Nearly a week after veteran gay activist Michael Petrelis reported on a meeting to discuss the future of the Dore Alley and Folsom Street Fairs, the Chronicle’s Matier and Ross regurgitated his report (sans credit, as they frequently do), highlighting Petrelis’ suggestion of “a tent where people could have sex – or just watch – but where the proceedings would not be visible from the outside.”
This recommendation, a gesture of compromise for those offended by the public sex acts that are known part of these celebrations (which does pose the question of what you are doing at Folsom of you’re freaked out by that stuff, but whatever), somehow wormed its way into the consciousness of the Chronicle’s editorial board. Behold the result: today’s outraged (and, of course, un-bylined as newspaper editorials frequently are — what’s that you say about how the anonymity of some online writers diminishes their credibility, mainstream media? Uh, yeah.) opinion piece on the Great Sex Tent MasterDebate.
Public sex tents? Now there’s an idea that should have been shot down the second it was announced from the mouth of a member of the “leather community” in response to complaints about public sex*
It goes on in this scolding tone for a couple more paragraphs. They seem very excited at the prospect of being mad at Supervisor Bevan “Typically Uncontroversial” Dufty! Their conclusion:
This is a quality-of-life issue that should have been tackled years ago. Local leaders need to stop clowning around and insist that everyone obey the law.
What do you think? Is the Grandma Chronicle right, or are you naming your new band Sex tents in honor of Petrelis’ suggestion? Rock the vote, below:
*My god, “Chronicle,” would it “kill you” to walk over to “the TV with the typewriter” and identify Michael Petrelis as the guy who made the suggestion?
