Charlie Sheen in hospital for a case of "bad clams"

Good luck with that. Everyone has a skeleton in their cupboard. Everyone.

 

Not of this magnitude for most people, and it's not even close.

 

Nobody said it had to be. My view is a clean slate is hard to achieve for most of us. If you're whiter than white be my guest. I'm expecting a small to non existent queue.

People have problems. There but for the grace of God and all that.

 

Indeed...eg I have some Mariah Carey CDs

 

I remember a couple years ago , when Sheen was on the cover of Rolling Stone, rail thin, gaunt faced, and looking like a disciple of the Keith Richards Better Living Through Opiates program.

I also remember the denials by Sheen and all his "friends" , proclaiming that he, and everything was just fine.

Just one look told you that the very opposite was true.

This is just an immensely tragic story for pretty much everyone involved.....

 

Exactly. I always had just enough common sense (combined with a great family core) to not engage in overly-risky behavior. In Charlie's case, it's easy to lob stones since he continued engaging in idiotic, self-destructive behavior even after he found out that he was HIV-positive.

 

I would think that finding out you are HIV positive would be enough to make almost anyone engage in idiotic, self-destructive behaviors.

 

As far as I know, HIV is not a death sentence and can be kept under control. Magic Johnson has lived with it for over 2 decades. But it's up to the infected individual to take the necessary steps to keep it from advancing. Charlie has not done this. In fact, he continued to whore and drug around even after he knew. Obviously, the guy isn't taking this as seriously as he should.

 

Nobody really knows what was going through the guy's head at that time. For all we know, he may have been planning to live it up and then end it all....and at some point he changed his mind.

 

He changed his mind because he was being blackmailed. Color me skeptical, but I really don't see that he's really changed his ways all that much.

 

As long as you aren't one of Charlie's ex-lovers, it's all tabloid fare anyways.

 

Were those clams of the "ydia" variety?

 

I have read that the newer HIV drugs keep the virus under control to a point where it is hardly even detected in the body. That's fine, but individuals who have their HIV infection under control this much should not be given a green light to be sexually active with non infected people just because the internet says that these lower rates of infection present a lower risk, to no risk of infection to others. There are websites out there that say there is no problem that HIV infected individuals can still have sex, protected and unprotected since their infection rate is low and thus unlikely an issue to infect others. This is ********! I will never even touch a woman who is infected with HIV no matter how undetectable the virus in her body even with protection.

 

That would be up to the individuals involved.

 

That's true. Most people that are uninfected or with common sense would avoid these type of encounters. I sure would. Life is risky enough the way it is.

 

That's the kind of statement that makes people keep their infection a secret.

 

Sorry if that sounded harsh, but I and many others need to play it safe to avoid infection. I would still be casual friends with an HIV positive individual but would avoid sexual relations at all costs. There are HIV classifieds/dating sites for those infected to have a companion and not spread the virus to uninfected individuals. I feel the same way about Hep. C in regards to these concerns, not just HIV.

 

So "touching" was a euphemisn for sex. Gotcha.

I still think regarding the rules of safe sex goes a long way.

 

You are aware that there are a lot of HIV+/HIV- couples out there and both have managed to remain this side of the grave, right?
Personally, if I were "out there" and attracted to a guy and he was truthful about his status I'd take the necessary precautions and go for it. I'd also be on Truvada.

 

Clams eh? I guess that means he's bivalve

 

No, casual contact is fine, hand shaking etc. Everyone knows how this disease and other blood born diseases are spread. The rules of safe sex should be the same as when they were brought forth to me in the mid to late 80s and were strict. Problem is, as time goes on the rules are bent and there is more room for risk of infection. It all depends on what a persons priorities are I guess. You do know there is lot of misinformation out there regarding HIV infection? Whether the HIV viral load is low or high makes no difference. That person is still infected and the uninfected individual is still at risk.

 

I'm sure these types of relationships are out there. If it is a mutual agreement between the two than it's their choice and decision. I would never do it. Those who are infected, whether it be HIV, Hep. C or other STDs need to be upfront and honest about their status for public safety. Problem is there are people out there that are filled with revenge, anger and have sadistic ideals and intentionally try to infect people. There are also those that are infected that just don't care and never get checked/tested that continually infect other people as well.

 

You're right. I see more than bad clams in play there.

 

Well, if you play then prepare to pay. No excuses to either protect yourself by using a condom, or asking your partner to use one, or to simply abstain.

-Richard

 

Which is why I said (upthread) that you use a condom all the time if you don't know the person or their status, and Truvada on it's own has a 90% effective rate. That plus a condom keeps you very, very safe. . The only way to be safer is to sit home and watch Golden Girls reruns.