New York lawmakers are pushing to repeal a decades-old ban on sexual activity in bathhouses and saunas, arguing modern prevention and treatment make the restriction obsolete; proponents frame the move as restoring gay culture and safety through regulation, while critics warn it risks reviving venues that helped fuel a deadly epidemic and could worsen public safety and health problems.
State legislators in New York are advancing a bill to remove the 1980s law that banned sexual activity inside bathhouses and saunas. Supporters say the change reflects advances in prevention and treatment and that regulated facilities would be safer than underground operations that already exist.
Assemblymember Tony Simone has characterized these venues as “part of gay culture” and pushed to bring them “out of the shadows.” He and State Senator Erik Bottcher argue regulation will reduce risky underground behavior and allow health oversight to reach people who are otherwise hidden from services.
“Queer New Yorkers are being forced into the shadows … we all know these places exist,” Simone said, and Bottcher added, “Actions taken at the height of the AIDS crisis are out of step with modern reality. The science has changed. Prevention has changed. Treatment has changed. It’s time for our laws to change too.” Those lines capture the argument that past public-health responses no longer match current medical tools.
Longtime activist Allen Roskoff emphasized that bathhouses were more than anonymous sex spots, calling them cultural landmarks and spaces of solidarity. “They were symbols of our community, our culture, and our fight for civil rights and sexual liberation. I spent much of my youth in them,” Roskoff said, framing the venues as part of a larger social history rather than purely commercial establishments.
Opponents see the proposal very differently, warning it risks reopening sites that once accelerated an epidemic that killed tens of thousands in New York. Those opponents also point to the ongoing spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the practical difficulties of policing consensual public sex even in a regulated setting.
Commentator Dave Rubin offered a retrospective on how the original ban played out in city politics and culture, describing past clashes over public-health measures and accusations of bigotry. “New York City knew where AIDS was spreading: The bathhouses. The Republicans wanted to close the bathhouses where gays were having sex and doing drugs and then dying, but the Democrats pushed back to let the gays do their thing, calling Republicans homophobes,” he said, a quote that recalls the heated partisan disputes around public health at the time.
Critics argue this debate is not just about health policy but about priorities in a city that still wrestles with crime, visible drug use, and public disorder. They question why lawmakers would focus on legalizing anonymous encounters when many voters see street-level lawlessness and substance abuse as pressing problems that demand attention.
https://x.com/ebottcher/status/2084998559930151329
Councilwoman Vickie Paladino bluntly labeled the old bathhouses “awful,” warning that conditions would be worse if similar venues reopened today given the broader public-safety challenges New York faces. Her view reflects a conservative stance that prioritizes public order and traditional moral standards in evaluating policy shifts.
Supporters counter that prohibition forced activity underground and that bringing venues into a legal framework creates opportunities for monitoring, testing, and targeted health services. They claim a regulated model could require staff training, mandatory outreach, and better tracking of health outcomes, shifting from punishment to prevention.
Republican critics respond that regulation often proves porous in practice and that creating legal spaces for anonymous sexual encounters normalizes behavior they see as harmful to communities. They also underline the historical memory of a public-health catastrophe tied to similar venues and argue policy should err on the side of prevention rather than experimentation.
The legislative push also sits alongside other controversial measures on the table, creating a broader tug-of-war over how New York defines public morality and health policy. Some lawmakers are proposing related changes that would alter how consensual adult acts are treated under criminal law, sparking debate about where the line between personal liberty and public interest should fall.
At the core of the fight is a clash over values: one side emphasizes personal freedom, cultural recovery, and public-health engagement; the other stresses caution, community standards, and the risks of reopening institutions with a fraught history. Those competing priorities will shape how the debate unfolds in Albany and on city streets.
The stakes are both symbolic and practical, touching on history, identity, and day-to-day public-safety concerns. Whatever the outcome, the argument over bathhouses is likely to remain a flashpoint that forces New Yorkers to weigh health science, cultural memory, and civic order against each other in a contentious policy conversation.
Add comment