So who is this then?

A well-known Hollywood womaniser has reportedly been diagnosed with HIV, but is allegedly unwilling to publicly confirm the news for fear of law suits from a long line of women.
The actor, whose name The Sun claims to know, is being urged by friends to accept his diagnosis.
The paper reported “a US showbiz insider” as saying: “It has now become common knowledge that this star is HIV positive, something he has known for a number of years.
“His lawyers are bracing for the threat of potential action. The reality is that if he’s knowingly put women at risk then that’s disgusting and it’s only a matter of time before that becomes public.”

Be a bit weird if someone was shagging around unprotected knowing they were HIV positive.

63 thoughts on “So who is this then?”

  1. Be a bit weird if someone was shagging around unprotected knowing they were HIV positive.

    In the ordinary way of things, yes but to students of unfettered self-love as we all are here, perhaps it’s not that astonishing.

  2. Charlie Sheen seems to be the leading candidate according the internet gossip hounds. This seems to be based on nothing more than Sheens rep though.

  3. “The reality is that if he’s knowingly put women at risk then that’s disgusting”

    Doesn’t make much sense to say ‘the reality’ is before a conditional (ie. an if-then) statement.

  4. I can think of only two well-known Hollywood womanisers, both of them over seventy, one of them has been married for over twenty years and, so far as I can tell, has left his womanising days behind him. I gather the other remains a player.

    Cant think of any of the younger crop who might thusly be described.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    “The reality is that if he’s knowingly put women at risk then that’s disgusting and it’s only a matter of time before that becomes public.”

    Isn’t it also a criminal offence?

    I suspect we won’t have to wait long before he has his own # on twatter.

  6. “His lawyers are bracing for the threat of potential action.”

    This is where we may discover the likely incidence of contracting HIV from heterosexual sex.

  7. Tinsel is, as tinsel does………….what a surprise?!

    Typical Hollywood, where self pity and self interest, personal aggrandizement: always trumps doing the right thing.

  8. From Wikipedia, he “adopted the surname Sheen in honor of the Catholic archbishop and theologian Fulton J. Sheen”.

    I don’t think the good Archbishop (and he does seem to have been one of the good ones) would be very impressed.

  9. Quite so: and Martin Sheen adopted the name of the Churchman as his original name is/was Estevez. I think Charlie’s brother (?) still uses it.

  10. S2,
    No, it’s neither a fruit nor a number. Mathematicians argued over this for centuries, in the days before rock n roll and the contraceptive pill.

    Because, if zero is a number then:

    If 5 x 0 = 0, and 9 x 0 = 0, then 5 = 9.

    :

  11. SQ2: Nope can’t have that. Charlie has Platoon, what does Emilio have? Breakfast club? (which was v good but he wasn’t particularly) Young guns? (he was ok) Stakeout (again he was ok) Mighty Ducks (time to give up i think)

  12. “Be a bit weird if someone was shagging around unprotected knowing they were HIV positive.”

    I seem to remember reading that the chances for a heterosexual man getting HIV from protected sex with a woman is about 50,000,000 to 1. From unprotected sex with a woman it’s about 5,000,000 to 1.
    (Old article, but nothing newer comes up. Maybe researching the stats isn’t helpful?
    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex)

    However, it’s actually a thing in the Gay community:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bug-chasing-men-deliberately-trying-2033433

    http://www.beyondpositive.org/2014/04/16/bug-chasing/

  13. “No zero is not a number”

    An old boss used to insist on starting all lists with zero, to the extent that he edited everything that came his way.

    I never did understand why. I mean, spreadsheets?

  14. @JackC, your working is wrong. 5 x 0 = 9 x 0.

    Back on topic, surely it’d be a bit weird shagging around unprotected as a multimillionaire as well, wouldn’t it?

    And even more back on topic, perhaps we need the headline, at least in the Onion: “Actor is heterosexual shock”.

  15. Jack C: No, it’s neither a fruit nor a number

    Bother: I thought that my five-a-day was suddenly going to be attainable.

  16. Jonathan: I seem to remember reading that the chances for a heterosexual man getting HIV from protected sex with a woman is about 50,000,000 to 1.

    A bit like the odds of a business having a Fair Tax Mark, then?

  17. Tim N, because you’re indifferent to the blandishments of libel lawyers. Plus, I well know how wide my yellow streak is.

  18. I don’t think it’s so weird.

    some people are cunts.
    some people with HIV are in massive denial about it.

  19. BiG / Tom N,

    Okay, so faced with a maths exam question::

    If: x * y = z

    And: a * y = z

    Q: if x = 17, what value is represented by a?

    A: ?

  20. Edward Lud,

    Say, Cruise could prove that Tim N was implying homosexuality (laughable though this may seem), on what would the libel rest?

    It would be fun to watch gayness described as a foul slur by Hollywood royalty in a Californian court.

  21. >Emilio, yes. Much better actor than Charlie.

    Yes, but’s that’s not saying much. A wooden chair is a much better actor than Charlie Sheen.

  22. >My money is on Kermit the Frog.

    Kermit’s hetero? He didn’t seem hetero last time we were in bed together.

    Fozzy a more likely candidate. His whole life is built around denial.

  23. >dearieme,
    >No zero is not a number.
    >You should sue your school.

    You do know that dearieme is a ‘boffin’ at Cambridge, right?

    >Mathematicians argued over this for centuries, in the days before rock n roll and the contraceptive pill.

    Are you saying that the great majority of the mathematical community regards zero as not a number? I think we need some proof of that. (Sure zero isn’t a ‘natural number’, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a number.)

  24. JackC, I wasn’t referring to that. Since what I *was* referring to is apparently opaque, I am content to leave it there…

  25. Gunker has it right.

    Jack is apparently unaware that some equations have more than one answer.

    > Mathematicians argued over this for centuries, in the days before rock n roll and the contraceptive pill.

    You’re right that mathematicians argued about this. But you’re wrong about the result of the argument. There was a stage where they refused to acknowledge that zero was a thing. Then there was a stage where some acknowledged zero but denied that it was a number. And then there was the next stage — still the current stage — where it was accepted as a number. Sue your school.

  26. > Charlie has Platoon, what does Emilio have?

    Platoon’s a good film. Charlie Sheen is not particularly good therein.

    > Yes, but’s that’s not saying much. A wooden chair is a much better actor than Charlie Sheen.

    Yup.

    > Repo Man. Great film.

    Damn straight.

  27. The resolution of the argument was that 0/0 is indeterminate.
    @ Jack C
    zero being 7-7 is a number. It is a member of the Field of Integers.

  28. So, actors who are ostensibly hetero and have slept with lots of women.

    Warren Beatty
    Jack Nicholson
    Charlie Sheen
    Bill Cosby
    Eddie Murphy
    William Shatner

    Does he have to be a Yank? ( I know, Bill Shatner’s Canadian)

  29. “Jack is apparently unaware that some equations have more than one answer”

    No, that rather misses the point. Zero maybe defined as one form of number, but is not a number like 1 or 17, or -500.

    @Jack C
    A. a = 17 for all values y not equal 0

    That’s not the answer you’d have given. 17 is.

  30. > No, that rather misses the point. Zero maybe defined as one form of number, but is not a number like 1 or 17, or -500.

    What you originally said was:

    > No zero is not a number.

    So it doesn’t really miss the point, does it? The point was yours, and it was wrong. As you now appear to be admitting.

    > That’s not the answer you’d have given. 17 is.

    What on Earth are you on about? It’s the answer he did give. You asked; he answered. It’s also the answer I’d have given in either of the two maths A-levels I aced or during my maths degree. Although, to be fair, most exam questions wouldn’t have been worded the way you wrote yours and would actually have specified y≠0, usually in brackets.

    That aside, you appear to be trying to establish a new standard for mathematical truth based on what some bloke on the Internet would say. Even if you were right, all that would mean is that Gunker would have got a hypothetical maths exam question wrong. Most people would also get questions about Relativity wrong. Their wrong answers don’t overrule Einstein’s laws.

    Honestly, some people. Stop digging.

  31. Back on topic, it strikes me that the phrase “A well-known Hollywood womaniser” is somewhat ambiguous: is he well known and also a womaniser or is his womanising well known? He could be someone who keeps his bed-hopping out of the media.

  32. Jack C: to go from:

    5 x 0 = 9 x 0
    to
    5 = 9,

    you’d have to cancel the 0’s. That is – divide both sides of the equation by 0.
    Which, as any fule kno, is a forbidden operation in mathematics. Ergo the original statement that “if 0 is a number, then 5 = 9” is fallacious, as it requires use of a forbidden operation.

  33. @Arnald: Lists numbered from zero is very much a computer thing. In lots of computer languages it makes more sense to have arrays indexed from zero. It wasn’t always so. FORTRAN indexes from 1 by default, and I believe COBOL does too.

  34. So Much For Subtlety

    Squander Two – “And then there was the next stage — still the current stage — where it was accepted as a number. Sue your school.”

    They are also denying Pluto is a planet. I think zero is a number but I see no reason to accept the current consensus of attention seekers as binding.

    Jonathan – “So, actors who are ostensibly hetero and have slept with lots of women. … Eddie Murphy”

    For various definitions of women.

  35. Ouch!

    Apologies to all for my ignorance in this matter (and my failed attempt to Reverse-Ampleforth dearieme).

    I actually got the 0 is not a number because …. from a late-night science programme on Radio 4, and assumed it to be true. i had faith in that sort of programme. Is nothing sacred?

  36. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Lua has one-based arrays as well. FORTRAN has array index re-basing (very much due to its prevalence in the scientific community) so you can have an array indexed from -3 to 10 if you want. You can do the same thing in C by mucking about with the array pointer.

    Zero is the additive identity in the ring of integers. Yeah, it’s a number.

    It’s fun to play match the list of exes to the supposed HIV-positive star. But I’m not having a lot of luck getting them to correspond with Charlie Sheen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *