She moved into the home on an already agreed upon amount. She obviously could afford the rent as she wouldn't have moved in otherwise.
He then suggested to her that she could earn some extra money by sleeping with him. It doesn't matter if it was for rent or whatever she wanted.
She, as an adult accepted the solicitation for sex from another adult.
There is no victim, there is no abuse.
I say your brother is winning, she wasn't forced to live there.
You may remember me from such threads as!
You act as if peoples financial situations can't change at the drop of a hat, maybe she could afford rent at first, and then money became an issue. If for any reason she felt she had no other option than to unwillingly accept an offer from the person who has control over her place of residence then he committed sexual assault. Yes, she could have found somewhere else to live, but that in and of itself can be a lengthy and time consuming process, especially if she is in a financial situation in which she would be unable to drop the money for a deposit AND pay her current landlord.
At the end of the day I've treated this as a thought experiment because I figure that is what it is. In the case that this whole thing is true it is a sad situation and should be reported to the authorities.
Clearly, that would have been a worse thing to do, because if he had done that, she would be evicted. Which is what she chose to avoid. How is it better to have given her no choice than to have given her a choice, even if the choice is very unsavory?
How is a choice of A vs. B worse than a no choice, and forcing them to take A, no matter how bad choice B is? A is always there in both cases.
She clearly would rather have sex than be evicted. This much is evident because she made that choice. So people are demonizing him because he gave her a choice (that she opted to pick) rather than give her no choice (which is actually WORSE for her, since she didn't choose that option)?
I would not go as far as to call it rape like some of the other posters, but what he is doing is illegal.
EDIT: I was mistaken, both buying and selling sexual services are legal in Canada. It's just surrounding activities, such as public communication for the purpose of prostitution, brothels and procuring that are offences under the criminal law. I don't think any of these laws were broken so it is more a moral issue. Unless anyone knows of a court case where sex was paid as rent in Canada, which would clarify whether this a criminal offense.
Last edited by Jotaux; 2012-12-29 at 07:28 AM.
A) He offers no alternate solution, and she gets evicted, nothing she can do about it.
B) He offers a pretty awful alternate solution, or she gets evicted.
He chose B, but it seems most people would prefer he chose A. However, being that the girl chose that alternate solution, she must also be in favor of him choosing B. She didn't want to be evicted for not paying her rent. It was a better choice.
Is a choice (even if the option is bad) better or worse than having no choice at all?
If you find that normal moral behavior, then I'm pretty sure your morals are quite low themselves.
Yes, because of the nature of this arrangement. There is no true choice for the woman because free will is not an equitable option here; a 60% reduction in rent is huge, and in her situation she can't afford to refuse it.Is a choice (even if the option is bad) better or worse than having no choice at all?
Arguably, he did her a service by reducing her rent.