"Rent-For-Sex": evil landlords exploit the poor

[Baroclinic]

So what I'm understanding here:

1. Have sex with me and Ill pay your rent = forced.

2. Have sex with me and Ill give you $$$ and you can use that to pay your rent = consensual.

.

[edw]

Ok the subject is a double edge sword, one argument is that no one is forcing them and that is correct but we all understand that the practice shouldn't be tolerated. On the other hand there are people having some bad times and need a roof over there head, now the question for them is live on the street or ... This whole thing is bad, people should't be forced in to making decisions like this but your life is your own and if things are going wrong you need to step back and see what is there to fix or change.
We do need to include one category of people here, the ones that actually look for the "rent-for-sex" deals ...

[therealbowser]

The root issue there, I would say, is homelessness. Not sex for homes.

Disturbing as this stuff is, this is the issue here. Fix the problem, and this problem will go away, too.

I mean, at least they have an option to not be homeless, where as they might not otherwise. I'm not in any way supporting this disgusting practice, but I think we should focus on the core problem rather than trying to stop this specific issue.

[Krawu]

It's unusual, since services aren't usually paid with services, but living in a country where prostitution is legal, I see no immediate moral problem as long as the precise services owed and rendered are described in a contract both parties have signed and agreed to, otherwise it's a recipe for exploitation. It would have to cover things like days off and insurance, taxes and a bunch of other stuff that would make it much more complicated than an ordinary rent agreement. The law would have to be expanded to cover arrangements like this.

Most likely the landlord would be listed as the employer, the rent assigned a monetary value and a determination made what the virtual pay per hour is to be.
Then, since this would definitely be classified as prostitution the "employee" would have to submit to the regular health check-ups that all legally working prostitutes have to in regular intervals.
But honestly, it'd be so much easier to just pay the rent normally than go though the bureaucratic nightmare it would take to make this safe, fair and legal.

[Mehrunes]

What? We consider employers to be in a position of power over their employees in regards to several areas of the law here in the US, landlords should by default be considered in positions of power and there being a lot of them doesn't relate to the nature of the relationship.

I mean, this isn't even an issue of following context, where you could have missed the previous posts. I explicitly mentioned what the context of that discussion was in the very post you quoted. Potential landlords (to go into more detail, it was about a situation where the estate owner is upfront with this being the offered deal before they actually rent the property). Now try to spot the difference between potential landlords and actual landlords. And then do explain the nature of the relationship between a potential landlord and a person interested in renting property from them.

[socialmaker]

It takes two to tango.

[Deleted]

Call me an oddity, but I'm completely fine with two adults entering into a consensual agreement like this.

I agree with you if it's 100% consensual. In fact, here in this student city there is a young women who is doing escort with rich old guys to pay for her study. Well, no one is forced to pay the study like that, but she said "I rather do this for a few minutes a month, then work a normal job and get paid way less". This is not any different.

Trading X for sex is as old as the way to rome, the question is...where is the "line". Is sex for groceries fine? When I was young, sex for a breezer was a thing, so it's not new.

[bladeXcrasher]

Ignoring the fact that this is a story by BBC and the only thing Zero Hedge did was report it, how bloody stupid do you have to believe those links? They can't discredit the news from Zero Hedge so they resort to using bullshit hysteric labels like "alt-right" and "pro-Russian". Don't be so fucking gullible. This is almost as bad as those USA dimwits screaming their heads off about Russian "trolls" and "bots" meddling in elections when in the end no one but themselves is to blame for voting at the polling stations.

It's a blog, it isn't a news site. I'll take CNN's word and opinion over yours any day.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/25/inve...-blog-finance/

[josykay]

I agree with you if it's 100% consensual. In fact, here in this student city there is a young women who is doing escort with rich old guys to pay for her study. Well, no one is forced to pay the study like that, but she said "I rather do this for a few minutes a month, then work a normal job and get paid way less". This is not any different.

Trading X for sex is as old as the way to rome, the question is...where is the "line". Is sex for groceries fine? When I was young, sex for a breezer was a thing, so it's not new.

The question is, is it really consentual, if it comes down to "have sex with me or be homeless". Which appears quite similar to the behaviour of certain human aid groups, we have read recently. If the person can, without any problem afford rent, and is fine with it, there isn't a problem. Otherwise there is, like taking advantage of a person's living situation.
Being homeless certainly isn't a viable option, which kind of forces people, who can not afford rent, to do the erm "arrangements".

[Deleted]

So? It's an option, isn't it? It's probably easier for them to put it out than to pay up actual cash.

[josykay]

So? It's an option, isn't it? It's probably easier for them to put it out than to pay up actual cash.

It is not an option, if you have the options between "consentual sex" and being homeless. It is taking advantage of desperate living conditions of people.

[Deleted]

The question is, is it really consentual, if it comes down to "have sex with me or be homeless". Which appears quite similar to the behaviour of certain human aid groups, we have read recently. If the person can, without any problem afford rent, and is fine with it, there isn't a problem. Otherwise there is, like taking advantage of a person's living situation.
Being homeless certainly isn't a viable option, which kind of forces people, who can not afford rent, to do the erm "arrangements".

But in my country you are homeless by choice. Everyone has a right to have a home/food/drink here, that is a gurantee. So if you are homeless, it's a choice.

Students can take a student loan with VERY interesting interests (<1%) + if you gonna rent a room, you get money for that as well. If you are jobless/houseless, you can get assistence, which is about 800 a month. not much, but it will keep you alive.

In short, in my country, you are homeless by choice. If you want to have some extra money to spend and so live for free , i am fine with that

ps. I had this discussion with a friend. I would NOT be able to be such landlord, even tho the "renter" is 100% fine with it. Sex is still something special for me, and I can only consumate it with passion ... But that is besides the fact that if this happens with other ppl and they are 100% fine with it, its a normal way of paying for something. I mean ... the times my Girlfriend "pays" something with a ... bj

[kamuimac]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...oke-millenials

The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isalsNYgTtU

Why not slap a hefty tax on vacant property so that these predatory leeches are driven out of business and efficient owners can take over?

oh look someone just learned about the oldest proffesion in the world.

people have been whoring themsleves for millenias in order to secure shelter and food. why would it be different now. sex is same currency as $ - you dont want it there is plenty of jobs around. ah ye but they dont pay as much and require more then spreading legs .

[josykay]

But in my country you are homeless by choice. Everyone has a right to have a home/food/drink here, that is a gurantee. So if you are homeless, it's a choice.

Students can take a student loan with VERY interesting interests (<1%) + if you gonna rent a room, you get money for that as well. If you are jobless/houseless, you can get assistence, which is about 800 a month. not much, but it will keep you alive.

In short, in my country, you are homeless by choice. If you want to have some extra money to spend and so live for free , i am fine with that

ps. I had this discussion with a friend. I would NOT be able to be such landlord, even tho the "renter" is 100% fine with it. Sex is still something special for me, and I can only consumate it with passion ... But that is besides the fact that if this happens with other ppl and they are 100% fine with it, its a normal way of paying for something. I mean ... the times my Girlfriend "pays" something with a ... bj

The problem with "working in my country" is, that does not mean, it work's everywhere. So it is kind of hard, to apply that to every place in the world.
Not every nation is a social safety net paradiese, where you really are "homeless" by choice. And what is after the student loan? So far I have read, it is a problem for many people around 18-36, not just students, but people, who are in the working force for 10+ years.

The living- and working situation grew exceptionally dire in many places of europe, and the US, being the first generation, that will have it worse than their parents. Millenials did not recieve the ridiculous student loans and assistence earlier, have much harder entrance to the job levels, and will have much worse retirement conditions, with less existing, and affordable living space, and even more so one, that isn't in a shitty condition, like mold, aged and flawed electricity or sanitary.
(Not to mention at best questionable security, like that tower, that burned down in England some months ago, killing many renters.

[Deleted]

Of course no one is forcing them, but the landlords are taking advantage of their dire situation and abusing their power. That is what’s wrong here; these people are being exploited.

But the case I am talking about, they are not in a dire situation. We agree with eachother you know

[VyersReaver]

My issue isn't people offering sex for rent, but people saying "sleep with me or be homeless"

So just "be homeless, no choice" is better?

[PogChamp]

sex has been used for trades and sales since people have existed, long before any roofs other than natural ones existed. if this is news to you, please go read a history book and try to keep quiet until you do, because it's a waste of everyone's time hearing this shit.

women also trade sex for money, and use that for rent, they also trade it for just about anything that's has a decent monetary value which they either want or they want to sell... for money, which then goes to rent. they also go after men who have decent paying jobs, many times very aggressively, using sex to get into a relationship because... you guessed it, money and a roof over their head.

this isn't new, it's the opposite, and it's one of about 1000 different way sex gets used in the world today as a means to an end. welcome to the world, it's a real shithole, but if you have money it's not all bad, you'll get laid a lot!

[Themius]

I think the problem heee is that it is exploiting people that’s the main problem.

[Aleksej89]

Honestly this is just a variant of prostitution.

Personally i have nothing against willing prostitution and if a person lacks money but needs something paying for it in "natural favors" is an acceptable option.

In modern capitalist countries the landlord is not obligated to keep his prices low or even rent his land if he chooses so.
There is no law forcing a landlord to make his land cheap or forcing him to rent his land at all, and it most certainly ain't right for the law to interfere in how someone uses their private property.

Moral is subjective and different for every person, culture and religion so it should never be brought into the law or affect the law in any way.

[Gamer8585]

So, basically none of the solutions really solve the scaling issue you presented in your first paragraph. As for the second one, I'm not entirely sure about Kant. If you're thinking rationally, there's only a difference between work-for-rent and have-sex-for-rent because most people think of sex as something very intimate - but that intimacy was and will probably be further reduced over the years, largely because there's porn, and prostitution, and sex in a club bathroom with a guy or girl who's name you don't know and will never see again.

Yeah, none of the solutions really scale except maybe the first one with low income subsidies. The others will mitigate individual cases. They all will prevent a legitimizing people being commoditized though. This is important because while there has always been prostitutes, promiscuity, etc. the human body has never been seen as a legitimate source of fungible value. To flip this would confer additional assets on everyone, and cause a wide host of problems. The premiere of which is immediately inflating the economy to offset the value. Eventually people will have to use their bodies as payment as the cost of living will increase, and those that actually want to maintain their dignity will be hopelessly locked into poverty or homelessness.

Another problem: Since any given landlord will likely only have so much need for sex. What dose he do about the excess he accrues. If the asset is legally fungible tender then he should be able to transfer it. Dose this mean that he can exchange his accrued assets with other parties like any other financial instrument?

And as usual the poor will be disproportionately affected. Not to mention the considerations about the tax code that would go into effect.