Posted: 11/17/15 at 11:25am
Posted: 11/17/15 at 11:32am
No, the reframed one that understood PrEP to be a great new option in the prevention toolbox!
Posted: 11/17/15 at 11:32am
Thanks for posting that article, haterobics. That is 1 reason why I was avoiding on commenting before today. I hate the media for their witch hunting ways about this sort of topics.
And, didn't someone make a dangerous assumption earlier in this thread about Leonardo DiCaprio? How is that okay and using a word like "perhaps" versus "they probably" when giving an opinion is not? Way to be a hypocrite.
Posted: 11/17/15 at 11:33am
Riiiiiiiiiiiight???!! Excellent point, Marianne and thank you for making it.
Posted: 11/17/15 at 1:24pm
It's almost like I wrote this!
A worthwhile read for people who'd like to be more informed than the below average headband
Posted: 11/17/15 at 1:30pm
"...serodiscordant couples (one positive the other not)..."
This thread is very informative.
Posted: 11/17/15 at 1:41pm
Knowledge is good!
Posted: 11/17/15 at 1:44pm
Yay Mathew Rodriguez!
Mathew Rodriguez is a Staff Writer at Mic. He is a queer Latino New Yorker who enjoys female rappers, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Flannery O'Connor. He is a former editor at TheBody.com and his writing has been featured in Slate, The Advocate, Refinery 29 and Modern Loss. Follow him on twitter at @mathewrodriguez or send him an email at mathewkrodriguez.com.
Let him know how much you appreciate the article and drop him an e-mail!
Posted: 11/17/15 at 2:17pm
CarlosAlberto said: "Mathew Rodriguez is a Staff Writer at Mic. He is a queer Latino New Yorker who enjoys female rappers, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Flannery O'Connor. He is a former editor at TheBody.com and his writing has been featured in Slate, The Advocate, Refinery 29 and Modern Loss. Follow him on twitter at @mathewrodriguez or send him an email at mathewkrodriguez.com."
You just outed Namo on here! 
Posted: 11/17/15 at 4:00pm
But I thought Namo was a professor of Antiquities or whatnot...never mind.
Posted: 11/17/15 at 4:10pm
Posted: 11/17/15 at 9:57pm
I went back to the beginning of this thread and re-read and man, there really is a LOT of appalling stuff in it.
Posted: 11/17/15 at 10:22pm
I so agree with the previous poster. Even all of the straight people at work were talking about how appalling it was that people have been blackmailing him.
Posted: 11/17/15 at 10:32pm
I'm not a fan of Sheen, but his health is no one's fvking business. This shouldn't even be a public issue, let alone such a huge story. Aren't Paris, ISIS, and the refugees enough?
Posted: 11/17/15 at 10:50pm
I'd prefer the Starbucks cups, personally.
But, and there's always a big but, at least maybe some people will hear about PEP and PrEP for the first time. And some people will learn what an undetectable viral load is. So that's good.
Posted: 11/17/15 at 11:35pm
Oh right - I forgot about those people who were offended by the plain red cups. Too bad those pesky Isis men had to take the attention away from the cups issue.
oy vey Jane.
Posted: 11/18/15 at 12:24am
The cups can still get back in the spotlight, they have a good five weeks to go yet...
Posted: 11/18/15 at 9:55am
So it made the Business Section of the NY Times today. All about image/"brand" control. How {fill in the blank; I'll take cynical} is that? He's described as "troubled."
Lots of muddy waters swirling around this. It's more than a little discomforting, the facile conflation of the Winehouse-era cautionary tale aspect of Sheen's addiction with his HIV status. Whether the two issues are connected in his narrative is his business. Reading low-information would-be pundits opine that Sheen's "lifestyle" has been laid bare once again to public scrutiny quickly overrides the presumption of non-judgement. A lot of bad algebra here -- addiction leads to a change in HIV status, or an HIV status causes addiction -- floats freely through the cyber world. The very people who claim to be eschewing moralizing and finger wagging over Sheen's HIV status don't mind annotating their commentary with a lot of TMZ tsk-tsking about his public persona and known behavioral excesses. Why not just offer the facts?
Updated On: 11/18/15 at 09:55 AM
Posted: 11/18/15 at 10:58am
Because people have to not see themselves in the story. They have to assure themselves and the world of the fundamental difference between themselves and those for whom bad fortune has come.
This is why Elton John and Calvin Klein married women right after AIDS started decimating gay men. See how very different they are from "those" people?
Posted: 11/18/15 at 11:19am
Wonder if Charlie Sheen should let the appropriate authorities know who he paid all that money too? Wouldn't it be taxable income?
Posted: 11/18/15 at 9:03pm
"Because people have to not see themselves in the story."
Thank you.
Posted: 11/19/15 at 1:44am
"This shouldn't even be a public issue, let alone such a huge story."
When you're a chronic narcissist, you need to be the story. Of course his health problems are none of our business and if a tabloid wasn’t positioned with a front page article on the subject, it’s unlikely he would have come forward (after 4 years) other than to scoop their scoop. And I doubt that his audience will be enlightened by the finer points of the advances of PEP and PrEP and so on.
Posted: 11/19/15 at 3:25am
They should plaster pictures in the Newspapers of all of the blackmailers and follow them around never giving them any privacy. The same with the people that pursued information for the Inquirer.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
