Bathhouses As Communal Brothels

[NWUSHorny]

How does the bathhouse/sex club/sauna type establishments differ from adult bookstores or theaters that allow, either legally or illegally depending on local law, sexual activity to happen on their premises? I've been propositioned by other patrons in the theaters and bookstores to either pay or get paid for sex a lot more times than it has happened in bathhouses.

Edited November 13, 2022 by NWUSHorny

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

How does the bathhouse/sex club/sauna type establishments differ from adult bookstores or theaters that allow, either legally or illegally depending on local law, sexual activity to happen on their premises? I've been propositioned by other patrons in the theaters and bookstores to either pay or get paid for sex a lot more times than it has happened in bathhouses.

One difference might be that in the bookstores, there's also a substantial amount of retail activity going on - people buying porn, poppers, sex toys, whatever. In the adult theaters, you're providing a specific film or films that are advertised so a reasonable argument can be made that the sex is incidental (wink wink) to the artistic endeavor presented.

That's a bit of a stretch for a bathhouse, some of which have essentially no amenities. A place that charges, say, a $15 "membership" fee to join, plus $20 for a locker for x hours, or $25-30 for a room (or whatever), can't really sustain the facade of being a non-sex-trade business under any sort of "quacks like a duck" test. Sure, there might be a pool where five people might have room to actually swim at one time, or perhaps ten if they're just bobbing around; and maybe there's a "gym" with enough space for those same ten guys, at most, to work out at one time. But that wouldn't explain letting 80 or 100 people into the place at one time.

To be sure: everyone knows all these places exist to provide sexual venues for people. But there's a difference when you can provide a certain amount of plausible deniability. 

 

[NWUSHorny]

@BootmanLA

The other retail activities are somewhat unique to the adult book stores in my experience. I don't think I have ever seen an adult theater advertise what is playing on the outside, let alone on the marquee, and very few of them have any significant retail operation. As to facilities in bathhouses, I have been to some that had multiple large pools, some that emphasized their steam rooms and saunas, but it has been a long time since I've been in one that still has any kind of gym equipment, I assume the potential liability for injury is too great. Portland is really unusual, bathhouses here do not have any other facilities to speak of compared to most cities, or any legal need to hide what they really are, but they seem like they are continuously promoting nonsexual activities and events to get paying customers in the door. To be fair a significant number of guys do seem to patronize them just to use the extremely limited spa facilities and in the summer the outdoor nude suntanning decks. I've also been in line with 6-8 guys in front of me when they announced the steam room or hot tub was out of order and watched more than half of them leave. Yelp reviews also indicate that they do get a fair number of guys to come in once for the nonsexual activities, only to discover what they really are. I've often wondered what those reviews would read like if the reviewers had stumbled into a sexclub in a city where guys actually participate in fucking each other's brains out.

[ErosWired]

12 hours ago, PissPigBrooklyn said:

No, it is not a brother and the OP's intent is based on a flawed tenet. If one goes to a brothel and pays the one running the brothel money (in the form of a cut from the paid sex worker e.g.) it is money that is exchanged for sex. If I go to the baths and pay money for my admission, I am offered no guarantee of anything other than my locker or room and a towel. I am not guaranteed sex nor even a flirtation as too many people who have frequented these places on an off night can attest. There is not even a guarantee that anyone else will be in the bathhouse.

The point, however, is that while the bathhouse owner may not guarantee that the client will experience a sex act, it’s pretty well understood, and it is the intent of the client, that the payment is for access to the opportunity for sex on the premises. This may not be limited to actual physical contact; a voyeur who wants to watch men performing sexual acts may pay his entry to get a front-row seat.

The owner of a bordello may reliably provide a client with a sex worker, but can’t guarantee he’ll have an orgasm.

[ErosWired]

12 hours ago, Hotrawbutt4u said:

If a meeting is at a hotel, that hotel is technically operating a brothel

If I am hosting I am paying to get played with

If I got to some ones room, he is paying me. 

If I host at my house I am both operating a brothel and paying for it, if friends play also in effect, I am doing both

A hotel is not in the same situation as a bathhouse. A hotel’s principal offering is lodging. Hotels (by and large) do not actively promote sexual encounters on their premises. They may turn a blind eye to them, or be indifferent to them, but you don’t find a bowl of condoms on the bathroom counter.

Yes, if you host in your hotel room you are paying the hotel for access to the premises for purposes of sex. But that is not, and may be contrary to, the hotelier’s intent. At a bathhouse, it is not against the owner’s intent - he knows exactly what you want to use the place for.

No, a man who comes to your room isn’t paying anybody anything, in terms of the financial exchanges in consideration. In a bathhouse, a man who fucks you in your room has also paid to get in; at the hotel, he just walks in through your door free of charge. (Frankly, this is why I’ve never understood why more men don’t take advantage of hotel cumdumps - a guaranteed fuck you don’t have to hunt for, totally free - you can’t beat that.) You may consider that the guy who fucks you in your hotel room is “paying” you by fucking you, but that doesn’t count. It doesn’t come out of his wallet

[ErosWired]

10 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

How does the bathhouse/sex club/sauna type establishments differ from adult bookstores or theaters that allow, either legally or illegally depending on local law, sexual activity to happen on their premises? I've been propositioned by other patrons in the theaters and bookstores to either pay or get paid for sex a lot more times than it has happened in bathhouses.

I would note that the observation I’m making about bathhouses does not encompass behavior in which bathhouse owners or staff actively offer to compensate a client for performing sex acts with other clients on the premises, because I would think this is a relatively uncommon phenomenon, but to the extent that it happens, I think it simply underscores the point.

[tallslenderguy]

"Bathhouses as Communal Brothels"

Not to me. i think i understand the point being made, but it's a stretch to far for me.

Paying for an opportunity to have sex (e.g. a bathhouse), is not the same as paying the individual i am having sex with as a requisite to having sex with Him (whether directly or through an intermediary like a pimp or "brothel"). 

A vital element of sex for me is an expression of mutual desire/need. I.e., each person involved wants/needs the other persons need/desire for fulfillment. While an argument might be made that a sex worker 'loves' his work, from my side, i would not be able to get around my aversion to the notion he is only, or primarily, having sex with me for money.  

Lol, i won't even have sex with a versatile guy unless i am confident he really wants a total bottom at the time. Why?  Because His fulfillment is connected to mine, and if i feel i cannot honestly give Him what He wants/needs, i'd rather go without. 

my perception of a bathhouse is it's a place where guys go to get there sexual needs/desires met, not their monetary desires/needs. All are paying for the opportunity, neither party is being financially remunerated. If i thought someone was being paid to have sex with me, even as a gift, i'd pass.  

[blackrobe]

On 11/12/2022 at 1:51 PM, ErosWired said:

Obviously, the above is an exercise in pure sophistry, but I think there must be a kernel of truth in there somewhere. I happen to know that two Tops coming to CumUnion tonight ate coming specifically because they want to fuck my ass. If I weren’t here whoring my body to Tops for free, that’s money the bathhouse wouldn’t be getting.  I mean, I get called a whore enough as it is, I might as well claim it…

I think the brothel comparison falls down for a few reasons. You can only monetize and sell the product you have to the customers who you can convince it's a fit for.

You've managed to show the microcosm of the bathhouse business model in the two highlighted sentences I've quoted.

Bathouses (depending on their facilities) are selling you entry and time in a place where men can be naked, relax, and have sex with varying degrees of privacy and safety. They can't guarantee that you'll find what you want sexually when they sell you entry and time, but by focusing on the right kinds of promotions they can appeal to the most profitable demographics to make it more likely. Put succinctly, a brothel only has to market to acquire and keep the johns as customers and they are selling **guaranteed** sex, a bathhouse has to market to everyone on all sides of the market to be successful. They are selling their facilities to everyone and if sex happens, that's great, but the sex isn't their product. Once a punter pays to enter a bathhouse, they've made most of their money whether sex happens or not. That's not true of a brothel.

Men want to have sex. Sometimes with strangers, sometimes with people they know (like your two tops). Bathhouses monetize themselves as safer and more private spaces for doing that with all the positives and negatives that go along with it. 

While people might be calling you a whore, @ErosWired, unless you're actually charging something they are quite wrong. You are a slut, just like me. 😏

[NWUSHorny]

I think I'm a little confused.

I don't consider paying to enter a bathhouse to have sex with someone else that has paid to enter the bathhouse to be a brothels/prostitution situation. To me that is no different than paying to enter any other kind of establishment and interact with other customers. There are some gray areas however, like offering discounts to tops and or letting guys they know are active tops in for free/offering special perks and discounts. Another thing, that I know happens, is that one of my local bathhouses let's masseuses in for free on their weekly spa nights and for their quarterly parties, oddly enough it is the clientele they attract on those nights that prevents it from turning in to prostitution (most of them are extremely adamant that spa nights are NOT for sex, and that people like me are not welcome at their event).

I know it isn't what is being asked, but from the perspective of actual prostitution occuring on the premises it seems a lot less likely for bathhouses than adult bookstores and theaters, and is more likely to involve the owners and employees since they don't seem to have as many rules about having sex on while they are working. Most bathhouses won't allow their employees to play while they are working, even on breaks, some of them won't even let them do it on the same day before or after their shift. I assume this is to remove any possible idea that the employees are being compensated for sex. Also the vast majority of bathhouse employees are total bottoms, so their sexual services are not really the ones that would benefit the club financially. I have been propositioned in all 3 types of establishments, but as far as I know the owners and employees were not involved, and in most of the occurances I was offered the compensation and did not accept it so no one could ask for their cut, so that may not be full confirmation.

[ErosWired]

52 minutes ago, blackrobe said:

Put succinctly, a brothel only has to market to acquire and keep the johns as customers and they are selling **guaranteed** sex, a bathhouse has to market to everyone on all sides of the market to be successful.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s guaranteed or not, the basic resource in trade is still sex. It doesn’t matter that the bathhouse is selling you a hunting license instead of a ticket; the fact that they got the hunters in the door - hunting each other - means they also stocked the premises with the game, which paid for the privilege of being hunted. They’re still being paid from both ends by men who want to come in and have sex with men who would not be there had not the bathhouse facilitated it: Brothel.

Let’s imagine that a brothel existed that charged clients a fee to enter, but once inside, their ability to have sex was wide open, as it is in a bathhouse. You can fuck as many as you can get to fuck you, but your success is all on you - there’s no guarantee you’ll score. Would men pay to enter? You bet your ass they’d pay. They’ll take that fucking bet, thank you very much. So is the place still a brothel? Yes, it’s still a brothel.

[NWUSHorny]

5 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Let’s imagine that a brothel existed that charged clients a fee to enter, but once inside, their ability to have sex was wide open, as it is in a bathhouse. You can fuck as many as you can get to fuck you, but your success is all on you - there’s no guarantee you’ll score. Would men pay to enter? You bet your ass they’d pay. They’ll take that fucking bet, thank you very much. So is the place still a brothel? Yes, it’s still a brothel.

So based on your definition, given the fact that most bathhouse customers are there to bottom, letting guys who are generally desirable willing active tops in at a discount or for free qualifies it as a brothel? I can confirm that there are some bathhouses doing exactly that. From a moral/ethical point of view, I'm glad I for the most part rejected the offers.

[ErosWired]

12 minutes ago, NWUSHorny said:

So based on your definition, given the fact that most bathhouse customers are there to bottom, letting guys who are generally desirable willing active tops in at a discount or for free qualifies it as a brothel? I can confirm that there are some bathhouses doing exactly that. From a moral/ethical point of view, I'm glad I for the most part rejected the offers.

That would not be the only thing qualifying it as a brothel, but I would suggest that if the bathhouse took that measure with the intent of having penetrators on the premises to engage in sex acts with the other clients and/or encourage bottoms to pay to enter with the belief that the penetrators would be there - and given that the discounts are offered expressly on the basis of the sexual function - that would certainly reinforce an argument that their intent is to profit from sex.

Edited November 14, 2022 by ErosWired

[blackrobe]

11 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

It doesn’t matter whether it’s guaranteed or not, the basic resource in trade is still sex. It doesn’t matter that the bathhouse is selling you a hunting license instead of a ticket; the fact that they got the hunters in the door - hunting each other - means they also stocked the premises with the game, which paid for the privilege of being hunted. They’re still being paid from both ends by men who want to come in and have sex with men who would not be there had not the bathhouse facilitated it: Brothel.

I don't agree with your interpretation or accept your premise. The law doesn't seem to agree with your interpretation either, at least in the jurisdiction I reside in.

We can play the word game where a brothel is any place that prostitution (I prefer sex work, but I'm using it as a legal term) happens whether the place has been monetized or not, but that makes every hotel, car, personal home, public bus, telephone box, public park, or other premises that a prostitute has met with a John for sex a brothel as well. That's rather too wide and indiscriminate a net to cast in my view. It dilutes what a brothel was originally conceived as to the point of being almost meaningless.

Where the law focuses is on the actual money that's exchanged directly for sex and who profits from it. There are pretty clear laws that place the onus on businesses to avoid "promoting, advancing, or profiting from prostitution". In an era where passage of FOSTA pushed Craigslist out of the personals game because of the potential for "human trafficking" litigation, brick-and-mortar businesses have got the message as well.

[NWUSHorny]

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

That would not be the only thing qualifying it as a brothel, but I would suggest that if the bathhouse took that measure with the intent of having penetrators on the premises to engage in sex acts with the other clients and/or encourage bottoms to pay to enter with the belief that the penetrators would be there - and given that the discounts are offered expressly on the basis of the sexual function - that would certainly reinforce an argument that their intent is to profit from sex.

This certainly feels like it. This is a new event that I haven't been to, but it certainly has that feel and I have refused similar promotions in the past, and I'm almost certain I could get the discount possibly without even asking for it. Pre-COVID I had a stack of free passes for this bathhouse, that I chose not to use.

Edited November 14, 2022 by NWUSHorny

[ErosWired]

6 minutes ago, blackrobe said:

We can play the word game

For goodness’ sake - it’s a thought experiment. I said it was sophistry from the get-go. (I initially typed ‘get-ho’; still topical). Just because a prosecutor wouldn’t pick it up and run with it doesn’t make it a pointless discussion from a philosophical or ethical perspective. I haven’t been suggesting there are real-world applications or potential legal implications. I certainly hope not - I love me a bathhouse, just spent 16 straight hours at one, walked out with 17 hash marks on my ass - and that was with it snowing half an inch of snow outside.

Legal considerations and ethical considerations are often quite different matters (what you can do doesn’t always reflect what you should do). I’m not a lawyer of any kind (thank Christ - the equivocation would drive me insane) but I think a lot about ethics.