As the American Red Cross points out on its official Web site, virtually all of us will face a time of great vulnerability in which we will need blood. Every two seconds, a new individual is in this unfortunate position, and that is why millions of Americans each year take time out of their busy schedules to save lives by donating some of their blood.

However, we must take special care not to endanger those who receive donated blood by exposing them to any infectious diseases the donor may have. Keeping this in mind, the Red Cross has developed an extensive list of conditions under which a person cannot donate his or her blood.

Most of the guidelines make sense – the American Red Cross is, after all, the nation’s premier emergency response organization. For example, due to concerns over hepatitis and HIV, those who have ever used IV drugs, that were not prescribed by a physician, are not eligible to donate.

However, there is a particular stipulation that concerns me. In accordance with the Food and Drug Administration, the Red Cross does not allow blood donations from people who are at “increased risk for becoming infected with HIV.” These organizations are doing their best to protect blood recipients from a deadly disease, and I applaud them for that. However, I find one of their requirements to be particularly disturbing.

According to the “Blood Donation Eligibility Guidelines,” which can be found on the Red Cross Web site, you are at increased risk of HIV infection if “you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once.” In other words, even if my boyfriend and I have only been with each other our entire lives (that happens to be the case), and we have had sex with each other at some point, then we cannot donate our blood to save the life of another human being. Are we at “increased risk” of becoming infected with HIV? Just in case you’re a complete moron, the answer to that question is a resounding “No.”

Now, it’s not my place to assume that even a majority of gay men are in the same boat – many people, both straight and gay, have had sex with several partners. Keeping that in mind, I can understand why some might believe this ban is appropriate; of all the forms of unprotected sex that can spread HIV infection, receptive anal intercourse carries one of the highest risks. And, last time I checked, receptive anal intercourse is a common form of sex within the gay community.

However, the Red Cross and the FDA are not being consistent. For example, according the Center for Disease Control, rates of HIV infection are disproportionately high among young women of color, especially those who are members of the working class, and therefore lack health insurance and easy access to health care. I think I’m safe in assuming that receptive anal intercourse is not the most popular form of sex in this particular demographic, yet there is clearly an “increased risk” of HIV infection. However, there is no mention of these individuals being excluded from donating blood, even if this sex was unprotected and with multiple partners.

The Red Cross could avoid offending any specific group by simply doing its job. After all, the blood of every donor is automatically tested for HIV. As the organization states on its Web site, “your blood would not be used if it could make someone sick.” And any inability of these tests to detect HIV is not sufficient reasoning to exclude sexually active gay males alone – it should take all high-risk groups into account.

Overall, the specific ban in question fails to account for two gay men who have only had sex with each other, and it also is reflective of a bigger problem – ignoring other groups who are at high risk of becoming infected with HIV. Perhaps these organizations need to re-evaluate their policies, because they are currently riddled with inconsistency.