"== Blood fetish ==
Regarding blood fetish: please don't suggest to people that:
 - a common way of finding out whether a person would be safe to engage in bloodplay with is for them to go to their local blood donation organisation, who check blood if it is safe and contains no diseases before it will be stored.
Using a blood donation organization as a proxy STD test is highly irresponsible; if the testing is not 100% perfect (and in never is), and the person trying this is positive (and presumably anyone who is considering doing this considers this to be entirely possible), they will almost certainly (because of pre-test blood pooling, and the very large blood volumes involved) infect one or more unwitting third parties with a potentially lethal disease.

Instead, they should get tested at their local sexual health clinic.    

People just wanting to make sure are no more likely to have an STD than other first-time blood donors.. I don't see your point: If that kind of carelessness goes on things would happen *anyway*  (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 

It's reasonable to assume that people who take part in high-risk activities are at higher risk than other members of the population. In epidemiology terms, it's assortative mixing among people with high risk tolerance; people who take part in one high-risk activity are more likely to take part in others, including taking part in these activities with multiple partners; and no, you can't trust your partner who tells you ""I've never done anything like this before, either"". Consider the outbreaks of HIV in the regularly-tested adult movie industry; this in a population that take part in high-risk activities, and yet are all tested monthly.   

Hmm I guess that makes sense, kinda

I would be interested in reading if you feel like creating articles for ""assortative mixing"" and ""risk tolerance"" maybe  or   (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)

I'm not familiar with the article or the subject of its concern, but I fail to see how saying ""X does Y"" constitutes an actual endorsement of Y.  If such a method is indeed commonplace then, regardless of the advisability of such method for practitioners of said activity, it should be included as part of the article on that activity.   

Karada, I think you miss the point here.  Just because certain behavior is inadvisable does not mean Wikipedia should not state that people engage in it (if indeed they do) and describe it.  Certainly, the encyclopedia should not ENDORSE it (but then again, neither should it endorse anything elseNPOV and all that), but simply stating that it happens and describing what it is hardly constitutes an endorsement.  If we were to remove all content that describes inadvisable behavior, then we would also have to remove Collectivism, Fascism, Socialism, Christianity, Communism, Totalitarianism, Anarchism, Democracy, New England Patriots, Detroit Pistons, and Houston Astros.   

It's also worth noting that there are some bloodborne diseases that we can't yet test for.  (Prion diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease comes to mind.)  In addition to spreading these diseases to one's blood play partners, one would then potentially infect one or more innocent bystanders each time one donated blood.  Most jurisdictions also bar donations from individuals who have recently (in the last 12 months) come in contact with another person's blood.  Lying to the nurses when they ask about this stuff could conceivably make you civilly and/or criminally liable for any morbidity or mortality resulting from a tainted blood donation. (talk) 

The question is, is it actually a 'com