Given the speed at which San Francisco’s Public Health Director, Mervyn Silverman, appeared to change his opinion on the relative contribution of bathhouses to the spread of HIV, it is hard to say whether he genuinely believed that his order for them to close would actually work. Indeed, in May 1983, he had already advised one local gay activist that he did not have the powers to close them down.

But within 24 hours of his announcement of the closure order on October 9th, 1984, the greater majority of bathhouses were open for business again. They certainly didn’t believe Silverman had the power to close them. Nor did they believe that closure was an appropriate response.

When Silverman had stated, “Make no mistake about it; these fourteen businesses are not fostering gay liberation. They are fostering disease and death”, the president of the Golden Gate Business Association had responded, “Rather than fostering health, Silverman’s remarks were fostering bigotry and hate.”

Even when the issue moved to the courts, the issues of legality and appropriateness never really seemed to get resolved.

On the 10th October the City of San Francisco went to the California Superior Court to seek a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against the bathhouses. On the 16th October Judge William Mullens found that there was “a real public health menace” and granted the temporary restraining order for fifteen days. The bathhouse owners promptly applied for it to be ended but their request was denied. On November 9th, six bathhouse patrons filed suit arguing that their rights of free-association had been infringed.

On 28th November the judge refused to close the bathhouses but set a number of conditions that he felt would reduce the risk of unsafe sexual behaviour in them. Doors had to be removed from video cubicles, booths and rooms. Additionally, staff had to be employed to patrol the premises every ten minutes looking out for ‘high-risk behaviour’ – as defined by the SF AIDS Foundation. Patrons found to be engaging in such behaviours had to be evicted from the premises.

The businesses were also required to undertake a range of educational activities; something that many of them claimed to have been doing anyway.

But on the 20th December, at the request of the City’s lawyers, a second hearing was held and this time the judge decreed that the Health Director, not the AIDS Foundation, would determine what constituted high-risk behaviour. Whether this was the outcome the City was seeking is hard to say, but it if was then it certainly suggests a significant lack of faith in the AIDS Foundation on the part of the City.

The Court also decided that the ‘safe sex monitors’ employed at the bathhouses would be required to make weekly reports to the City Attorney’s office of any violations that occurred.

No further appeals were issued by the bathhouse owners and they operated under the Court’s conditions for the remainder of their existence. As it transpired, this wasn’t a particularly long period of time: all but one had closed down by 1987. Whether this was a direct consequence of the Health Director’s actions is still the subject of debate today. What is certain is that other sex-on-premises venues emerged in the City throughout the 80s and 90s.

As for the real question – did the fight to close and/or control the bathhouses have any real impact on the spread of HIV – I’d personally be inclined to think not. Changing people’s behaviour – sexual or otherwise – is a complex issue but, at its heart it’s about working with people to develop realistic strategies. It’s not about imposing another person’s set of rules.

Radio Programme

My fellow blogger David Hunt has posted an audio recording of a one-hour news programme about this issue in Los Angeles. It was broadcast on KPFK 90.7FM’s LGBT programme IRMU. You can listen to it here.

Acknowledgment: In preparing these two posts I have found the following article to be of particular value:

Christopher Disman, The San Francisco Bathhouse Battles of 1984: Civil Liberties, AIDS Risk, and Shifts in Health Policy in Gay Bathhouses and Public Health Policy. William J Woods and Diane Binson eds, 2003

Save