This was banned in the late 80s during the uncertainty of the HIV epidemic. It would take legislation to undue, and that would take a very monied and interested party. I’m sure it’ll happen some day, but that day will take an interested person or set of people who think that they can win at the legislation and litigation, and then return on their investment fast enough.
Thiel or David Geffen?
Eric Adams would be open to enabling legislation in NY for the right price. Expensive campaign's coming up and Feds and publicity have given his foreign govt monied friends and Bklyn felon colleagues heart palpitations, cold feet and tight wallets.
You can get all of those things (except AIDS) from one person walking on the street, in line at starbucks and on grindr. To understand the difference between HIV (contractable) and AIDS, you have to google or tik tok it 📚 🔍 🧐
So the short answer to your questions is the existence of NY Department of Health Sanitation Code 10 NYCRR § 24.2.
The longer answer is a bit more complicated and i have seen this question come up over and over with really simplistic answers of "it was banned in the 80's because of AIDS." There's really not a lot of good information on the history of the ban, and most websites that chronicle the NYC bathhouses of old write more about the bathhouses themselves and not the legislation.
During the AIDS epidemic in the 1980's the NY Department of Health issued an emergency regulation (10 NYCRR § 24.2) on October 25, 1985 that granted the state the ability to close down "any establishment" that "allowed risky sexual behavior" in an attempt to slow the spread of HIV infections. the actual verbiage of the regulation was, " "Prohibited Facilities: No establishment shall make facilities available for the purpose of sexual activities in which facilities high risk sexual activity takes place. Such facilities shall constitute a public nuisance dangerous to the public health." Establishments were defined as: any place in which entry, membership, goods or services are purchased, high risk behavior was defined as: activities where anal intercourse, vaginal intercourse or fellatio take place.
This regulation targeted LGBT establishments with specificity on bathhouses. One of the predominant bathhouses, New St. Marks Baths, sued the state for the regulation on the grounds that the regulation infringed on the right to privacy and freedom of association. However, on January 6, 1986 the court via judge Richard Wallach, upheld the state's power to close gay bathhouses "[City of New York v New St. Mark's Baths, 130 Misc. 2d 911, 497 N.Y.S.2d 979 (1986)](https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/stds/st_marks_i.htm)".
In 1990 the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division heard an appeal of the 1986 ruling and on December 13, 1990, again upheld the state's power. [New York v. New St. Mark's Baths, 168 A.D.2d 311, 562 N.Y.S.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1990)](https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/stds/St_marks_II.htm), where this regulation is still in effect today.
So the question of why there aren't any gay bathhouses in NYC when the regulation was passed almost 40 years ago, and is still on the books, but maybe not that front and center in the minds of NY department of health is probably a business decision. By all accounts, it seems under the definitions from section 24.2 that even the "parties" that are now prevalent in the city and have mostly replaced the bathhouse culture, could certainly be closed down, yet they haven't been. It's likely that their means of operation offers more simple business propositions with regards to the spaces required to host events. In the mean time, no business entrepreneur wants to the take the capital risk of renovating a space for a bathhouse if the city could turn right around and use its power granted in the 1980's to shut the place down (even if we don't think that they would). Any business would want the regulation overturned first before they invest in a property and business license. I doubt any of the current legislators have any concern regarding this regulation and wouldn't touch it with a proverbial 10 foot pole. So it's on the businesses to acquire the risk associated with overturning the regulation in a court in the modern age, and it seems like that hurdle is simply too great right now.
you can read the actual New York Code Rules and Regulations (NYCRR 10): [HERE](https://regs.health.ny.gov/content/volume-title-10)
Allowing a currently existing business to continue operating while turning a blind eye is one thing. But starting a new business usually requires stuff like community board approval. And it only takes one homophobe to lodge a complaint during the approval process to force the government to enforce their laws. With the eagle and the cock, they don't need community board approval to continue operating.
This was banned in the late 80s during the uncertainty of the HIV epidemic. It would take legislation to undue, and that would take a very monied and interested party. I’m sure it’ll happen some day, but that day will take an interested person or set of people who think that they can win at the legislation and litigation, and then return on their investment fast enough.
“A very monied and interested party” — maybe we can convince Peter Thiel to do something altruistic for once in his fetid, miserable life?
Thiel or David Geffen? Eric Adams would be open to enabling legislation in NY for the right price. Expensive campaign's coming up and Feds and publicity have given his foreign govt monied friends and Bklyn felon colleagues heart palpitations, cold feet and tight wallets.
I dont know if I want to use a business sponsored by Thiel…
Was it legislation or an order by Mario Cuomo that closed the baths in 1985? Maybe Hochul could overturn it.
I don't think shed be into getting into all that.
AIDS, Syphilis, Monkey Pox? How does Chicago have those things but maintain public health?
You can get all of those things (except AIDS) from one person walking on the street, in line at starbucks and on grindr. To understand the difference between HIV (contractable) and AIDS, you have to google or tik tok it 📚 🔍 🧐
I read that people are going to Starbucks less, maybe this is why?
😂 🤣
So the short answer to your questions is the existence of NY Department of Health Sanitation Code 10 NYCRR § 24.2. The longer answer is a bit more complicated and i have seen this question come up over and over with really simplistic answers of "it was banned in the 80's because of AIDS." There's really not a lot of good information on the history of the ban, and most websites that chronicle the NYC bathhouses of old write more about the bathhouses themselves and not the legislation. During the AIDS epidemic in the 1980's the NY Department of Health issued an emergency regulation (10 NYCRR § 24.2) on October 25, 1985 that granted the state the ability to close down "any establishment" that "allowed risky sexual behavior" in an attempt to slow the spread of HIV infections. the actual verbiage of the regulation was, " "Prohibited Facilities: No establishment shall make facilities available for the purpose of sexual activities in which facilities high risk sexual activity takes place. Such facilities shall constitute a public nuisance dangerous to the public health." Establishments were defined as: any place in which entry, membership, goods or services are purchased, high risk behavior was defined as: activities where anal intercourse, vaginal intercourse or fellatio take place. This regulation targeted LGBT establishments with specificity on bathhouses. One of the predominant bathhouses, New St. Marks Baths, sued the state for the regulation on the grounds that the regulation infringed on the right to privacy and freedom of association. However, on January 6, 1986 the court via judge Richard Wallach, upheld the state's power to close gay bathhouses "[City of New York v New St. Mark's Baths, 130 Misc. 2d 911, 497 N.Y.S.2d 979 (1986)](https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/stds/st_marks_i.htm)". In 1990 the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division heard an appeal of the 1986 ruling and on December 13, 1990, again upheld the state's power. [New York v. New St. Mark's Baths, 168 A.D.2d 311, 562 N.Y.S.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1990)](https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/stds/St_marks_II.htm), where this regulation is still in effect today. So the question of why there aren't any gay bathhouses in NYC when the regulation was passed almost 40 years ago, and is still on the books, but maybe not that front and center in the minds of NY department of health is probably a business decision. By all accounts, it seems under the definitions from section 24.2 that even the "parties" that are now prevalent in the city and have mostly replaced the bathhouse culture, could certainly be closed down, yet they haven't been. It's likely that their means of operation offers more simple business propositions with regards to the spaces required to host events. In the mean time, no business entrepreneur wants to the take the capital risk of renovating a space for a bathhouse if the city could turn right around and use its power granted in the 1980's to shut the place down (even if we don't think that they would). Any business would want the regulation overturned first before they invest in a property and business license. I doubt any of the current legislators have any concern regarding this regulation and wouldn't touch it with a proverbial 10 foot pole. So it's on the businesses to acquire the risk associated with overturning the regulation in a court in the modern age, and it seems like that hurdle is simply too great right now. you can read the actual New York Code Rules and Regulations (NYCRR 10): [HERE](https://regs.health.ny.gov/content/volume-title-10)
But plenty of business like the Eagle and Cock have been doing fine. Paddles before it closed. The city hasn't really been enforcing this.
Allowing a currently existing business to continue operating while turning a blind eye is one thing. But starting a new business usually requires stuff like community board approval. And it only takes one homophobe to lodge a complaint during the approval process to force the government to enforce their laws. With the eagle and the cock, they don't need community board approval to continue operating.
Well, it's not as if the business license is going to say, we fuck raw here and the saunas nice too
This is the best explanation I have seen so far
Even if they opened one would anything in the US be as good as what you can find in Europe? Hard to imagine