Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!bbncca!motss From: manis@ubc-vision.UUCP (Vincent Manis) Newsgroups: mod.motss Subject: Closing bathhouses Message-ID: <1047@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 20:56:50 EDT Article-I.D.: bbncca.1047 Posted: Thu Oct 18 20:56:50 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 15:33:57 EDT Lines: 28 Approved: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA As Margaret Atwood said at a rally after the police raids in Toronto, "I thought people went to bathhouses to get clean..." :-) I too have very mixed feelings about the whole business of bathhouses. On the one hand, they provide a way that people who have anonymous sex can do so in relative safety, and on the other, they contribute to a dehumanising and dangerous view of sex. Compounding this is the fact that the bath owners I've known have been very decent and responsible individuals. So I feel very queasy about simply either endorsing or condemning baths. There are two separate issues. One is the public health concern centring on the AIDS epidemic. Closing baths helps this not at all; however, requiring baths to both disseminate information and to maintain a VD clinic (as some of the baths in Vancouver have done voluntarily) seems like a reasonable thing. Publicising ``safe'' forms of sex is another (though when I was active in the gay community I found that most forms of publicity on matters sexual just didn't reach people -- what are you supposed to do, put up notices in the park?). The second issue has to do with the psychological and emotional aspects of casual sex. I tend to compare casual sex to a hamburger: ok in a pinch :-) but not nourishing on a regular basis. Somewhere we have to evolve a sexual ethic that goes beyond both faceless sex and enforced monogamy. But using AIDS to frighten people into that is, I think, unhealthy.