIDS just as easily as homosexual men can. The gender preference of a healthy donor should have nothing to do with whether they can provide blood, should it? If every blood sample donated is tested for disease and problems, specifically AIDS, prior to anyone receiving it or its use even being considered, what's the problem?
The official statement is:
"We test every blood donation for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),
hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis and human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV). However, despite improvements in blood screening tests, a small number of infected donations may be missed because of the window period between getting the infection and the test showing a positive result. While safer sex, through the use of condoms, does reduce the transmission of infections, it cannot eliminate the risk altogether. Men who have sex with men continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV and account for 63% of HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK. 1 Epidemiological evidence in the UK also shows that there has been a significant increase in sexually-transmitted infections which can also be blood-borne, such as hepatitis B and syphilis, among men who have sex with men. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, there has been a 117% increase in syphilis infections in men who have sex with men."
What about the other 40%, and the percentage of people with AIDS who declined to take the survey? Statistics are more or less unreliable because of the human factor, and studies like this are never definite. And though there is indeed a larger percentage of homosexuals with HIV, why should we be banning them and not other high-risk donors, like those with a predisposition to other blood-related diseases not involving the gay element? It's not the factor of offending people, it's the factor of the right to ban some high-risk donators based on risk factors, but not all of them. What about those with high blood pressure? With a past history of blood sugar-related anemia? With abnormal blood clotting patterns?
But the question still stands: why, for example, are those who grew up in Africa (a total "risk factor", since it's widely known about the current African AIDS outbreak) allowed to donate blood, but gay men who have had sex with even ONE partner, even if said partner never had intercourse with anyone prior to the relationship, still banned? Why are those with a history of non-recent drug abuse still allowed to donate blood? Why are men and woman who participate in promiscuous lifestyles but are not gay allowed to donate? Why are those who recently had a tattoo applied (even from a sanctioned "safe" parlor) allowed to donate when the risk of contracting HIV through a needle is arguably much higher than the risk of contracting it through protected anal sex? What separates the risk factor of homosexuality from others and makes it worthy of discrimination?
So I propose that instead of banning homosexual and bisexual men and anyone who's had any sexual contact with them from giving blood, why not require quarterly HIV testing for every blood donor who's been with multiple partners or has been having unprotected sex, gay or straight? Because although occasionally a test won't pick up on the HIV, since the blood is also tested after donation, the probability that TWO consecutive tests would fail to detect HIV is extremely low, despite the margin for error that always exists when dealing with a little-understood condition.
Further, I propose that if a person been with more than one partner, said person should have to wait 6 months before you donate blood, with periodical tests for HIV during that period, since it can take anywhere in that window for HIV to be detectable in a test. This should be done regardless of sexual orientation.
I propose that the voice of those homosexual men who desire to donate blood but have been denied be heard, and that we stop losing the valuable opportunity for those in critical condition to receive the lifesaving blood of the 8% of men in the USA who are admittedly homosexual. Currently, blood banks are struggling daily to make the quota for the amount of blood donations needed. 8% can make all the difference, if given the chance.
"Well, homosexuals aren't allowed to give blood."
The reasoning? AIDS.
My question for United Blood Services of America is: All factors taken into account, should it even matter what someone's sexual orientation is? Straight people having unprotected sex can receive and transmit AIDS just as easily as homosexual men can. The gender preference of a healthy donor should have nothing to do with whether they can provide blood, should it? If every blood sample donated is tested for disease and problems, specifically AIDS, prior to anyone receiving it or its use even being considered, what's the problem?
The official statement is:
"We test every blood donation for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),
hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis and human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV). However, despite improvements in blood screening tests, a small number of infected donations may be missed because of the window period between getting the infection and the test showing a positive result. While safer sex, through the use of condoms, does reduce the transmission of infections, it cannot eliminate the risk altogether. Men who have sex with men continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV and account for 63% of HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK. 1 Epidemiological evidence in the UK also shows that there has been a significant increase in sexually-transmitted infections which can also be blood-borne, such as hepatitis B and syphilis, among men who have sex with men. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, there has been a 117% increase in syphilis infections in men who have sex with men."
What about the other 40%, and the percentage of people with AIDS who declined to take the survey? Statistics are more or less unreliable because of the human factor, and studies like this are never definite. And though there is indeed a larger percentage of homosexuals with HIV, why should we be banning them and not other high-risk donors, like those with a predisposition to other blood-related diseases not involving the gay element? It's not the factor of offending people, it's the factor of the right to ban some high-risk donators based on risk factors, but not all of them. What about those with high blood pressure? With a past history of blood sugar-related anemia? With abnormal blood clotting patterns?
But the question still stands: why, for example, are those who grew up in Africa (a total "risk factor", since it's widely known about the current African AIDS outbreak) allowed to donate blood, but gay men who have had sex with even ONE partner, even if said partner never had intercourse with anyone prior to the relationship, still banned? Why are those with a history of non-recent drug abuse still allowed to donate blood? Why are men and woman who participate in promiscuous lifestyles but are not gay allowed to donate? Why are those who recently had a tattoo applied (even from a sanctioned "safe" parlor) allowed to donate when the risk of contracting HIV through a needle is arguably much higher than the risk of contracting it through protected anal sex? What separates the risk factor of homosexuality from others and makes it worthy of discrimination?
So I propose that instead of banning homosexual and bisexual men and anyone who's had any sexual contact with them from giving blood, why not require quarterly HIV testing for every blood donor who's been with multiple partners or has been having unprotected sex, gay or straight? Because although occasionally a test won't pick up on the HIV, since the blood is also tested after donation, the probability that TWO consecutive tests would fail to detect HIV is extremely low, despite the margin for error that always exists when dealing with a little-understood condition.
Further, I propose that if a person been with more than one partner, said person should have to wait 6 months before you donate blood, with periodical tests for HIV during that period, since it can take anywhere in that window for HIV to be detectable in a test. This should be done regardless of sexual orientation.
I propose that the voice of those homosexual men who desire to donate blood but have been denied be heard, and that we stop losing the valuable opportunity for those in critical condition to receive the lifesaving blood of the 8% of men in the USA who are admittedly homosexual. Currently, blood banks are struggling daily to make the quota for the amount of blood donations needed. 8% can make all the difference, if given the chance.
Current Mood: 
annoyed
annoyed26 February 2009 @ 02:19 pm
<img src="http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i
So everything is going swimmingly! Just a random, quick entry post to let everyone know that I'm getting started (though I doubt anyone cares XD)
So anyway, the cake above is from Keyeske's cake decorator on deviantart! Go to his page and check it out, seriously!
Well, that's all for now. More later! ^
So everything is going swimmingly! Just a random, quick entry post to let everyone know that I'm getting started (though I doubt anyone cares XD)
So anyway, the cake above is from Keyeske's cake decorator on deviantart! Go to his page and check it out, seriously!
Well, that's all for now. More later! ^
Current Mood: 
bouncy
bouncy