Charlie Sheen will announce he's HIV+ on Today Show with Lauer...

If Denise knew, why did Charlie become so publicly angry with her? He would call her such vile names in the press and she never retaliated against him. She probably is the most sane of them all. Which is still a puzzle as to why she'd marry someone like him anyway with a horrible relationship track record and tons of issues. 

he may not have been like this when they were together. Some people go years before mania/ manic episodes. I think she said he was off drugs when they were together. Or she was blinded by love/ fame/ celebrity.

That's what mentally ill people do- attack and do horrible things to the people who love them. It's a very typical pattern. It's admirable that she never revealed his secrets or attacked him in retaliation- he was truly horrible to her many times.

They also have children together so perhaps she's taking the high road for them. Though I seem to recall some nasty fighting in the press... maybe it was over custody? Or something about his new wife, with whom he also had kids? (This is one of a million times where I think "why do I know these things?") 

kibbegirl said:

Funny, this is a typical MOL reaction: I'm going to open up a post, read several comments, decide the post is a time waster and not my cup of tea but instead of moving on to a post that is suitable to my interests, I'm going to post to let participants know it's a time waster and shouldn't be discussed because, well, other stuff is happening in the world far more important. Did I decipher it correctly? BTW, your disapproval is directed at me. I'm the OP.

Enjoy your important discussions. I'll look for you on Charlie Rose.

It's disappointing that we have people posting in a Pets forum, a word game forum and a Garden forum, while people are suffering in Paris (sarcasm included).  

TarheelsInNj said:

They also have children together so perhaps she's taking the high road for them. Though I seem to recall some nasty fighting in the press... maybe it was over custody? Or something about his new wife, with whom he also had kids? (This is one of a million times where I think "why do I know these things?") 

Bree Olson, the ex-porn star, said on Howard Stern that Charlie threatened Denise often. The issue was the children. Denise did not want the children at Charlie's because of the human traffic. Bree said that she totally understood this and had no beef with Denise, but Charlie took it very personally and seriously - like Denise was judging his lifestyle choices. Bree said that Charlie refused to negotiate with Denise regarding a safe, non-porn star atmosphere where he could host his children. Also, according to Bree, Charlie at that point was a severe recluse and refused to leave the house. 

I don't understand all the shaming that is going on these days, here and on Facebook and elsewhere, about people not spending their attention on the right things. OK, yes, there are tragedies all over the world, yet I am posting about my pets and my knitting and my piano and yes, Charlie Sheen. And I posted about events in France despite terrible things that are happening in Myanmar.

Why on earth do people seem to assume that my brain can only focus on one thing per day? And just because I am posting about something frivolous NOW, why do people assume I am incapable of feeling the "right way" about Paris, or wherever bombs are going off today? And why is it that so many seem to think that because I don't say something about tragedies in other areas, I neither know nor care about them? I don't post every thought I have, no matter what others might think about that.

I say let people post about what they want, and feel how they naturally feel about global events. Life is too short to be judging one another that way.

PeggyC said:

I don't understand all the shaming that is going on these days, here and on Facebook and elsewhere, about people not spending their attention on the right things. OK, yes, there are tragedies all over the world, yet I am posting about my pets and my knitting and my piano and yes, Charlie Sheen. And I posted about events in France despite terrible things that are happening in Myanmar.

Why on earth do people seem to assume that my brain can only focus on one thing per day? And just because I am posting about something frivolous NOW, why do people assume I am incapable of feeling the "right way" about Paris, or wherever bombs are going off today? And why is it that so many seem to think that because I don't say something about tragedies in other areas, I neither know nor care about them? I don't post every thought I have, no matter what others might think about that.


I say let people post about what they want, and feel how they naturally feel about global events. Life is too short to be judging one another that way.

The posts don't interest them that's why and like I said, instead of moving on to something that does, some would rather chastise and finger wag. Meanwhile, many of us are posting about political issues, taxes, home dilemmas and school issues as well as entertainment issues. This Charlie Sheen debacle just happens to cross pollenate with entertainment and public health. 

Getting back to Charlie, have been reading that he's facing many lawsuits. This will get ugly - uglier.

I don't understand the lawsuits.  Are all these people coming forward because they are HIV+?  I'd bet not.  I'll bet these are "mental suffering" type lawsuits meaning a money grab for the lovely people he associated with over the years. 

I also want to point out the language being used around this by the media.  Charlie Sheen "admits" he's HIV+.  Like he's got something to be ashamed of.  Read that and then remind me again how HIV is no big deal and the same as high blood pressure. Not.

Media is not reality.  if one chooses to believe media slants, that's their issue.  And noone said being HIV+ is "no big deal".  

Well, he HAS got something to be ashamed of: he was diagnosed and kept it secret, even from people whose own health he was putting at risk. He has finally "admitted" that he has something he knew about for years. I do think there is shame in the concealment, because he could have easily infected others with a condition that is not easy or inexpensive to deal with. So I can't fault the media for their use of the word "admit."

He says that he was upfront with everyone he slept with about his diagnosis. This is a he said-she said situation. It's a medical condition and he owes no one but those he is intimate with a "confession". The fact that he felt he needed to conceal it to begin with speaks volumes about the discrimination and shame people living withHIV feel.

Yes, a few on here have stated an opinion suggesting that being HIV+ is not a big deal.

conandrob240 said:

Yes, a few on here have stated an opinion suggesting that being HIV+ is not a big deal.

1 person.  

mumstheword said:

What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.

what we should all be doing is rushing to leave snarky comments on obscure websites.  that'll learn 'em.

mjh said:

conandrob240 said:

Yes, a few on here have stated an opinion suggesting that being HIV+ is not a big deal.

1 person.  

Where?  I missed that.  Same place as someone who likened the virus to a mere shrug of the shoulders?  Missed that too.  

Got this interesting email from a publicist this morning (and by the way I don't work on anything even remotely related to this):

Dear Deborah,

I hope you are well. We are now accepting interviews and exclusives with Bree Olsen to discuss Charlie Sheen recently announcing he is HIV positive. Olsen is enraged and says Sheen never disclosed he was HIV positive in their year-long relationship.

If you would like to set up an interview with Bree Olsen, either email or call me at (941) XXX XXXX. Olsen requires interview compensation.

deborahg said:

Got this interesting email from a publicist this morning (and by the way I don't work on anything even remotely related to this):

Dear Deborah,


I hope you are well. We are now accepting interviews and exclusives with Bree Olsen to discuss Charlie Sheen recently announcing he is HIV positive. Olsen is enraged and says Sheen never disclosed he was HIV positive in their year-long relationship.


If you would like to set up an interview with Bree Olsen, either email or call me at (941) XXX XXXX. Olsen requires interview compensation.

Set it up! Set it up! LOL!

Morally he's a deceptive little dick. I think he isn't being totally honest when he states that he disclosed to a few people he slept with that he had HIV. Oh, and he said something peculiar on the Today Show about the people he slept with and were made aware of his status were also under the care of his doctor??? Did I hear that correctly? 

@conandrob240 is spot on regarding the lawsuits. If he infected someone then I can see why one would sue, but if you're negative? But the lawsuits may be indicating that he purposely hid his diagnosis and continued to have unprotected sex. There have been cases where people have been jailed because of this. 

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf/2015/08/25-year-old_jailed_for_not_dis.html

falls under the heading "knew or should have known".

I can see being mad as hell if he failed to disclose, and I can understand doing the (paid) talk show circuit with indignation while the publicity lasts, but I don't see it as grounds for a lawsuit unless there were health ramifications. That starts to look really greedy. Then again, I doubt very many people were hopping into bed with him because they thought he was such a wonderful guy.

Question: when one tests "negative" are they always going to be negative? Is there a point that one must be re-tested especially if they know they have come into contact with someone who has the virus? 

Good question, and I don't have a clue.

if you have a shred of decency, you don't go on a talk show to discuss someone else's medical status. Even if he was a dick. 

kibbegirl said:

Question: when one tests "negative" are they always going to be negative? Is there a point that one must be re-tested especially if they know they have come into contact with someone who has the virus? 

I found this:

Frequently Asked Questions

If my HIV test is negative, does that mean I definitely don't have HIV?

Not necessarily. That's because of the "window period"—the
period after you may have been exposed to HIV but before a test can
detect it. The window period depends on the kind of test that was used
on your blood or oral fluid. For antibody tests, if you get a negative
result within 3 months of your most recent possible exposure, you need
to get tested again at the 3-month mark. For combination
antibody/antigen tests or RNA tests, that timeframe may be shorter. Ask
your health care provider if and when you need to be retested with a
negative test result. And meanwhile, practice abstinence or mutual
monogamy with a trusted partner, use condoms every time you have sex
(and for every sex act—anal, oral, or vaginal), and don't share needles
and other drug equipment (works). For more, see http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/testing.html

conandrob240 said:

if you have a shred of decency, you don't go on a talk show to discuss someone else's medical status. Even if he was a dick. 

You also probably don't go shopping around your interview availability.

...for money.

Not a lot of shreds of decency in this story.

PeggyC said:

kibbegirl said:

Question: when one tests "negative" are they always going to be negative? Is there a point that one must be re-tested especially if they know they have come into contact with someone who has the virus? 

I found this:

Frequently Asked Questions

If my HIV test is negative, does that mean I definitely don't have HIV?

Not necessarily. That's because of the "window period"—the
period after you may have been exposed to HIV but before a test can
detect it. The window period depends on the kind of test that was used
on your blood or oral fluid. For antibody tests, if you get a negative
result within 3 months of your most recent possible exposure, you need
to get tested again at the 3-month mark. For combination
antibody/antigen tests or RNA tests, that timeframe may be shorter. Ask
your health care provider if and when you need to be retested with a
negative test result. And meanwhile, practice abstinence or mutual
monogamy with a trusted partner, use condoms every time you have sex
(and for every sex act—anal, oral, or vaginal), and don't share needles
and other drug equipment (works). For more, see http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/testing.html

Great info! 

kibbegirl said:

deborahg said:

Got this interesting email from a publicist this morning (and by the way I don't work on anything even remotely related to this):

Dear Deborah,


I hope you are well. We are now accepting interviews and exclusives with Bree Olsen to discuss Charlie Sheen recently announcing he is HIV positive. Olsen is enraged and says Sheen never disclosed he was HIV positive in their year-long relationship.


If you would like to set up an interview with Bree Olsen, either email or call me at (941) XXX XXXX. Olsen requires interview compensation.

Set it up! Set it up! LOL!

Morally he's a deceptive little dick. I think he isn't being totally honest when he states that he disclosed to a few people he slept with that he had HIV. Oh, and he said something peculiar on the Today Show about the people he slept with and were made aware of his status were also under the care of his doctor??? Did I hear that correctly? 

@conandrob240 is spot on regarding the lawsuits. If he infected someone then I can see why one would sue, but if you're negative? But the lawsuits may be indicating that he purposely hid his diagnosis and continued to have unprotected sex. There have been cases where people have been jailed because of this. 

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf/2015/08/25-year-old_jailed_for_not_dis.html

These laws are archaic, from back when HIV used to be seen a death sentence.  It is not now.  It may be better than Herpes.   

http://gawker.com/how-is-it-possible-to-be-hiv-positive-and-absolutely-h-1743356926

so, Jenny McCarthy who played Sheen's  love interest for a while on two and a half men is mad this wasn't disclosed to her.  WTH?!?? I am confused, do actors actually engage in sex acts on set? Why on earth would this bimbo think she had a right to know his HIV status? 

I'm still scratching my head about why Charlie is going public about this at all?! If he disclosed this to his partners, (or not) why does the public at large even need to know?

Oh, wait, it's publicity. I'm sure he's getting some pretty pennies for interviews too. 

shh said:

I'm still scratching my head about why Charlie is going public about this at all?! If he disclosed this to his partners, (or not) why does the public at large even need to know?

Oh, wait, it's publicity. I'm sure he's getting some pretty pennies for interviews too. 

He was supposedly paying lots of hush money and being blackmailed. 

oh, so going public helps stop the blackmail. Oy.