The Bay Area Reporter - June 11, 1999
Liz Highleyman

Nearly 70 people attended the meeting, convened at a special time and place to accommodate extended public comment. Of the 20 people who testified, all spoke in favor of allowing private spaces in public sex venues.

Existing DPH regulations require that public sex establishments provide condoms and safer sex information, and that all spaces be monitored by club staff. A prohibition on closed, private spaces in bathhouses was instituted by court order in 1984 in an effort to reduce the spread of AIDS. The current regulations were officially adopted in the spring of 1997.

Substantial confusion exists regarding the regulations, even among activists and public health officials. Current city rules do not prohibit bathhouses per se, and the debate is not really about "opening the baths," but rather about allowing private spaces in any type of public sex establishment. The term "bathhouse" is often used to refer to venues with closed spaces, while existing venues with larger public spaces are typically referred to as "sex clubs," even if they have bathhouse-like amenities such as steamrooms.

Anti-gay pop culture data?

The meeting began with three presentations. In addition to the presentations, HPPC members received packets containing statements and references to relevant studies. One such statement was from Bob Dixon, community co-chair of the Berkeley HPPC, which "found that locks on the rooms [at Berkeley's Steamworks bathhouse] are not a barrier to HIV prevention. à For a person using the facility who doesn't have the prevention message, open doors add no protection and monitors bring no new messages."

Michael Petrelis of Queer Nation, who filed a bathhouse ballot initiative last month, declared that "only in San Francisco is a flashlight seen as a barrier to HIV," referring to the tool used by club employees to monitor patrons' sexual behavior. Petrelis shared his time with Dave Pasquarelli of ACT UP/San Francisco, who claimed that "Pop culture data [about AIDS transmission] serves a financial and, ultimately, an anti-gay agenda."

David Attyah of Health Watch stated that, "Monitoring has the effect of driving sexual behavior underground to venues where information, support, and condoms are not available." He said there is "no direct epidemiological evidence, no anecdotal evidence, and no precedent anywhere for the DPH's policy," and maintained that the current regulations undermine self-efficacy by sending "a clear message that gay men cannot be trusted behind closed doors."

Health Director Dr. Mitch Katz urged the council to "focus on the single question of whether a change in the regulations will increase, decrease, or keep the same the number of HIV seroconversions in San Francisco." Although the face of the AIDS epidemic is quite different than it was a decade and a half ago, he said, "HIV is still transmitted the same way it was in the 1980s." Katz said that people tell him privately "not to back down" on the regulations, but such supportive voices were absent at Thursday's meeting.

Katz concluded by noting that it is not unusual in public health to make decisions without proof on the basis of suggestive evidence, and said that "the HPPC will not leave the meeting with definitive data."

Finally, some new evidence

While the positions of the initial presenters were familiar, an element of surprise was introduced in the form of new data supplied by the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) in a presentation that was completed a mere two hours prior to the meeting. Although everyone involved in the bathhouse debate appears to agree that there is no direct, definitive data on the role of private spaces in the transmission of HIV, CAPS was able to provide some of the type of suggestive evidence of which Katz had spoken.

Dr. William Woods and colleagues first compared two post-AIDS studies conducted in Los Angeles û which has no privacy ban û and San Francisco. He concluded that prohibition of closed spaces in sex establishments may have the "unintended consequence" that men take sex "somewhere else, somewhere less safe."

A second CAPS study surveyed over 1,800 men in three cities: San Francisco, with its ban on closed spaces; New York City, which permits only closed spaces and not group sex areas; and Chicago, which has clubs with both private and open spaces. The researchers found "no significant differences" among the three cities in terms of unprotected anal intercourse, group sex, or number of partners. They also suggested that a ban on private spaces "may have placed a disproportionate burden" on men of color and on men who are younger, less wealthy, and less educated.

Burden of proof

Following the CAPS presentation, the public had 70 minutes in which to share their opinions with the HPPC. Carlos Petroni, editor of Frontlines newspaper and a former candidate for city supervisor, said that the 1984 policy was "a decision based on politics," and that "voting to keep that policy will fuel bigotry, homophobia, and anti-gay sentiment outside the gay community."

Several speakers stated that access to private homes for sexual encounters is a privilege that many do not share û including men who may be married, living with parents, or visiting from out of town. Reid Condit wryly pointed out that admission to a sex club or bathhouse costs about $7, compared to about $70 for a hotel room.

After hearing the public's input, HPPC members engaged in an at times heated debate about what steps to take. Maria Rinaldi, of Instituto Familiar de la Raza, stated that given the lack of hard data, those who want to ban private spaces have the "burden of proof," and offered a motion to recommend that the Health Commission remove the prohibition on private spaces in sex clubs and bathhouses." The motion was seconded by Shawn O'Hearn, and greeted with loud applause. Dr. John Newmeyer of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic also spoke in favor of the motion, saying that the current sex club regulations have a "stench of classism."

Rinaldi's motion was immediately followed by a second motion to table the issue and defer the vote to the council's next meeting, on Thursday, June 10. The motion was put forward by Father River Sims, who said he felt pressured by the lopsided public sentiment in favor of the motion and requested "time to reflect." The motion was seconded by HPPC Co-chair Toni Young, who noted that many HPPC members were absent, and said she wanted more input from communities of color, who were not well represented during public comment.

Rinaldi disagreed with Young, noting that the council has never before seen 60 people come to discuss an issue. "It is outrageous to say we didn't have enough input," Rinaldi said.

The vote to table the motion passed by a vote of 9-7, prompting O'Hearn to exclaim, "If council members do not have the guts to vote for public health, they should not be on the council. Everyone was notified of the meeting and given [information] weeks ago, yet half of council chose not to attend." Rinaldi echoed the sentiment, saying that failing to vote on the issue would be "a breach of the trust of a community that has come to us for action."

The public also got into the act, with Anita Carswell of ACT UP/San Francisco declaring, "I don't want to have to repeat myself next week to people who didn't bother to show up to listen to the people they supposedly represent." Katz however, appeared to believe that some voices were not being heard. "It's my job to be jeered," he said, but others may not be speaking out in favor of the city's policy due to fear.

Both the council and the public seemed to agree that no new hard data were likely to come to light in the next week, and Newmeyer noted that those who felt they did not have enough information could abstain.

And abstain they didà

After further debate and procedural wrangling, a new motion was put forward by the council's other co-chair, Dredge Byung'Chu Kang, to rescind the vote to table and proceed with a vote on Rinaldi's original motion.

When a final tally was taken more than three hours into the meeting, nine HPPC members voted to recommend that the Health Commission overturn the city's ban on private spaces in sex clubs and bathhouses û including Sims, who had originally moved to table the issue. Young cast the lone opposing vote. Seven members abstained, including those affiliated with the DPH. Of the four women HPPC members present, three voted in favor of the recommendation, as did four of the five apparent people of color.

Thursday's outcome closely echoed that of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Advisory Committee (LGBTAC) of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), which in May 1997 narrowly voted û after a similarly contentious debate with multiple conflicting motions û to recommend that the DPH rescind its prohibition of private spaces in sex clubs.

The HRC recommendation did not succeed in changing city policy, in part because the issue went into limbo after previous DPH director Dr. Sandra Hernandez resigned to head up the San Francisco Foundation. Mayor Willie Brown appointed Katz to replace Hernandez in January 1998.

The HPPC's recommendation may be presented to the Health Commission at an upcoming meeting, although DPH spokeswoman Eileen Shields told the Bay Area Reporter that the commission has its own authority to hear items and has not determined whether to hear about the HPPC's community forum.

The HPPC's next meeting is Thursday, June 10 (today) from 3 to 6 p.m. in room 201 at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place.

990611
BR990605

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1999. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 1999. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .