nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Charlie Sheen

irishjay

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2011/03/charlie-sheen-breaks-twitter-record/1
it just goes to show you ...when your famous no matter what you do .. youre in a win win situation.
2 million a show i nearly blew a gasket ,and to hear if he goes back . he wants 3 mill.. and he may even get it madness
god i love america .........................not.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KKkitty

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

She didn't just tweet about it, she tweeted that she had just 'recorded' herself having the test. $$$$

Wonder who will offer the most for that "exclusive"

NachoBusiness

KKkitty wrote: »

Wonder who will offer the most for that "exclusive"

In fairness to Bree, when Charlie was the top news story for many months back in 2011, she never capitalized on it. Indeed, she's been offered a small fortune to return to porn and refused the money. She's crackers and all that, but I don't peg her for a gold digger. Telling Playboy Charlie was a "rockstar" in bed is about the only thing I've ever read her saying about him actually. She has always seemed quite loyal to him. Perhaps that will change. I doubt it though.

retro:electro

NachoBusiness wrote: »

In fairness to Bree, when Charlie was the top news story for many months back in 2011, she never capitalized on it. Indeed, she's been offered a small fortune to return to porn and refused the money. She's crackers and all that, but I don't peg her for a gold digger. Telling Playboy Charlie was a "rockstar" in bed is about the only thing I've ever read her saying about him actually. She has always seemed quite loyal to him. Perhaps that will change. I doubt it though.

Oh my god I just read those tweets! Christ! Don't know whether to feel disgusted or pity her

retro:electro

NachoBusiness wrote: »

In fairness to Bree, when Charlie was the top news story for many months back in 2011, she never capitalized on it. Indeed, she's been offered a small fortune to return to porn and refused the money. She's crackers and all that, but I don't peg her for a gold digger. Telling Playboy Charlie was a "rockstar" in bed is about the only thing I've ever read her saying about him actually. She has always seemed quite loyal to him. Perhaps that will change. I doubt it though.

I'd imagine she was contractually restricted and couldnt. He makes all his girlfriends and conquests sign a confidentiality clause

NachoBusiness

anna080 wrote: »

I'd imagine she was contractually restricted and couldnt. He makes all his girlfriends and conquests sign a confidentiality clause

Nah, sure she spoke about everything else that went on. How the other one of the "Goddesses" was crying all the time and jealous of her. How Charlie was with the kids etc. That's what I mean when I say she has had her chance to speak badly about him, and never has. You can see from her Twitter account she is not one for biting her tongue. If she wanted to say something, she'd have said it by now, clause or clause. Just my opinion of course but I think she's a little ditsy at worst but ultimately she always comes across as being genuine and honest, if a little naive at times. This a recent example of the latter.

nxbyveromdwjpg

anna080 wrote: »

I wasn't taking a swipe at her job

You clearly were though, you didn't say classy on replying to and quoting the tweet, you said classy on quoting her profession.

Anywho..

nxbyveromdwjpg

NachoBusiness wrote: »

In fairness to Bree, when Charlie was the top news story for many months back in 2011, she never capitalized on it.

Pretty sure she dumped him actually, so the opposite of capitalising on it. Remember reading about it when he was on his crazy rampage days.

Azalea

Joe Calm Dew wrote: »

You clearly were though, you didn't say classy on replying to and quoting the tweet, you said classy on quoting her profession.

Anywho..

Ah ffs, why do people do this?

Spoiling for a fight even when it has been made clear there's no reason to be, you even resorted to implying Anna said she deserved AIDS.

For a split second I thought Anna meant what you thought too, but then when I saw a bit more context it was obvious she was referring to what Bree tweeted.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Azalea wrote: »

you even resorted to implying Anna said she deserved AIDS.

Sorry about that, it was actually ceadaoin.'s previous post I had in mind writing that, not the one I quoted.
Should have multiquoted.

Anyway, doesnt matter.

Shame for Charlie Sheen and all concerned. I'd reserve judgement though until it actually comes to let what happened, if he knew, etc.

Azalea

Yep, if it's true, he's the scummy one but any mature adult who has unprotected sex with someone they don't know, is being an eejit. Particularly someone who's a professional in the sex industry - and particularly when the person they're having sex with is someone who is devil-may-care about their promiscuity. That doesn't take away from the fact that the person who has the STD and says nothing is the one who's in the wrong, and sh-t happens, people mess up, but in this day and age it's really irresponsible still. I don't think the other person is entirely absolved of responsibility if they have made the decision to go bareback.

Samaris

Azalea wrote: »

. I don't think the other person is entirely absolved of responsibility if they have made the decision to go bareback.

Meeh. I don't really think this is honestly a case of apportioning blame in that manner. "Oh, you're so 80% guilty of being a grade A lying bucket of weasel vomit, but darling, sleeping with him unprotected? You're 20% to blame for this life-destroying disease you now have..."

I dunno why that went faintly Valley Girl, but the point still stands.

KKkitty wrote: »

For all we know Charlie Sheen could have gone into denial and shock following his diagnosis. He may have gone through a stage where he honestly thought it wasn't happening to him.

Nope. There's no excuse. Went into shock, maybe didn't believe it himself, etc... Maybe, just -maybe- you could make the mistake once, but I honestly do not know how sheer guilt couldn't shake you awake after that.

Also, if it is indeed that he is HIV+ and that he has been sleeping with X number of women in the meantime...how dare he act the arrogant sociopath by dropping -teasers- for this interview for attention? When how many lives could be affected? If he was -sorry-, he'd contact as many of those women urgently as he could remember and make an announcement on his personal whatevers. Twitter even! Interview after. Word out first and y'know, maybe some sort of apology.

Fortunately, HIV transmission is actually fairly complicated and certainly not 100% in transmission or anything close. But it's a roulette if he was sleeping with them unprotected. In a way, that makes it the worst...transmission rates drop to nearly 0 with effective condom use. For something so damned simple, and he's too selfish to even take that precaution?

seamus

Samaris wrote: »

Meeh. I don't really think this is honestly a case of apportioning blame in that manner. "Oh, you're so 80% guilty of being a grade A lying bucket of weasel vomit, but darling, sleeping with him unprotected? You're 20% to blame for this life-destroying disease you now have..."

This was perhaps true 20 or even 10 years ago. As has been mentioned, we're at the point now where HIV is a manageable illness, with potential effects on the person at later life. There are other STDs in the same bracket, which are manageable but potentially devastating if left unmanaged.

Ultimately sex education being where it is, yes a person has to acknowledge the risks of unprotected sex and take some blame when it goes wrong. There's the old story of the girl telling the guy not to bother with a condom because, "I'm on the pill". When she falls pregnant, does anyone listen to his pleas of, "It's not my fault, she lied"? No, he's told to man up and accept what he's done.
Harsh as it sounds, if you've contracted HIV (or any STI) through unprotected sex, you have to shoulder a large chunk of the blame.

Just like the pregnancy example, yes the person who lied is a scummy piece of ****. But they didn't take away the "victim's" ability to choose, and they chose to go bareback and therefore chose to accept the risks.

Samaris

Regarding life-destroying;

Yeah, it can be managed and treated now, but it requires a complex regimen of pills to be taken, constant checking the white blood cells, decreased immune system, -thoroughly- disrupted home life, prospect of having children, restriction of free movement (due to the complex nature of treating the illness), etc, etc, that while it -probably- won't kill you nowadays, it's certainly a horrible enough disease to warrent the title!

Regarding blame;

Yes, I see your points. But at the end of it, I can't help but think that the results are so cruel and the act so...deliberate, that I can't condemn the innocent and mildly foolish. Few people would think that this guy standing in front of you could be harbouring a secret like that, would so deliberately put you at risk of something like that. No, I hope Charlie Sheen is punished severely and thoroughly for this. If it's true, what he's been doing can't be mitigated by blaming the women for their situation now, and cannot be excused in the slightest.

Edit: I don't say that you ARE trying to mitigate his actions, by the way. Just...meh. We all know we shouldn't accept lifts from strangers, but the blame is still on the murderer or rapist if someone does.

seamus

Samaris wrote: »

No, I hope Charlie Sheen is punished severely and thoroughly for this.

In California it's actually punishable by up to 8 years in prison. And California prisons are tough.

That said, Sheen might be a complete nutbar, but he's not an idiot. I very much doubt he would willingly put himself in line for a prosecution by just randomly going on the air with this. I wouldn't be surprised if his partner(s) since discovering his diagnosis have been paid off or otherwise gagged to prevent him being charged with a felony.

Clearly this is partially to do with "the Charlie show", since Sheen has fallen off the air in the last couple of years. But the pessimist in me thinks that Sheen is being public with his diagnosis now so he can't be charged later on for not disclosing it to future sexual partners.

asherbassad

newacc2015 wrote: »

Eh? Thats such BS in 2015. With all the excellent meds there is now. People with HIV can now live amazing and near normal lives. You can now suppress the virus with meds now to undetectable levels ie cant be detected in a HIV test due to such low levels in the blood. When you are "HIV undetectable", you cant spread the virus to others.

Statically if you catch HIV tomorrow and 20 years old. You should live to the age of 75 years, as the meds are so good. There is no muscle wasted like the 1980s anymore. HIV is probably more manageable than diabetes now

Yeah, but the cocktail of nauseating drugs you have to take everyday is a misery.

Seanachai

I like Charlie but he seems to be his own worst enemy at times, he's got the 'lust for life' that Iggy Pop sang about and as many a rake finds out sooner or later you have to pay the price. If I had his money though I'd be finding doctors who are on the cutting edge.

asherbassad

Samaris wrote: »

People aren't always sensible, and celeb status sometimes means they get to make demands that joe bloggs wouldn't. The women might assume that that they're on the pill will protect them from worst consequences, but never dream that someone - even a bat**** nut like Sheen - would sleep with them unprotected knowing he had HIV.

Very true. And people can still be ignorant. They can still firmly believe that HIV/AIDS is a disease only for the poor. Only for junkies, crack-head hookers and poor naive queers engaging in multiple partner unprotected gangbangs. Not the rich and famous.

Sleepy

Every time I read about Charlie Sheen, I feel sorry for his father. Every interview I've seen with him, and anyone I know who interacted with him during his time in NUIG gives the impression that Martin Sheen is a lovely man and could only be heart-broken by his son's self-destructive behaviour.

ricero

its official he confirmed it today

seamus

Sleepy wrote: »

Every time I read about Charlie Sheen, I feel sorry for his father. Every interview I've seen with him, and anyone I know who interacted with him during his time in NUIG gives the impression that Martin Sheen is a lovely man and could only be heart-broken by his son's self-destructive behaviour.

Looking at his wiki page, and the things said about him specifically by his ex-wives, he would appear to be suffering from some form of mental illness. Which obviously doesn't excuse his behaviours but goes some way to explaining it.

It's not as if Martin Sheen himself or any of his other kids went madly off the rails. I'm sure Martin partied hard in his time, but Charlie Sheen is off the scale.

retro:electro

Sleepy wrote: »

Every time I read about Charlie Sheen, I feel sorry for his father. Every interview I've seen with him, and anyone I know who interacted with him during his time in NUIG gives the impression that Martin Sheen is a lovely man and could only be heart-broken by his son's self-destructive behaviour.

He was in NUI when I was studying there. Very normal, unassuming man. Seemed very down to earth

KKkitty

Seems like he has been honest about it to anyone he's slept with since his diagnosis. Really hope this is true. I'm sure his sexual partners will get tested to be on the safe side. There are no winners in this unfortunately. His only priority is to stay as fit and well as possible. He obviously thought he was invincible.

Seanachai

It's crazy the way you have to go on TV in America and somehow apologise to the nation and appear to be contrite even if you secretly don't give a f**k what the public think. These celebrities have shed-loads of cash but at the same time they're kind of beholden to so many people.

KKkitty

Seanachai wrote: »

It's crazy the way you have to go on TV in America and somehow apologise to the nation and appear to be contrite even if you secretly don't give a f**k what the public think. These celebrities have shed-loads of cash but at the same time they're kind of beholden to so many people.

They must think they own him over there. I saw on the Daily edge that many people blackmailed him to keep quiet about his condition. If my friend told me they had HIV, famous or not I wouldn't blackmail them over it.

sbsquarepants

I like Charlie. He's as mad as a bucket of frogs but fúck me he's lived some life.
It was always going to end in disaster of one form or another.
Plus, 2 and a half men has been a steaming pile of shíte since he left.:mad:

braniganl

I'm sure he can afford the best health care, newest meds and access to HIV specialists that money can buy. He'll be grand as long as he keeps his drug and alcohol problems in check, which is easier said than done unfortunately for him.

People trying to blackmail him over his hiv status are absolute scum, though if you move in the circles he does, most people probably are.

Ally Dick

Now I know what that "tiger blood" and "Adonis DNA" was all about

retro:electro

Seanachai wrote: »

It's crazy the way you have to go on TV in America and somehow apologise to the nation and appear to be contrite even if you secretly don't give a f**k what the public think. These celebrities have shed-loads of cash but at the same time they're kind of beholden to so many people.

I'm sure the only reason he came clean in such a fashion is because he was being blackmailed for $10m

ongarboy

irishjay wrote: »

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2011/03/charlie-sheen-breaks-twitter-record/1
it just goes to show you ...when your famous no matter what you do .. youre in a win win situation.
2 million a show i nearly blew a gasket ,and to hear if he goes back . he wants 3 mill.. and he may even get it madness
god i love america .........................not.

Funny, when I first saw this thread just now, I assumed it was created on the back of the HIV news this week. How ironic that the opening post from 4 years ago inferred that money and fame can pretty much buy you invincibility. Sheen's diagnosis proves we are all fallible. I was never a fan of him but am sad that he has been diagnosed with this. Thankfully HIV is not the death sentence it once was. It may also change some perceptions that this is somehow still a "gay plague" and make more, particularly young people cop on about safe sex.

braniganl

ongarboy wrote: »

Funny, when I first saw this thread just now, I assumed it was created on the back of the HIV news this week. How ironic that the opening post from 4 years ago inferred that money and fame can pretty much buy you invincibility. Sheen's diagnosis proves we are all fallible. I was never a fan of him but am sad that he has been diagnosed with this. Thankfully HIV is not the death sentence it once was. It may also change some perceptions that this is somehow still a "gay plague" and make more, particularly young people cop on about safe sex.

Very hard for a man to contract HIV through unprotected vaginal intercourse (0.04% chance or 1 in 2,500 exposures, compared to a 1.8% or 1 in 161 exposures for unprotected anal sex.) Of course, plenty of other lovely diseases besides HIV can be picked up by straight and gay people who don't practice safe sex!

Statistically speaking, MSM/Gay men are still far and away the highest population group diagnosed with HIV in this country every year. (183 men, or 49% of all new HIV diagnosis in 2014, and the median age of diagnosis has dropped from 37 to 31 since 2005)