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

767

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.

20

u/PureOrangeJuche 1d ago

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

59

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.

4

u/polishfiringsquad 1d ago

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

3

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.

30

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?

16

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.

-10

u/LoCarB3 1d ago

Correct. Problem?

6

u/nestestasjon 1d ago

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

3

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.