Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Link dump

I'm doing a web search for interesting quotes. I'm just dumping links here as I find them. Do feel free to use any of the material I find. Also feel free to comment on the people concerned. I don't know enough about this subject to know who is important and who isn't, so if I link to a page of extremists or out and out nutcases please let me know, like wise if someone is very important -let me know that too theresa knott 13:27, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  • When public health concerns are used to justify crackdowns on gay bars, sexclubs, bathhouses, and other spaces in which men meet and have sex, and an increasingly assimilationist gay rights movement continues to vilify gay male sex cultures, how do we organize resistance? ... When journalists, police, and even some gay activists target and victimize public-sex participants, what kinds of oppositional organizing is effective? We see our work at this summit as a way to continue the strain of the gay liberation movement which focused on sexual freedom and the creation of new models for gay male relationships and communities from [1]
  • “What are we supposed to do?” he asked. “Gay people exist. They are a fact of human society, of human nature. Sexual orientation is fixed. The religious right wants people in bathhouses. They don’t want them in marriages. [They] want us to go back to the ’50s.” Sullivan -quote from here

Let's not muddy the waters here. None of those links really says anything useful for this article. I should also point out that Andrew Sullivan, who is a well known conservative and has been a vocal opponent of things like bathhouses and unsafe sex, was also largely discredited when it was discovered that he engages in bareback (that is, unprotected) sex with strangers. They even devoted an episode of (the US version of) Queer as Folk to it. Exploding Boy 14:05, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Cool, let's say that in the article then! Why does the subject have to be so dry? Why can't we have a bit of passion added? theresa knott 14:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because there's no value in adding random stuff just for the sake of it. If you can find something that's relevant, by all means. These links really don't seem to be. Exploding Boy 14:13, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm just dumping stuff here as I come across it, I expect not to use most of it. The trouble is with trying to research something I literally know nothing about is that I find it difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff - I'm relying on you for that. Let me try a different tactic.

Who is SKY GILBERT? at "eye weekly" - have you ever heard of them?

Canadian/American gay playwright/poet/novelist/activist/actor. Supposedly controversial. Don't really know anything about him. Exploding Boy

Ah but at least he's not a nobody. What do you think of this quote about the raid at the women's bathhouse event at Club Toronto. "What happened at Club Toronto last Friday night is that these women were raped; not physically, but morally, emotionally and spiritually. They had established a haven -- a safe, private space to explore their sexuality (which is still held in contempt by most of society) -- and these police officers violated it." taken from an article here ? theresa knott 14:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with it. The incident is mentioned in the bathhouse article. Exploding Boy 14:33, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I know the incident is. I want to add the quote! Whatdya think? theresa knott

Go for it. Exploding Boy 14:48, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Crystal meths (speed)

I keep coming across references to this drug See [2] or [3] should it be mentioned in the article? theresa knott 16:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you need to. I think it's mainly a local thing to New York (or at least the US; I certainly can't think of anything really having been mentioned in London's gay scene or sauna scene. The warning posters in Chariots (London's biggest sauna chain) are all about GHB (another date rape drug) and how you'll be banned if they find you with any (and they're only signs, I've never heard anyone actually discuss the drug or it having been used). I don't think it's that big a deal, personally. — OwenBlacker 00:08, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

I guess you could add it to the list of drugs mentioned in the article, but I'm not so sure that crystal is all that commonly used in bathhouses, and certainly not everywhere (for example, it's common in large American urban areas like LA, but not so much in other places), and certainly nowhere near as common as alcohol, pot and coke. Exploding Boy 00:12, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

No I won't bother adding it if it's only local to New York. theresa knott 00:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was gonna post this last night, but couldn't, for some reason — I'm not convinced you need to. I think it's mainly a local thing to New York (or at least the US; I certainly can't think of anything really having been mentioned in London's gay scene or sauna scene. The warning posters in Chariots (London's biggest sauna chain) are all about GHB (another date rape drug) and how you'll be banned if they find you with any (and they're only signs, I've never heard anyone actually discuss the drug or it having been used). I don't think it's that big a deal, personally. — OwenBlacker 09:43, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

POV dispute unreconciled

See talk thread already underway at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse Pollinator 22:22, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Pollinator - what specifically do you want to change in the article in order to lose the POV header? theresa knott 00:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From FAC/Archive/Gay bathhouse

(Following discussion moved from FAC/Archive/Gay bathhouse) OwenBlacker 10:09, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll add myself as disputing the article's neutrality. The article is an informative piece of journalism, but it's what I call "gee, whiz" journalism, because it is shallow. And it is saturated with POV - that "anything between consenting adults...," a POV that may be popular with some but is far from universal. When you purchase a product at the store, the price you pay is often not the only price involved. There are other prices paid by society, in the form of disposing of the packaging, cleaning up pollution involved in the manufacture, etc. That there are manufacturers, who for profit, are only too happy to pass the hidden costs to society is a given. And that there are gullible consumers who will even use products that are hurtful to them, then turn around and try to pass off the consequence on others is likewise obvious (witness the recent events in the tobacco industry). The author of this article shows his POV, as well as awareness that there is another price, by empasizing the "safety" measures taken, but avoids any further (depth) analysis of the true safety and the end consequences of failure. It's a commentary on our ability to compartmentalize that we are becoming increasingly aware of hidden consumer and environmental costs, but, because of the arguable POV aforementioned, the hidden health and social costs are simply glossed over when promiscuous sex is involved. Oppose Pollinator 20:06, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I just moved Pollinator's comments and any subsequent discussion to be a new section, not least for legibility's sake; apologies if this puts anyone's nose out of joint.
I was under the impression that we don't bowdlerise or moralise in Wikipedia. The article already links to promiscuity and makes references to safer sex. I'm not sure anything more should be expected within an article that, frankly, isn't about these things, it's about an aspect of gay culture. OwenBlacker 20:56, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like you to be more specific, if possible. Exploding Boy 23:48, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

For clarity, do you mean me or Pollinator, EB? — OwenBlacker 07:47, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Pollinator. See, I think people are confusing the content, purpose and scope of this article with that of several others. Pollinators comments, which essentially echo Sam's, are basically that there is not enough discussion of the potential ramifications of promiscuity. This article is not about promiscuity. The promiscuity article is where those issues need to be discussed in depth. This article is about bathhouses. Some people have promiscuous sex at bathhouses; others do not. But either way, that's not what this article is about. Exploding Boy 12:23, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

As I'm sure anyone who's following this discussion would guess, I'm entirely inclined to agree. I don't believe it's the place of Wikipedia to moralise in its articles, I believe that would be POV, rather than a failure to do so being. My understanding of WP:NPOV leads me to believe that's Wikipedia's formal policy, too.
Having given it some thought, over the last day or so, I'm actually going to remove the NPOV header on the article now. If someone wants to readd it, please detail your specific objections (preferably on Talk:Gay bathhouse, in a new section entitled something like "Restored NPOV header" or something) and I'll not revert it until I'm satisfied that the objections are dealt with or that the community agrees that the objections are inappropriate. — OwenBlacker 12:32, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Not so fast! You haven't dealt with the objection, nor have you shown that it's NPOV. Instead you've given further evidence of the POV agenda you have. You applied a label (moralizing - which it's not) to my post and then ignored the issue. The inability or more likely refusal to distinguish between common sense and moralizing is evidence of POV. Folks who could comment here are likely to be intimidated by the labeling, the ridicule, the marginalizing, and otherwise general bullying that has already occured on this talk page.
While browsing through the articles on mining, I noticed that there was nothing on the coal mining pages about black lung disease. Anyone who's ever known any coal mining families would agree that an "encyclopedic" article about coal mining that did not refer in any way to black lung, would be a pretty superficial entry.
Interestingly when I added a link and stub on black lung disease, there was no post to call defenders of the coal mining page to come to see what I had done. There was no immediate attempt to marginalize the post I made. Just about anyone would agree that this is a hidden cost of coal mining, and the issue should be faced squarely and honestly. The bill for result of coal mining is ultimately paid by the families, insurance policyholders and taxpayers.
Based on the talk pages here - the intensity of the personal investment, the eagerness to gloss over any consideration of the larger picture, and the abuse and/or marginalization of the opposition, I'm going to have to revise my assessment of this article as "Gee whiz journalism," and instead think of it as -- propaganda. Pollinator 22:42, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
"You haven't dealt with the objection, nor have you shown that it's NPOV." The user who added the NPOV header was unable or unwilling to cite what, exactly, was POV about the article, despite being asked to do so several times. The comparison to coal mining and black lung is a bit odd when one considers that there's a five paragraph section on "gay bathhouses and STDs" in the article already. -Sean Curtin 23:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...Which is why people are inclined to think of objections like this as moralising. See, since there's already information on the potential health consequences of sex, you seem to be asking for comments on the supposed psychological toll that using bathhouses takes on those who do. I'd argue in response that there probably is no such toll, and that bathhouse users who suffer psychologically do so not as a result of using bathhouses, but as a result of internalized homophobia or some other problem. Bathhouses are generally good corporate and community citizens, they disseminate safer sex information -- they are one of the major places that do so -- they do their best to ensure the health and safety of their patrons. In the end what an individual person does is his or her responsibility, and cannot be blamed on a bathhouse. If I choose to have unprotected, anonymous anal sex it is not the existence of the bathhouse, or the fact that I'm there, that leads me to do it. In fact, in a bathhouse it's probably fairly difficult considering most places give each and every person a few condoms and lube as soon as they walk in the door, and many have bowls of the things lying around everywhere, have safer sex posters on the walls of all the rooms and in the common areas, and ask patrons to affirm that they will practice safer sex on the premises. The fact is, if people are going to have unsafe sex they're going to do it, bathhouse or no, and the same applies to promiscuous or anyonymous sex. Essentially what bathhouses do is provide a venue for relaxation and recreation -- and yes, for sex. But just as bars provide a venue for drinking and we don't blame them for people's alcoholism, we can't blame bathhouses for people's individual choices when it comes to sexual behaviour. Exploding Boy 03:57, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

I agree with Exploding Boy. An article about a bar wouldn't be expected to have a discussion about alcoholism, other than a paragraph explaining something about bars and their special impact on the subject: do they make alcohol abuse more or less of a problem.

Whilst I agree that the article on promiscuity should include a discussion of the risks of promiscuity and the increased likelihood of acquiring STDs, and particularly HIV, I don't believe that this article should contain much more than what it does on the subject already. There is already a section covering Gay bathhouses and STDs — quite an extensive section at that — I honestly believe that including any more detail on the subject would be making the article less NPOV, not more.

I sha'n't remove the NPOV tag that you've readded until we're in broad agreement across the community, though. Sorry, I didn't think I was being as hasty as it would seem you believe I was. :o) — OwenBlacker 10:09, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

The content of the "gay bathhouses and STDs" section was basically "gee-whiz journalism." The whole section could have been condensed to "Well, there used to be problems, but things are cool now." In fact the opposite is true. Actual testing in the past few months show a dramatic rise in STDs, including HIV in patrons of these establishments. That needs to be dealt with, not glossed over. Theresa's last addition of a quote by Horowitz was a small step in balancing the section. That's already being picked apart and probably is on the verge of being "thrown out on a technicality."
This is a common sense public health issue which has nothing to do with morals, yet some keep chanting about not moralizing.
This brings up another issue, which of course does have to do with morals. The blocking of the moral POV is, in itself, a POV. This seems to be a common ploy on Wikipedia for some hot-point issues where participants have agendas to follow.
Why should a moral point of view be dismissed with a huff? In the recent scandal involving mistreatment of Iraquis at Abu Ghraib prison, there was plenty of moral outrage expressed (as well it should!), and some of it is quoted on Wikipedia (as well it should!).
It is quite likely that some of the very people that say Wikipedia should not moralize, would eagerly moralize about that situation. Why the double standard? The issue is actually quite similar. Whenever human beings treat other human beings as objects rather than human beings, moral issues come into play. Whenever humans become objects in other human's minds, any and every kind of abuse becomes possible.
Wikipedia cannot be NPOV if moral issues are squelched in some areas and not in others, or if they are squelched at all, because it's part of our basic humanity.
BTW, two writers have mentioned bars, in the context of alcoholism, with the idea that the bars should not be blamed. This is a pretty good illustration of how dull our moral sensibilities have become. Insistance on not "moralizing" degrades our basic humanity and leads to more victimization.
I have a neighbor who is somewhat limited in intellectual capacity. He can function in a fairly normal fashion as long as he stays away from alcohol and drugs. He's done some time for arson, which is one of the irrational things he does when he's drunk. This makes me a bit nervous to have him as a neighbor, yet he needs a friend more than anything else. He's trying to stay on the wagon, but keeps falling off. His "buddies" (who are really mocking him) entice him into the local bar with offers to buy him a drink. The bartender, knowing full well the whole situation, will serve him a drink (and more) in a heartbeat, all for the sake of the almighty dollar. Pollinator 13:22, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
Pollinator the trouble with taking a moral point of view is whose morals? I can't see how weikipedia can possibly take a moral stand without taking sides with someone and that's not NPOV. To me the thing to do is present the arguments that other people have made in a matter of fact way. For example the fact that people have been charged with patronising a "bawdy house" says something. It says that from the courts, or police POV these places are not acceptable. But wikipedia can't say that because that would be taking sides with the police. What we need to do is find out what the police said about these incidents at the time of the arrests, or what the judges said, Or the local papers etc. Wikipedia can simply report the POV without endorsing it. It's not Wikipedia's job to tell readers what they should think. We should present the facts, and the important opinions, and let the reader decide for themselves.
Further up the page you wrote "Actual testing in the past few months show a dramatic rise in STDs, including HIV in patrons of these establishments. That needs to be dealt with, not glossed over." Now you sound pretty sure of yourself. I assume you have some facts and figures? Add them to the article. theresa knott 14:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  1. The whole section could have been condensed to "Well, there used to be problems, but things are cool now." That's not true at all.
  2. Theresa's last addition of a quote by Horowitz was a small step in balancing the section. That's already being picked apart and probably is on the verge of being "thrown out on a technicality." -- I removed portions of the quote because it basically disagreed with itself. The essential information, that bathhouses contribute to the spread of STDs, remains.
  3. :This is a common sense public health issue which has nothing to do with morals, yet some keep chanting about not moralizing. -- The issue has nothing to do with bathhouses, it has to do with unsafe sex. People who contract STDs via unsafe sex in bathhouses would contract them anyway, via unsafe sex somewhere else.
  4. The blocking of the moral POV is, in itself, a POV. -- Morals are subjective and personal. The very fact that you position your own point of view as right (the moral point of view) and other people's as somehow wrong (the immoral point of view?) speaks volumes about non-neutrality.
  5. Whenever human beings treat other human beings as objects rather than human beings, moral issues come into play. Whenever humans become objects in other human's minds, any and every kind of abuse becomes possible. -- so now people who use bathhouses are akin to the people who abuse prisoners in Iraqi prisons.

As for the rest of what you wrote, let's try not to muddy the waters, ok? Exploding Boy 14:00, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

And anyway, what is it you'd like to add to the article? "Some people think bathhouses are bad"? "They think they're immoral"? They think people who use them are objectifying other human beings"? Quite aside from neutrality, how is that encyclopaedic? Exploding Boy 14:09, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
I really don't see how it would be unencylopedic as long as it were labeled as opinions. Oh yeah and "some people" would definately not be ok but "This group" or "This person" says would certainly be encylopedic as long as they were important. theresa knott 14:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well I could see if it was someone important or interesting, but not to have some randomer saying "I think...." just for the sake of having it in there. Exploding Boy 14:21, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
There's already separate articles on sexual objectification and promiscuity. What should be in this article specifically that's not in those articles? That's not a rhetorical question; the article spends a lot of time talking about the workings and legality of bathhouses without spending much time talking about the surrounding social factors (positive or negative). -Sean Curtin 01:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So? What should be in this article specifially? People keep saying things like "social factors" without being specific. Exploding Boy 06:46, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Equally, I'm not sure there are all that many social factors. I have friends who do visit saunas and friends who don't. All my friends who do go there see them as somewhere relaxing that's a bit of a laugh and with the bonus that you might get laid. All my friends who don't tend not to think about them unless some of us are going and, even then, the only comments tend to be that maybe we're a little slutty for going somewhere where sex is easily available but fair enough. Maybe it's different out of the big metropoles — and I'm certain it was different when homosexuality was more of a taboo, as the article already demonstrates — but I wouldn't say they have much of an societal impact on out gay men in the '00s. Unless I'm missing something obvious?
If there are things people think need adding, either add them or draft them here and ask for opinions. If there are questions people think need answering that they are too unfamiliar with saunas to answer, ask them here and I, at least, will take a stab at answering them. OwenBlacker 10:38, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly the same goes for me. I have friends who go, and friends who don't, friends who have never been and friends who used to go but don't any longer. I have friends who met their longterm partners and/or friends at the baths too. And finally, I used to work at one, and I'm pretty much ok. And was is mentioned in the article, plenty of people come out to support bathhouses and bathhouse users if there's ever any trouble. I just don't see any social issue. Exploding Boy 15:27, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Specific questions

Things that IMO need to be added (not necessarily to do with "social factors" I'm just thinking of things to improve the article):

  • The bathhouses today section is too short - In the 80's a lot shut down right? But since then some have reopened? Did they have any trouble reopening - were there any objections? Since they appear to be discrete, most straight people have never heard of them, so how do gay men know about them - is it word of mouth or do they advertise? Do they look unassuming from the outside or do they have great big signs (if anyone takes offense at this just strike it out but I have this image in my head of that cowboy made of lights that waves his arm in that las vegas casino, but he is not waving his arm but a rather different part of his anatomy)
  • The bawdy house issue in Canada needs exploring. It would appear that some people equate bathhhouse with whorehouse. The raid at Goliath's section says what the defense lawers are arguing but fails to mention what the other side say.
  • Trouble inside - does anything bad ever happen at these places. Are they safe? I'm thinking rape, fights, even thefts from the lockers.
  • trouble outside - Does trouble ever erupt outside the premises, I'm thinking gay bashers, or men who aren't let in for some reason or another, or even wives or girlfriends "What the bloody 'ell is he doing in a place like that! right that's it I'll torch the place.
  • Other countries need representation. The world is a big place. Do bathhhouses exist in all countries or just western ones?
  • Oh yeah and this is my second nag - Down with "some", "a few", "many" and all other weasel words!

I realise that some of the questions i asked are trivial, but having the answers to a few of them in the article might add the social comtext that i feel is lacking theresa knott 11:39, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't really know about any trouble reopening; I've certainly not heard of any trouble here in London. The saunas I've seen in London tend to be relatively discreet — most of them aren't places you'd easily stumble across, if they're big, and tend to be labeled with a Rainbow flag, for ease of identification for those "in the know", but they definitely advertise in the gay press (there are two-page adverts in the British scene magazine Boyz for Chariots, for example.
I don't know of any real trouble happening inside that one wouldn't expect anywhere. I've never witnessed a fight or heard discussion of rape. Theft from lockers is a little predictable, I'd expect, and there are signs everywhere in Chariots warning that items are left in lockers "at the owner's risk"; one may leave more expensive items behind the desk at reception. I've never known of anything to be stolen, though — I routinely leave my mobile phone in my locker, as well as any cash I take with me, for example.
I've never witnessed or heard of any trouble (gaybashing etc) outside any London saunas. I don't really socialise with enough straight people to know if they're aware of their presence (and it's not something I'd really discuss with work colleagues, who comprise most of my non-gay London friends).
Not quite sure how to incorporate those comments into the article, but I hope that answers some of your questions? :o) — OwenBlacker 11:59, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • The bathhouses today section is too short - In the 80's a lot shut down right? -- That was mainly in America. As far as I know there were no bathhouses shut down because of AIDS panic in Canada or Japan.
  • so how do gay men know about them - is it word of mouth or do they advertise? -- Yes, they advertise, mostly in the gay press but also in mainstream newspapers and at least one of them on TV as is mentioned in the article.
  • Do they look unassuming from the outside or do they have great big signs -- some do, some don't.
  • The bawdy house issue in Canada needs exploring. It would appear that some people equate bathhhouse with whorehouse. -- It's not an issue in Canada per se, but rather in Calgary. We can't really explore it until the legal case progresses because that's what they're doing now.
  • The raid at Goliath's section says what the defense lawers are arguing but fails to mention what the other side say -- No, it does say what the other side says.
  • Trouble inside - does anything bad ever happen at these places. Are they safe? I'm thinking rape, fights, even thefts from the lockers. -- I've never heard of rape or fights. I'm sure petty theft happens occasionally, but I've had no personal experience with it.
  • trouble outside - Does trouble ever erupt outside the premises, I'm thinking gay bashers, or men who aren't let in for some reason or another, or even wives or girlfriends -- I'm sure it"s happened, but I don't think it's a regular occurence, no.
  • Other countries need representation. The world is a big place. Do bathhhouses exist in all countries or just western ones? -- Japan is mentioned a few times, as is Russia. We can only work with what we know.
  • Down with "some", "a few", "many" and all other weasel words! There's nothing wrong with those words.

Exploding Boy 15:22, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions. Give me the weekend to think on things then I try to edit the article on Monday theresa knott 14:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More discussion on these questions

Exploding Boy has asked me to come and have a look at this article and offer an opinion on the controversy going on over it. My view is that it is a comprehensive and well-written article, and that the controversy is being caused by one person (Pollinator) who is trying to impose his moral agenda on it. The article in my view gives adequate attention to the health issues surrounding bathhouses. No doubt, like all articles, it could be inproved, but it shouldn't be changed in response to Pollinator's comments. Also I would remove the neutrality dispute tag because the article is entirely neutral as it is - Pollinator wants to make it less neutral, not more. Adam 14:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, there is no way this article deserves a NPOV dispute header. Actually i think I'm going to be bold and remove it.theresa knott 14:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This has gotta be either a joke or some synapse misfirings. Even if you got 100 activists to proclaim the article neutral, it would not prove it neutral; rather it proves just the opposite. You wanna get 100 random citizens from the population to proclaim it neutral? It'll never happen.
Your act of going to round up your buddies EB, does not exhibit neutrality either. It's more akin to the machinations of a gang war. I have not done that. Unfortunately I haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. I have another life with its own deadlines. The article has a long way to go; it's very much POV (and most likely a minority POV as well). I hope I can get to it sometime soon. Pollinator 03:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)


Pollinator, first of all if you have some issue with the neutrality of the article then explain it instead of resorting to vague nothings about "POV." Second, I have never tried to "round up my buddies." I asked Adam to comment because I know sometimes writes on gay-related topics and he has quite a lot of knowledge on the subject. He's not my "buddy," and neither, particularly, is anyone else who has written here. Third, don't even bother with flinging around bizarre hyperboles: first people who go to bathhouses are like Iraqi prison officials and now I'm engaging in gang warfare! Exploding Boy 05:42, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Time out Gentlemen please. Things are getting somewhat heated. Pollinator I hope you do get time to edit the article sometime soon, although a break for a little while would also be a good idea to let the dust settle a bit. Working on a wikipedia article should not be thought of as a war.theresa knott 07:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Theresa says,Working on a wikipedia article should not be thought of as a war. Thank you for making my point. Again, this is why I haven't tried to go round up support...
Visiting a gay bathouse is an extremely dangerous practice. It's such a political hot potato that even those who know this tend to mute their comments. Statistics are available; I've found them in the past, but don't have the time to do it right at this time.
I've seen people die of AIDS. I've seen people die of lung cancer. Neither are pretty. And somehow knowing the cause and seeing the effect does not seem to dent some folks' logic.
A good analagy for the current page would be a game of russian roulette, where a six-chambered gun would be replaced with a twelve-chambered one with the comment that "It's safe now, the odds are greatly reduced." Unfortunately we seem to be entering an age when clear thinking is not valued, and possibly not even understood, because it's become the pattern to believe what one wants to believe, rather by its truth. In this day in time, people have permission to believe whatever they want; they think this makes their belief true. It only places a greater responsibility to learn how to distinguish the true. The NPOV header should remain. It could save a life if it makes someone think. Pollinator 12:55, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree completely. Visiting a gay bathhouse is no more dangerous than any anonymous sex; with the right precautions, it's more risky to cross the road to get there than it is to do anything inside. The comments you are seeking to add are not only inappropriate in an encyclopædia (imho) but would be suited to an article on promiscuity, not an article on saunas. In this context, they are POV, not the article; you're seeking to make the article less NPOV, not more so.
Your analogy is not only wholly wrong but, frankly, quite offensive. Plenty of gay men are quite capable of having frequent anonymous sex without contracting HIV. Anonymous (or near-anonymous) sex often happens after straight people go to a nightclub; you wouldn't seek to add a warning about the dangers of promiscuity on a page about nightclubs, would you?! — OwenBlacker 13:13, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Also, I'll remind you again that EB has not "gone rounding up support". I came to this article from having seen it on the FAC page and having some knowledge of the subject area, I invited Theresa to come offer a fresh pair of eyes to the issue, EB suggested someone he felt might have valid, NPOV arguments to add (Adam) should come do the same. The implication that we're all EB's poster boys is mildly offensive and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making it, please. — OwenBlacker 13:17, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)


Replying to pollinator ( I just knew the'd be an edit conflict)

OK just stop and think for a minute then answer this question - do you think there is any possibility that your emotional involvement in the issues; which although quite understandable since you have seen people dying of AIDS; is affecting your judgement? You have said that "Visiting a gay bathouse is an extremely dangerous practice" now that seems to me to be a little OTT. What I assume you mean is indulging in unsafe sex at bathhouses is extremely dangerous. Which come to think of it is true no matter if you're in a bathhouse or anywhere no?
As for the npov header - they are not there to make a political point or to make people think. They are there to indicate that there is disagreement over the content of the article. Disagreement is usually indicated by edit wars and furious debate on the talk pages. You have been asked by myself and others what specificlly you want changed about the article, but so far haven't actually said. I honestly don't understand what you want done to the article. If you are not prepared to edit the article, then why are you here? (this is an honest question, it's not ment as a dig)
Finally Wikipedia is not in the business of persuading people what to think. All we can do, all we should do (and this is something that I get passionate about) is present the facts. We can all argue here 'till the cows come home but it all amounts to nothing unless we can come up with facts to back our arguments up theresa knott 13:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I'm reaching the point where I'm no longer going to bother replying to Pollinator's posts.

First, visiting a gay bathouse is not an extremely dangerous practice. Paragliding is a dangerous practice. Driving a sports car is a dangerous practice. Sharing needles is a dangerous practice. Having unprotected sex is a dangerous practice. Visiting a bathhouse is not.

Second, not all men who visit bathhouses will have sex on a given visit. Of those who do, many will engage only in masturbation and/or mutual masturbation, which is as safe as it gets -- it is impossible to contract HIV and highly unlikely to contract any STD via mutual masturbation. Some men will engage in oral sex, which again, is extremely low risk for transmission of HIV -- so low, in fact, that not one recorded case of trasmission via this practice exists, even among those who "swallow." Of the small number of men who engage in anal sex, which is poses a risk for transmission of HIV and other STDs, only a small percentage will do so unprotected, which is a high risk for transmission of HIV and other STDs.

Third, people who engage in unprotected sex will do so wherever they have sex. The existence of a bathhouse or their presence in one does not have any bearing on that decision. In fact, it's likelier that people will have safer sex at bathhouses because condoms and lube are readily available (they might not be in other situations) and because the chances of meeting someone else looking for unprotected sex in a bathhouse will be lower. Men who intend to have unprotected anal sex ("bareback") are probably much more likely to seek partners via the internet, where they will be assured of finding someone who is seeking the same thing.

Fourth, gay bathhouses are not, as you seem to be suggesting, the cause of AIDS. Get a grip. It hasn't even been proven that they are contributing to its spread.

I think it's safe to say we can pretty much ignore any similar remarks from Pollinator and get on with editing the article. Exploding Boy 13:47, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

No I don't think that ignoring Pollinator's remarks is a good way forwards. Personally I'm hoping that Pollinator will make time to dig up those statistics after all.
I think everyone will benefit if we all remember to assume good faith
(We could chant it out loud if you like? - Nay that sounds too hippy like - Oh what the hell -group hug anyone?) theresa knott 17:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
GLOMP! NTK 15:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

crystal again

I notice this page hasn't been touched in more than six months. There was a little debate about whether to include mention of crystal meth as a risk factor in bath houses, but it was dismissed as "local to NYC." This is not actually true; it is reaching epidemic proportions in urban areas all over the United States (although I don't know about Europe, Asia, etc.) I don't have any specific citations that say crystal meth use is especially common in bath houses, but most of the literature indicates that it's common anywhere where men meet to have sex with men. So - should it be worked in? If so, how? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Apollo58 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)