San Francisco Chronicle - The Voice of the West, 901 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94119 - Thursday, November 14, 1996 - Page A15
David Tuller, Chronicle Staff Writer

Brown's belief that an ordinance is not needed to ensure that sex clubs follow safe sex guidelines represents an apparent shift of his position. Earlier, he had given indications that he might be open to the idea that the clubs should be licensed, as called for in legislation proposed by Supervisor Tom Ammiano.

The mayor's opposition to the legislation was disclosed by Dr. Mitch Katz, the director of the health department's AIDS Office, at a Tuesday meeting of the Coalition for Healthy Sex. Katz said that Brown informed health department officials of his position last week.

In Paris yesterday, Brown confirmed that he now believes the health department "can handle whatever is needed to be done to help combat the spread of AIDS without engaging in licensing."

Dr. Sandra Hernandez, the city's health director, said yesterday that she accepted responsibility for any confusion over the mayor's position.

"My communication with him was probably inadequate," she said. "I went to him and said we'd like to regulate these clubs, and he said he thought that was a good idea. I meant that we wanted to license them, but I was not specific enough with him."

On Tuesday, Katz said that the mayor sees no need to formally create a new category of business, which the ordinance would do, since most sex clubs already follow the voluntary guidelines developed by the Coalition for Healthy Sex.

Among the guidelines: no locked doors, which would make it easier for patrons to engage in unprotected anal intercourse; widespread availability of condoms, lubricant and safe sex literature; and enough light so that monitors can witness what is taking place.

Proponents of sex clubs say that when the guidelines are followed, the establishments actually promote safe sex education and practices. Opponents say that they foster unsafe sexual practices and the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"The mayor feels it does not make sense to create a category to deal with the (small) percent of clubs that from time to time do not comply," said Katz, adding that Brown wanted the health department to step up enforcement of the guidelines.

"The health department has been monitoring (the clubs) on a complaint basis," said Katz. "Now we are going to monitor them on a regular, periodic visit basis to make sure people are actively following the guidelines."

The proposed ordinance would require sex clubs to pay a $1,100 application fee and a $263 annual license fee. There are currently half a dozen or more sex clubs in San Francisco that operate daily or several times a week. Most, but not all, cater largely to a gay male clientele.

After Katz' comments, Ammiano aide Michael Housh told those attending the meeting that the supervisor would "take seriously into consideration the (health) department's, the mayor's, and this group's thoughts" in deciding whether or not to go forward with the legislation.

However, a City Hall source said yesterday that the ordinance had virtually no chance of passing without the support of the mayor, and that his opposition came as a surprise to both board members and health department officials. "No one had any reason to believe that the mayor had any problem with the idea," said the source.

The effort to regulate the sex clubs has revived an old debate over the government's role in regulating sexual practices. In the mid-1980s, the city's health department clashed with many members of the gay community when it sought to close down bathhouses, which, unlike sex clubs, feature private rooms that can be locked.

There are currently no bathhouses in San Francisco, although there is one each in San Jose and Berkeley. Some gay men said at the meeting this week that they wanted to see bathhouses reopen in San Francisco.

"I don't like to engage in sodomy while on display, and I think that there are mature gay men who know how to make decisions behind closed doors," said gay activist Michael Petrelis, who opposes the legislation as an unwarranted intrusion into gay men's sex lives.

But some club owners said that legislation would offer them protection them from harassment by other city agencies. Moreover, they said, without the ordinance they are dependent on the good will of whoever might become mayor or health director in the future.

The mayor "is not on the receiving end of other city departments visiting us," said Mike Powers, a sex club operator. "When the health department director leaves or changes, all of a sudden someone else has the chance to make a decision based on (a difference concept of) morality."
961114
SC961103

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1996. 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, 1996. 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. .