stufte
Member
I don't know, ask Magic Johnson. He announced he was HIV+ when I was in middle school. I'm almost 40 now.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Charlie Sheen is HIV+
- Thread starter LQX
- Start date
- Status
I don't know, ask Magic Johnson. He announced he was HIV+ when I was in middle school. I'm almost 40 now.
His talk show couldn't find a cure though.
StopMakingSense
Member
Uh.. yeah, HIV has been manageble for quite some time now.
We live in a world that is post-1996.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Magic Johnson has been living with it for nearly 30 years with no real complications to speak of, but he's been 100% focused on taking care of himself since the moment he found out. Sheen might have other demons that could affect his ability to stay healthy.
shocked, shocked that someone who says this has absolutely no awareness of modern medicine
IISANDERII
Member
Yea I didn't get the other part of his argument either where getting tested and being diagnosed positive automatically brings shame and stigma, as if doctor-patient confidentiality is breached so often that people would rather get a terminal disease untreated.
It's pretty fucking awful. I knew an HIV+ sex worker who gleefully told me the best part of her day was having unprotected sex with cheap guys to teach them a lessen.
I just couldn't respond to that.
titiklabingapat
Member
Studies have shown that the risk is pretty much zero, or very, very, very close to it, provided he is adherent with his medication. Many doctors just don't want to say absolute zero for obvious reasons. Many reputable doctors don't even recommend Prep for sero-discordant (one HIV+, the other is HIV-) couple so long as the HIV+ partner is adherent and has an undetectable viral load.
The problem with Charlie is that he doesn't seem to be on any medications since he looks like he is wasting away.
I mean, with the right steps, you could sleep with a thousand people and are insanely unlikely to infect them. It's like a fraction of a fraction of a single percent. The percentages are much, much higher with anal sex, though and this is Charlie Sheen we're talking about.
It's definitely a moral obligation.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
It's not acceptable. A lot of posters continue to undermine the seriousness of the disease, effectively equating a low risk of transmission as "zero risk" thereby justifying the idea that not disclosing to someone that you are HIV+ is deserved autonomy that would otherwise be nulled if you informed someone they risked infection.
I just...can't agree with that kind of thinking. At all.
Not everybody pointing that out is suggesting it's okay not inform your partner.
The fact of the matter is, the risk is virtually zero. You probably take bigger risks with your health every single day. That fact is important information for this discussion, even if it doesn't change the fact that you should inform.
CornBurrito
Member
Even if the risk is zero, it shouldn't be the infected determine the amount of risk his partner is willing to take. People aren't logical creatures, but their emotions have value. It is dishonest to lie or not disclose something like that to a sexual partner just because you'd deem any rejection due to it as irrational.
Yeah. I double checked her if she was kidding, but she was dead serious. Nice enough person outside that...but I kind of slumped down in terms of convo there.
Charlie is a drug addict. Being HIV+ and indulging in cocaine, alcohol and other things damaging to your immune system is really fucking inadvisable.
I doubt very much he is HIV+ and NOT on that medication.
HIV medecine is crazy expensive. At least 1000 a bottle a month if you want to be in good health. It's hard enough knowing you have it, but some just shut off and dont mention it to the last partner. That person may stop, some will continue knowing full well he or she is contagious, and thus the chain continue
And look at this bitch saying she gave HIV to half the city. This is how it gets spread out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSucdF__6AQ
And look at this bitch saying she gave HIV to half the city. This is how it gets spread out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSucdF__6AQ
titiklabingapat
Member
I'm not saying that the HIV+ person shouldn't disclose. Quite the opposite actually. But the calls for criminalizing it is counter-intuitive.
If you are the receptive partner, just assume that everyone is lying about their status and get on PrEP and use condoms. We have the tools and knowledge now that we didn't have 25+ years ago. It's time we use it.
Father_Brain
Banned
Did you even read the article I linked, or did you just skim through it looking for sentences you could take out of context to fit your "holy shit look at these PC nutjobs" narrative?
The sentence you quoted is actually arguing *for* criminal penalties in very select cases.
Most of the outrage in this thread doesn't seem to be the idea of criminalization of knowing HIV infection (which is counterintuitive except in rarer, malicious cases) but on the idea that disclosing is a choice that the infected partner has.
You should ask and assume your partner is lying, but if infected, you have an obligation to tell your partner, even if you're using condoms and/or your viral load is undetectable. It's not your choice to weigh the risk.
here's a response, next time tell her she's an evil cunt
Nah. Not my place to shame.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
No? How about doing something..anything?
I'm not a fucking arbiter.
Ninja Scooter
Member
wouldn't surprise me if he got it from drug use tbh (if he even knows how he got it)
Father_Brain
Banned
I can pull together some more links, and I might later, but simple question to the majority of posters in this thread: if HIV transmission/non-disclosure criminalization is such a great idea, why is it that so few HIV prevention/treatment organizations support it? Have they just fallen under the sway of disease-spreading PC extremists or what?
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
http://www.tmz.com/2015/11/16/charlie-sheen-hiv/
the announcement is that he no longer has detectable levels of HIV
the announcement is that he no longer has detectable levels of HIV
That's not what undetectable means.
I think it's necessary. You don't need to label yourself as a sex offender to survive. To have socially responsible intercourse, you should disclose the information. You can likely live without it, and not ruin lives. If you feel you can't, you have a problem.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
well, whatever it means - it's that it's gotten better than it was
UnObtainium17
Member
Itds just his treatment made the HIV count so low that its not detectable by current methodologies.. The moment he stops his meds that count will be back up again.
Freeman
Banned
This line of though remind me of victim blaming.
"He should have used a condom", "She shouldn't have trusted what he said".
If you are willfully punting people at risk, it sure as hell should be a crime. Is it too much to expect some common courtesy?
I don't necessarily agree with HIV criminalization, but I wouldn't go to HIV organizations as some sort of moral authority on any matter, given organizations like AHF's repugnant relationship with PrEP.
If someone knowingly put me at risk, I'd do everything I could to see them sent to prison.
And_Gignac
Member
But should the person be morally reprehensed when the risk is fairly nonexistent? If the risk is most likely close/or zero under normal circumstances, shouldnt we think for a minute and not judge so severely those people who dont disclose? Doesnt this fear comes from wrong ideas and prejudices?.
Is an HIV+ person devoided of her right for privacy once she has adquired HIV+? Should she carry the stigma of her disease in every one of her sexual encounters? Should she just "deal with it"? Those are things to consider too, when we have this type of dicussion.
Is it fair to label them as uncaring monsters when they are taking care of their health, use a condom and dont disclose just out of fear and/or embarrassment?. Disclosure is preferable, the morally correct option but most of society aint give a fuck about that.
the cure was in Charlie´s blood all along. #winning
What a weird way to twist yourself out of responsability.
Abso-fucking-lutely. I have had HIV scares before. I understand the risk. Disclosure is not "preferable". It is necessary.
Again -- why does the HIV+ person get to make the judgment call for the HIV- person? It is up the HIV- to weigh the options once they know their partner's HIV+ status. It's not "privacy" because it shouldn't be up to you to make that choice for your partner, even if the risk is low.
We can debate the merits of HIV criminalization all day. That's more interesting. This is no-brainer, and I'm appalled that you're suggesting it's understandable not to disclose someone's HIV status to their partner.
Father_Brain
Banned
AHF is repugnant in myriad ways, but I fail to see how their repugnance reflects on the credibility of other HIV/AIDS organizations in any way. Like the HIV Medical Association, for instance.
http://www.hivma.org/uploadedFiles/HIVMA/FINAL HIVMA Policy Statement on HIV Criminalization.pdf
King Tubby
Member
I'm not gonna wade into the rest of the discussion, but please people if you're gonna have unprotected sex with anyone go to a free clinic and get yourselves both tested first.
Who puts you more at risk: someone who is HIV positive but on medication with an undetectable viral load or someone who doesn't know their status?
Why would you criminalise one but not the other?
I was more talking about a blind appeal to HIV organizations when they're not all created equal.
Again -- I agree with you.
That's a bizarre choice, given that AHF's position was one rejected by almost the entire HIV medical establishment. Like HIV criminalization.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked