Regulating Gay Bathhouses and Sex Clubs

We are informed in an article titled “Future of Sex Clubs May Hinge on Zoning” (Oct. 27) that bathhouses catering to male homosexuals may only have a “zoning” problem for operating too close to residential areas. The article implies that homosexual bathhouses have been tacitly allowed to continue operation with the “understanding that they would prohibit anal sex without a condom and offer safe sex information and condoms to patrons. Enforcement (is) left largely to the owners.”

Imagine the public outcry that would ensue if heterosexual bathhouses commenced operation all over California. Male and female “patrons” could openly engage in sex acts as long as they used condoms and received safe-sex information. Enforcement would be left largely to the owners. Assuming that at least some of the sex was paid for, wouldn’t this be considered a “whorehouse”?

The problem with homosexual bathhouses is the same as with heterosexual “whorehouses.” Both are unlawful. Both allow sex acts to take place in a public place, not in the privacy of one’s home. The solution to both problems should be the same: vigorous enforcement of existing laws against sex in public places.

CHARLES HAIGH

Redondo Beach

*

Your article points out that many of these clubs have existed for years, if not decades, without any impact on neighborhoods and communities. Proof of this is that most people in the neighborhood did not even know they were there.

Regulating these sex clubs through land use and zoning restrictions is not an equitable and fair policy. In fact, it would appear that the city is attempting to legislate morality by making it close to impossible for these clubs to exist. Because these clubs offer a safe and viable venue for safe-sex education, the city should consider evaluating them on a case-by-case basis instead of instituting across-the-board legislation that makes them illegal if they are less than 500 feet from residences.

MICHAEL JOHN HORNE

West Hollywood