Here's a fascinating interview with de Beauvoir around 25 years after writing her seminal work The Second Sex, where she explains why feminism is necessary: https://youtu.be/g6eDMaDWquI
Well worth watching. Most of what she says still rings true today.
I have a deep respect for Simone de Beauvoir, so I clicked this link with interest, but I cannot find anything interesting in this article. It reads like a cross between a Tumblr post and a freshman essay. The writing is stilted, and the literary references are tenuous at best. If the article is trying to convey ideas, I am not sure what those ideas are, and if it is trying to create an emotional state, I don't think it succeeds. Not to be too ungenerous, but I half expected a recipe to follow the article.
For anyone interested, I would recommend simply picking a Simone de Beauvoir book yourself. They're not nearly as impenetrable as they're made out to be, and they contain much more meaning. (de Beauvoir is no Derrida, which I mean as a compliment.)
I can see where you're coming from — but perhaps you are not the target audience for the piece. I know of Simone de Beauvoir only from a Lloyd Cole lyric from the 80's and the article has piqued my interest in her.
That article is signed by 'Admin', and has no references whatsoever. It doesn't even detail which were the alleged collaborations. It's difficult to take it seriously, the same article states that Ernesto Guevara made a concentration camp for homosexual, which is not far from reality, but an anachronism and also it just uses that to blame on Simone to say shi sat next to him once. (PS. Said concentration camp was the Cuban solution implemented by Castro, without forced labour iirc, and it was the best solution they came up during the raise of HIV, meanwhile the rest of the world didn't do much better. Heck even today we reject their blood donation, I mean from homosexuals which is plain wrong.. anyway.. just wanted to challenge the credibility of your link. But I don't mean to say that socialist don't commit crimes and mistakes.. I 'd be happy to see sources on the accusations of the article, just that. Ah. Did I open a parenthesis somewhere? Ok)
I dunno who “we” is but just in case others missed the news, men who have sex with men in the United States no longer need to abstain from sex at all in order to donate blood, provided they’re in a monogamous relationship and meet other risk assessments. This has been true since roughly May 2023 as far as I’m aware.
The reason public health refers to “men who have sex with men” or MSM is because it was discovered very early on in the HIV/AIDS crisis that the phrase “gay men” missed a significant portion of those at risk. Some straight men really do have sex with other men, sometimes.
Thanks for pointing that out, but this doesn't answer the spirit of my question: do men that do not have sex with men need to be monogamous to donate blood, or is that a requirement specific to MSM?
