Womanizing A-lister is HIV positive- Page 4

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:05pm

javero said: "I hope he gets help as well as those whose lives he's turned upside down."

Good wishes to him as well without any question however wouldn't it be more accurate to say "former" A-lister? Is he still considered an A-lister after his professional escapades?

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:09pm

Let's keep our eyes open for the levels of demonization as this story unfolds.

 

Look at the yellow highlighted italicized AND MEN! on that Enquirer cover.  We can look for men who have sex with men and transgender women to be the "it goes without saying" vectors of transmission in this narrative.  

 

Let's ask those in our lives who are quick to dump on somebody for a disease if they can imagine that somebody with a voracious sexual appetite can get all the same kicks as a famous person with HIV got but in a way that is not harmful to themselves and others.  Because there is still a strong thread of people "getting what they deserve" when they get HIV in this country.  Sensible people need to challenge that or be part of the problem.

[javero]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:17pm

"Good wishes to him as well without any question however wouldn't it be more accurate to say 'former' A-lister? Is he still considered an A-lister after his professional escapades?"

 

I'm not a Hollywood insider but will suggest that in the era of the social media moguls & reality TV celebritards competing for mind-share, on balance, dude's still an a-lister.  That's always open to debate though

 

Updated On: 11/16/15 at 04:17 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:28pm

Funny how people are focusing on the A-List thing.  It's like BWW's thing with accents.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:31pm

FindingNamo said: "Funny how people are focusing on the A-List thing.  It's like BWW's thing with accents."

It's only because we don't dispute the womanizing part hahahaha

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:31pm

And thank God we have that right to focus on whatever the hell we want to and not be mandated/dictated/etc. by you on what should or shouldn't be the focus of discussion. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:33pm

FindingNamo said: "Funny how people are focusing on the A-List thing.  It's like BWW's thing with accents."

 

Well, when we were playing guess the A-Lister, that did prevent his name from being tossed around...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:39pm

Are we all going to keep an eye out for who gets trashed in the ensuing media eruptions?

Gay men, definitely.

Drug addicts, definitely.

Partners for choosing to have sex with the guy, probably.

Who else?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:44pm

Oh, I left out theoretical people who have sex with others without disclosing their status!  How could I forget!  The most important narrative thread of all:  DISHONEST PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SPREAD HIV!!!!

 

With absolutely no distinction between people who don't know their status (why isn't THAT illegal, btw?) and those with suppressed viral load and those with addictions and mental health issues?

Hate to leave those "bad guys" out.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:55pm

 

I hear this is how the California law reads.  See how they have to fold in the myth that "PEOPLE WANT TO INFECT OTHERS"?  People who know their status do not want to infect others, research shows.  But as long as they're in denial about their situation, anything is possible.  It seems particularly American to want to jail people for it, as the war on drugs proves.  It's not helpful and actually facilitates deeper denial and the further spread of HIV.  So let's see if ANY of the coverage of this event can manage to be stigma-free.  My guess is no.

 

“Any person who exposes another to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or eight years.”

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:09pm

You've probably right on all counts, as you tend to be about everything except U2.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:36pm

Weren't you relieved to hear they were safe?  I'm glad they took the time to let the world know! 

 

I'd suspecting someone will continue compare a drug addicted mentally ill person with HIV to a terrorist, and since it could be a story of sex and drugs, I'll expect at least one right winger to use the phrase "worse than ISIS."

 

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:55pm

FindingNamo said: "Weren't you relieved to hear they were safe?  I'm glad they took the time to let the world know! "

 

Heh, well, i think a lot of people were aware that they were in Paris, though, since their HBO concert was set to be broadcast "live-ish" on Saturday night (aka a few hours after it was actually live).

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 11:02pm

Keep an eye out for slippery language like:

 

 But as Us Weekly has learned, and as reported by TMZ, Sheen believes that the virus is now “undetectable” in his blood.

 

Yes, that's a thing.  A real thing.  Tiger blood in his veins, no.  Undetectable viral load, absolutely.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 11:32pm

Jesus Christ.   About a year or so ago I was talking to a friend of mine whom is an actual pharmacist about PrEP and she had no idea what I was talking about and even started talking down to me like that I must have meant the stuff you take post-exposure (PEP?).   That subtext with the scare quotes around undetectable and that he "believes" he's undetectable remind me of that. 

Updated On: 11/17/15 at 11:32 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 12:17am

Yes, exactly.  And of course, except in the world of Shonda Rhimes, there is absolutely no room for nuance in this discussion.  Maybe we BWWers can try to hold back the flood of misinformation that is sure to be flowing when the dam bursts tomorrow?

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 12:47am

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/16/charlie-sheen-s-gross-hiv-guessing-game-takes-us-back-to-the-ignorant-1980s.html

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 1:04am

That is a very well reasoned and articulated article.  Thank you for posting it.  Maybe those of us who engaged the '85 era gossip feast can try to do a little better tomorrow by giving some counter narratives to the ones that are going to by flying from every corner?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 7:04am

Terrific article haterobics. Thanks so much for sharing it!

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 9:31am

Whether or not it's "undetectable" is completely irrelevant. If he was diagnosed with HIV and is treating his HIV with medication but failing to inform his sexual partners, he is breaking the law. You can complain about it... deny it... fight it... ignore it... but it's all for nothing because this is the law on the books in California. Try to use actual facts when discussing the legality of this issue and the fact that this man is a felon. 

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 9:46am

Doesn't someone have to be convicted of a felony before they're a felon?

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 9:49am

Sheen stated, when asked if he could have infected someone else, that it was impossible. He said that two of  his sex partners were told by his doctor ahead of time that he had HIV. I'm wondering who would then go ahead and  have sex with him, knowing that. Is having sex with Charlie Sheen important enough to take that risk?

 

I also wonder if it's undetectable, how was it detected?

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 9:49am

Sheen stated, when asked if he could have infected someone else, that it was impossible. He said that two of  his sex partners were told by his doctor ahead of time that he had HIV. I'm wondering who would then go ahead and  have sex with him, knowing that. Is having sex with Charlie Sheen important enough to take that risk?

 

I also wonder if it's undetectable, how was it detected?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 9:54am

Liza's Headband said: "Whether or not it's "undetectable" is completely irrelevant. If he was diagnosed with HIV and is treating his HIV with medication but failing to inform his sexual partners, he is breaking the law. You can complain about it... deny it... fight it... ignore it... but it's all for nothing because this is the law on the books in California. Try to use actual facts when discussing the legality of this issue and the fact that this man is a felon."

 

But he is not a felon. He clearly stated in his interview with Matt Lauer on the TODAY show that he did in fact tell his sexual partners about his HIV status.

 

"

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 9:54am

Because sex is pleasurable?  People who are HIV positive can have healthy sex lives.  They're on the treatment, they use condoms, and now the partners can be on PreExposure Prophylaxis and they can have all the fun they want.  And should, a fulfilling sex life is good for your health.