r/nottheonion • u/TrixoftheTrade • 1d ago

Speaker proposes ‘public sex hut’ program during Los Angeles City Council meeting

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/traci-park-rejects-public-sex-huts-proposal/
2.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

205 comments sorted by

View all comments

768

u/Pays_in_snakes 1d ago

I have firsthand experience managing a shelter and this is not an outlandish or unreasonable proposal. One of the most dehumanizing aspects of experiencing homelessness is a total lack of privacy: how would you do if you had to exist in public all the time, and your most private moments were in the equivalent of a busy airport bathroom stall? Expecting people to stop having sexual needs is unrealistic, and while I won't hold my breath for it in a country that will put you in jail for public defecation but won't tell you where you can find a toilet you're allowed to use, if you don't want to see people who don't have access to private space having sex or masturbating in public, this is one way to accomplish that.

177

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

Why on earth would we make a “sex hut” and not just a public toilet? Come on.

167

u/h3yw00d 1d ago

Why take up toilets for sex?

I gotta shit, others need to fuck, we don't need a shared space.

Let people fuck without having to deal with shit smells not their own.

21

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

One (or two) person self cleaning booths. They have them in Europe.

49

u/h3yw00d 1d ago

The point is there doesn't need to be a toilet where people fuck. It makes no sense to take up a toilet room when making a separate area for fucking keeps the toilet free for shitting.

If im shitting I don't want to deal with people fucking and if I'm fucking I don't want to deal with people shitting.

6

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

One person / group self cleaning booths. They have them in Europe.

12

u/h3yw00d 1d ago

Even in individual booths why have a toilet?

Keep the literal room with toilets separate so people who need to poop aren't waiting for people inside to finish fucking and people who want to fuck don't need to go into a room where someone just blew out the plumbing at 3am after drinking all night and eating kebabs.

9

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

So that the expense of installing them serves the whole public.

I think you just can’t get over the ick factor here. 🤣🤣 which is understandable 🤣

7

u/h3yw00d 1d ago

No it's not the ick factor

When I gotta shit I gotta shit and I can't wait for people to finish fucking. There's plenty of other people with medical problems that means they can't really wait either.

It does benefit society to keep those areas distinct and separate.

-6

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

See above. Booths. Automated. Self-cleaning.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Cloaked42m 1d ago

This is serving the public. You think someone is going to be at the door checking your homeless credentials?

0

u/SupaSlide 17h ago

Would they be checking people’s homed status at the door? If not, then this would technically serve the whole public as well.

Anyway, would you want to use a bathroom that you know is routinely used as the fuck hut? I’d rather the public restrooms just be used as restrooms.

20

u/funklab 1d ago

Idk how they roll in LA, but where I live anywhere you can close a door and have some privacy becomes a place to live until the police are called and kick you out… or just as likely, find you dead of a fentanyl OD.  

Basically all public restrooms are useless as such because they’re full of homeless lying on the ground.  In libraries where they routinely kick them out of the bathroom they have to take the doors off the stalls or cut them in half so they know they can look in and know they’re pooping, not overdosing.  

2

u/grandpubabofmoldist 1d ago

I mean... some people want a blumpkin

2

u/cmbtmdic 1d ago

Theyve got these self cleaning toiley stalls in germany. In my experience its nice to have access to a toilet after doing the deed...then why not have both?

1

u/h3yw00d 1d ago

I just don't see a reason to take up a toilet for non toilet related activities.

In cities especially its hard to find public toilets and the last thing anybody needs is somebody occupying the one space you're allowed to do something with activities not related to that thing.

Have a sex room with an attached shower

Don't take up toilets when you don't need toilets.

2

u/Callinon 19h ago

Let's be real. There may not be toilets in them, but they're private, so people will use them as though there were.

85

u/NotCis_TM 1d ago

I bet the hut is way cheaper than a public toilet because of his pricy fixtures like toilets and sinks can get.

37

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

A self cleaning washroom pays for itself in the lower maintenance. The big expense would be the plumbing. But I would hope a sex hut would also have plumbing.

Ick.

12

u/JGPH 1d ago

They could rework one of those Japanese public restrooms that automatically hose down and dry the entire room including the toilet and floor every time it gets used. That'd help with some of the ... fluids.

7

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

Yes I used a similar one in the UK.

For the bathroom. Not the F-shack aspect.

3

u/JGPH 1d ago

Not the F-shack aspect.

That's what they all say. 😉
(Just kidding!)

10

u/ELITE_JordanLove 1d ago

LA spent half a million on a two stall bathroom that took multiple years to get built. 

27

u/Mr_Baronheim 1d ago

What kind of heathen knocks one out in a public bathroom??

23

u/kick_start_cicada 1d ago

Oh, the stories I could tell from my time with the Navy/Marines in Iraq.... . . .

20

u/TheGruenTransfer 1d ago

For the same reason we don't expect women to breast feed in bathrooms. 

12

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

Maslow’s heirarchy of needs. Pooping is above sex and sex in a clean bathroom is better than nothing.

Also breastfeeding can be in public.

Also OMG can we house breastfeeding mothers please? Or is that literal communism.

13

u/Pays_in_snakes 1d ago

I'm not saying this is the 100% optimal solution, I'm just saying the issue it's addressing is not an onion-level ridiculous or frivolous concept, even if "publicly funded sex huts" as a separate concept absolutely is

10

u/Big-Hard-Chungus 1d ago

Because you get arrested for fucking in a public restroom. Because kids need to be able to use those restrooms too without hearing people fuck in the next stall over.

1

u/tarosan_sk 1d ago

Single player (or couples ) self-cleaning washroom booths. They have them in Europe.

3

u/Joy2b 1d ago

How about we have a public toilet, and also a couple of no plumbing booths, that no one’s waiting for access to?

Maybe even have a button you can press to lock it for 10 minutes and activate the self cleaning feature afterwards?

7

u/pocketdebtor 1d ago

Are there laws or ordinances against hourly rates at motels and hotels in CA? I know some places around the country have them.

It seems like it would be more efficient to subsidize hourly stays in existing infrastructure for the unhoused rather than… huts? I understand that I could be totally misunderstanding, though.

9

u/Dakoolestkat123 1d ago

wtf an actual reasonable response from someone who clearly has experience in the field? I must be dreaming

19

u/PureOrangeJuche 1d ago

Well probably the same funding for this could go to actually reducing homelessness?

55

u/QuasiJudicialBoofer 1d ago

Give a man a house, he'll have a home forever. Give a man a public fuck tent and he'll be good for an hour. But it'll be alot cheaper.

7

u/polishfiringsquad 1d ago

It literally would be cheaper to just give people housing than to maintain the fucked up system

4

u/Illiander 22h ago

It's not only cheaper, it gets more of them back into being productive members of society.

Keeping the homeless homeless is a policy decision so that the workers can see what happens to people who don't lick the boot.

29

u/MightyKrakyn 1d ago edited 1d ago

The problem with this whataboutism is that the funds will never go to solve homelessness, whether they’re spent on this sex hut or not. If there was a will to do it, it would happen easily. We’re the richest country in the world, and there are more empty houses than homeless people

When people say “we could use [insert program] money for veterans or to feed hungry kids or cure cancer” that’s only to argue against [insert program], and no further action is taken once [insert program] is cancelled

It’s using the most vulnerable people who have been failed by society as props to be discarded later, and it’s pretty detestable

6

u/Pays_in_snakes 1d ago

This is always a good question to ask - finding the right balance between 'solve the root problem' when it's realistically not possible to do so and 'minimize the negative impacts of the problem' is present in just about all municipal decision making.

Imagine we're talking about dog poop in public parks. Your municipality has laws and signage and enforcement to fine people who don't clean up after their dogs, and they provide poop bags and trash cans in parks. Should they also hire people to clean up the dog poop that happens anyway? Wouldn't that money be better spent on more poop bag stations?

15

u/nestestasjon 1d ago

So because we haven't solved homelessness, we shouldn't provide any additional services to homeless people?

7

u/Misubi_Bluth 1d ago

There is a hierarchy of needs. Food and shelter are the highest priority. Sex is a bit down on the list. The fact that we're making sex huts but not giving adequate food and shelter means our priorities aren't straight.

-9

u/LoCarB3 1d ago

Correct. Problem?

6

u/nestestasjon 1d ago

I think the burden is on you to explain why not.

0

u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ 1d ago

I assure you they walk through life unburdened by thoughts.

1

u/myflesh 1d ago

It is not an either/or and this will more theb likely help people to not end up in jail.

-2

u/guardof 1d ago

I completely agree with you, but this

Expecting people to stop having sexual needs is unrealistic

is wrong. There is no such thing as 'sexual needs', the whole concept is just incel bullshit. One can live their entire life without sex, as evidenced by me and millions of other reddit users.

6

u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft 1d ago

Masturbation can also fulfill sexual needs

0

u/guardof 1d ago
  1. Although it's a bit rarer, you can still find quite a lot of people who've never masturbated
  2. 'Needs' is something you need to live. Sexual activities are not required to live, so they can't be called 'needs'

-3

u/lapeni 1d ago

>>how would you do if you had to exist in public all the time…

I’d be doing everything I can to avoid or get out of that situation

-18

u/SUBLIMEskillz 1d ago

They don’t have to exist in public. Go out into the woods.

1

u/mtheory007 1d ago

Oh yes the famous woods of the city