"The bathhouse is . . .
Mar. 15th, 2004 04:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbc. . . and HIV aware environment characterized by somatically focused and depersonalized social rituals in order to obtain easy access to sex. However, bathhouses were also viewed as a sexual venue that was personally safe." (Haubrich, Myers, Calzavara, Ryder & Medved, 2004, p. 26)*
If frequent flyer points were awarded for visits to the tubs, I'd have enough points to fly round-the-world in First Class. If bonus points were awarded based on how many miles one covers wander the halls (again and again and again), I'd be bringing all my relations with me. Depending on how you construct meaning around these things, I am:
+ friendly
+ easy
+ sex-positive (though not HIV positive, so as to avoid confusion of terms)
+ a pig
I don't wholly disagree with the above quote. I agree that part of what I love about bathhouses is the lack of complication when compared with bar hookups or cruising public spaces like parks or washrooms. For me, the venue's security--homphobes out, police out, hot water and fresh towels in--is a big part of the appeal. Aside from the men.
Mmmmmm, mmmmmmen.
But I do reject any idea that bathhouse sex is generally depersonal, cold or calculating. Guys general cut to the chase and communicate (non-verbally and verbally) what they seek, what they're willing to do, and what not. But the encounters I have vary widely. Some are the stereotype that some presume: fast, furious, superficially depersonalized: in reality, no one I know puts up with clueless jerks who pay no attention to their playmates' needs. Some encounters are very passionate, with lots of stroking, kissing and exploring--not quite romantic, but definately sweet. And hawt. Others are playful, almost adolescent with elements of micheviousness, teasing, giggling even. Most integrate more than one of these archetypes.
But a lot of are, in fact, engaging in sem-regular partner sex. We go to the same venues, often the same nights of the weeks, and often we play with those we've played with before. Most guys I know from the tubs smile and say hello if we meet in other contexts. During such repeat encounters, there's both the certainty that we're both looking for the same thing (sex) and the expectation that we know a bit about how to turn one another's crank.
And of course there's nights where we acknowledge one another, but play with New Talent: special guest stars from out-of-town, or perhaps someone I've lusted out and about who's suddenly, uh, ripe for the picking.
Do I expect everyone shares my ethos regarding bathhouses and bathhouse sex? No. But I find characterizations of it as cold, mechanical, even somewhat exploitative, inaccurate and unfair. And the level of sexual integrity with respect to condoms for fucking is variable, but still quite high. Often those who aren't attuned to safer sex notions are in the minority who are loaded beyond rationality. Where, in my opinion, it is the loadedness that's the risk issue--not being in a bathhouse.
In the 80s many major US cities closed gay bathhouses, while Canada, Europe and Australia kept most open. HIV rates show no relation to bathhouse access--in fact more new infections happen<i> in relationships,</i> not sex venues. Sexual health and wellness education principles are the same, regardless of site of sexual expression: clear understanding of health risk, examination and reflection of when risk occurs, technical information to reduce or eliminate risk, and process and analysis of implementing that harm minimization information. With lovers, or tricks, or johns, or bathhouse attenders or fuck buddies. Contextualize the processes, but don't link risk to the sites themselves. That's facile--and inaccurate.
*Haubrich, D.J., Myers, T., Calzavara, L., Ryder, K., & Medved, W. (2004). Gay and bisexual men's experiences of bathouse culture and sex: 'looking for love in all the wrong places'.Culture, Health & Sexuality 6(1), 19-29.
If frequent flyer points were awarded for visits to the tubs, I'd have enough points to fly round-the-world in First Class. If bonus points were awarded based on how many miles one covers wander the halls (again and again and again), I'd be bringing all my relations with me. Depending on how you construct meaning around these things, I am:
+ friendly
+ easy
+ sex-positive (though not HIV positive, so as to avoid confusion of terms)
+ a pig
I don't wholly disagree with the above quote. I agree that part of what I love about bathhouses is the lack of complication when compared with bar hookups or cruising public spaces like parks or washrooms. For me, the venue's security--homphobes out, police out, hot water and fresh towels in--is a big part of the appeal. Aside from the men.
Mmmmmm, mmmmmmen.
But I do reject any idea that bathhouse sex is generally depersonal, cold or calculating. Guys general cut to the chase and communicate (non-verbally and verbally) what they seek, what they're willing to do, and what not. But the encounters I have vary widely. Some are the stereotype that some presume: fast, furious, superficially depersonalized: in reality, no one I know puts up with clueless jerks who pay no attention to their playmates' needs. Some encounters are very passionate, with lots of stroking, kissing and exploring--not quite romantic, but definately sweet. And hawt. Others are playful, almost adolescent with elements of micheviousness, teasing, giggling even. Most integrate more than one of these archetypes.
But a lot of are, in fact, engaging in sem-regular partner sex. We go to the same venues, often the same nights of the weeks, and often we play with those we've played with before. Most guys I know from the tubs smile and say hello if we meet in other contexts. During such repeat encounters, there's both the certainty that we're both looking for the same thing (sex) and the expectation that we know a bit about how to turn one another's crank.
And of course there's nights where we acknowledge one another, but play with New Talent: special guest stars from out-of-town, or perhaps someone I've lusted out and about who's suddenly, uh, ripe for the picking.
Do I expect everyone shares my ethos regarding bathhouses and bathhouse sex? No. But I find characterizations of it as cold, mechanical, even somewhat exploitative, inaccurate and unfair. And the level of sexual integrity with respect to condoms for fucking is variable, but still quite high. Often those who aren't attuned to safer sex notions are in the minority who are loaded beyond rationality. Where, in my opinion, it is the loadedness that's the risk issue--not being in a bathhouse.
In the 80s many major US cities closed gay bathhouses, while Canada, Europe and Australia kept most open. HIV rates show no relation to bathhouse access--in fact more new infections happen<i> in relationships,</i> not sex venues. Sexual health and wellness education principles are the same, regardless of site of sexual expression: clear understanding of health risk, examination and reflection of when risk occurs, technical information to reduce or eliminate risk, and process and analysis of implementing that harm minimization information. With lovers, or tricks, or johns, or bathhouse attenders or fuck buddies. Contextualize the processes, but don't link risk to the sites themselves. That's facile--and inaccurate.
*Haubrich, D.J., Myers, T., Calzavara, L., Ryder, K., & Medved, W. (2004). Gay and bisexual men's experiences of bathouse culture and sex: 'looking for love in all the wrong places'.Culture, Health & Sexuality 6(1), 19-29.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-14 09:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-14 09:53 pm (UTC)Another dimension on partner-sex. Sometimes you have partners out for play or just a night out away from the house. Hubby tends to go after bodybuilders, I tend to go after the bears and furry chubs.
just wondering
Date: 2004-03-15 04:22 am (UTC)You have any hard data or sources to back that statement up? Statistics from public health depts of the major US cities or the CDC? Or are you speaking while the bathhouses were open, because obviously now with them closed in the US (or most of them), the venue for transmission will be changed.
Re: just wondering
Date: 2004-03-15 04:53 pm (UTC)http://www.aidsmap.com/news/newsdisplay2.asp?newsId=2031 (Amsterdam)
http://www.pulsus.com/CAHR2003/abs/abs254.htm (Vancouver)
There's similar data from the CDC in the States, here in Australia too . . .
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:58 am (UTC)Homologous questions and judgments tend to come up in the (rather scanty) literature on polyamory: the important questions, such as "Can it be a "real" or "deep" or "personal" relationship if it lacks feature X that is associated with relationships in dominant culture expectations?" is usually not asked. Instead, it's stipulated that it *can't* be a real relationship, and this axiom typically structures the hunt for pathologies.
Indeed, a lot of public-health or social science literature of this type, in my experience, exists primarily to answer the question "how sick are they, exactly?", because public and private grant money is generally paid to fix perceived problems. So, for example, if we're talking about "bisexuality as [presumably] a form of covert somatically focused and depersonalized sexual ritual", we are always already talking about "how sick are they?" rather than "what exactly are we describing here?"
My take on these things starts with a very different set of axioms, among them: some people are wired differently about relationships. Some people find a great deal of personal connection and meaning in brief encounters. Some people do "repeat business" in their brief encounters. Some people experience *what feels to them like* a form of LOVE and CARING in such situations.
But establishing and talking about that would be a very different project, and probably not one that could answer the "how sick are they?" question, since it already implies answers like "potentially very few of them are very sick at all."
You, my friend, would find the next LGBTI Health Summit *very* congenial in terms of an environment where other people have similar reservations and problems with The Standard Account of These Things. And, hint hint, it's going to be held about three miles from my house, this August.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 06:41 pm (UTC)In hindsight, I would've found it too frustrating anyway. No enshrined entitlement to health care, no national human rights protection for queers. At a meeting that same here in Brighton UK, the Canuck, Dutch, Scandanavian, and Kiwi reps wanted to form a separate group from the (largely) British and American one. Because these battles have been fought and won--we're working on delivery. Sadly in the States, the extent to which queers should be protected under human rights statutes--and there's that health thing--makes for a conversation of little value to us.
And then there's the 3 levels of criminal in the States, versus one in Canada. And then.....And then....
OK, I'll shut up now. Thanks though :)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 07:42 pm (UTC)B. Nevertheless, there are non-USers at these things, including Gordon Youngman, who I believe is up your (Vancouver) way.
C. I think many attendees at past summits have derived great benefit from being among other health-organizer queers with grass-rootsy, sex-positive perspectives on queer lives. Including vis a vis ways of transforming the way research gets done. I looked up the citation you provided ... evidently the study was done in Ontario, and the publishing house that does the journal is home-officed in the UK. On that evidence, sex-negative scare research on queer men is cross-cultural and, you know, maybe networking with other folks on ways to change that would help you out.
D. Duh, hello, I hand you a gold-plated, academically defensible booty call ... hmph. [snuffle]
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 09:23 pm (UTC)F. percentage of tops @ said Summit <4% p,.0001 CI 3.8 - 4.2 .95
G. Sooo far. So expensive. Zero travel dollars.
But I hope it's productive and valuable to those who attend.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 06:45 am (UTC)???????? !!!!!
i hope it isn't too dumb a question.
hi sweetie! :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 06:41 pm (UTC)How are you? I miss you! Max and I were talking about you Sunday--how are things going up yonder?
no subject
Date: 2004-03-17 07:51 am (UTC)i'll post all my news soon. hugs to both of you. xxxx
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 07:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-16 02:32 pm (UTC)Interesting sidebar: my mother has been hard at work transcribing my taped interviews with HIV outreach workers at the baths. She has spouted all of the conventional wisdom of loneliness and inhumanity to me, but she can't stop talking about them. She wants to know everything that goes on in them. It's kinda creepy.
Ah yes...
Date: 2004-03-22 08:10 pm (UTC)I think I picked up a skill or two there ... though I could not demonstrate putting on a condom with my mouth like one of my predecessors could (He did it on a dildo not on himself by the way!)
Re: Ah yes...
Date: 2004-03-22 09:35 pm (UTC)You would think that working in bathhouses would have done wonders for my comfort level around gay men and gay male bodies, but it really didn't. I know my way around a condom demo, but talking to men? Trusting them? Those skills are still in development.
Re: Ah yes...
Date: 2004-03-23 02:34 am (UTC)Now I can at least talk to people for the sake of a cause ... so long as the cause is a little on the selfless side. I still could not walk up to someone in a bar and strike up random, interesting conversation with them. Working on that though.
Trusting men isn't a skill, though ... it is an individual act. It happens one on one, not en masse.