My brother reduced his tenant's rent and made her sleep with him as compensation.

[Tradewind]

Like flies to shit.

[Ashnazg]

I've never been called a White Knight before, I guess I can mark that off the list.

Explain to me how it's not exploitation or extortion? "You and your 11 year old brother can be homeless, or you can get on your back." Brilliant! I'm enjoying this moral referendum from people who seem to have none.

Let us start with the basics of any economy. If you make a contract, you're on the hook for fulfilling the terms of that contract. When you sign a rent agreement, you have to pay the rent specified in the agreement. If you can't pay that, you have to move out.

Extortion/exploitation? No. It would be dumb to say otherwise.

Now bear with me, I know this might get difficult, but our protagonist now finds herself in a situation where she cannot fulfill the terms of the agreement as specified because of some life-altering event. She finds herself facing the very real possibility of eviction due to non-payment of rent. She then (either on her own initiative, or on the landlord's initiative) finds herself with another option - she doesn't get to be evicted if she gets her rent subsidized because of certain additional services she has to perform.

Extortion? No, its dumb to say otherwise, since she still has the original options open to her, ergo there is no coercion element present that is required for extortion. In fact, if the services requested of her involved house-cleaning or similar chores, I bet you people wouldn't even bat an eyelash.

It so happens that the guy wanted his services in a sexual form. That makes him a douchebag for exploiting a girl in a situation of vulnerability, but IT DOES NOT MAKE HIS ACTIONS EXTORTION, RAPE, COERCION, OR ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN douchbaggery or psychological exploitation.

[Tradewind]

In fact, if the services requested of her involved house-cleaning or similar chores, I bet you people wouldn't even bat an eyelash.

You finally fucking get it. Eureka.

The fact you can't separate the morality between "do chores" and "fuck for rent" is mindboggling...

[Deleted]

To add to the above post:

It's called " paying rent in kind "


Instead of money she gives personal pleasure. Nothing wrong with that as long as he doesn't up the rent or kicks her out. If he would force her to sleep with him 2 times a week or more, there should be a problem...

[Ashnazg]

You finally fucking get it. Eureka.

The fact you can't separate the morality between "do chores" and "fuck for rent" is mindboggling...

The fact that you think morality has any play on what is extortion and what isn't is even more mindboggling. But like I said, this thread wouldn't get to 106 pages if you people didn't turn your brains off when there is pussy involved.

[Tradewind]

The fact that you think morality has any play on what is extortion and what isn't is even more mindboggling. But like I said, this thread wouldn't get to 106 pages if you people didn't turn your brains off when there is pussy involved.

I'm not surprised you don't understand what extortion, exploitation or coercion entails and why it is fundamentally a moral problem. He used the threat of homelessness as leverage to gain sexual favors...it's really simple.

The guy is a piece of shit, anyone who supports this is also pretty much shit.

[Gheld]

You finally fucking get it. Eureka.

The fact you can't separate the morality between "do chores" and "fuck for rent" is mindboggling...

And what if he simply exercized his rights and booted her ass out? Because I'd say a good 99.99% of landlords would go down that road.

I honestly find it impossible to believe that she wouldn't be eligible for some manner of subsidy in her situation though. In Canada, Quebec no less. It is completely inconvcievable that she can't get a subsidy.

So that leads me to one of two conclusions.

#1. Troll bait.
#2. She is otherwise capable of affording her rent and opted for the landlords offer in order to afford something other than rent. In which case he is really her sugar daddy.

And since calling out #1 is against forum rules I'll have to debate #2.

[Tradewind]

And what if he simply exercized his rights and booted her ass out? Because I'd say a good 99.99% of landlords would go down that road.

I honestly find it impossible to believe that she wouldn't be eligible for some manner of subsidy in her situation though. In Canada, Quebec no less. It is completely inconvcievable that she can't get a subsidy.

So that leads me to one of two conclusions.

#1. Troll bait.
#2. She is otherwise capable of affording her rent and opted for the landlords offer in order to afford something other than rent. In which case he is really her sugar daddy.

And since calling out #1 is against forum rules I'll have to debate #2.

Then she would be forced to move, next question? That's a landlord exercising a legal right. The alternative is exploitation. He could have just as easily offered alternative means to make up for a deficiency in rent that didn't involve sexual favors. I wouldn't be surprised if she is already receiving a subsidy or stipend.

[Parawhore]

I wouldent call anyone who'd do that my brother. Thats disgusting, taking advantage of someone with their back to the wall...

[Gheld]

Then she would be forced to move, next question? That's a landlord exercising a legal right. The alternative is exploitation. He could have just as easily offered alternative means to make up for a deficiency in rent that didn't involve sexual favors. I wouldn't be surprised if she is already receiving a subsidy or stipend.

So what then in your opinion constitutes the difference between exploitation and opportunism?

[Tradewind]

So what then in your opinion constitutes the difference between exploitation and opportunism?

Opportunism? Really? Taking advantage of a teenage girl for sex for rent is an opportunity now?

What in your opinion makes "shovel the snow and wash the floors" and "have sex with me when I want it" equal in morality?

lol this thread is just ludicrous...

[Gheld]

Opportunism? Really? Taking advantage of a teenage girl for sex for rent is an opportunity now?

What in your opinion makes "shovel the snow and wash the floors" and "have sex with me when I want it" equal in morality?

Her level of willingness is not known beyond the OPs opinion. She is legally an adult. And what I find more immoral is when people seem to think they have some god given right to pry upon what happens between two consenting adults behind closed doors.

News flash: 18 year olds fuck.

The vast majority of 18 year olds are already sexually experienced and

Even Bigger News Flash; young women often use sex to get things they want. Even the smart, shy ones.

One time somewhere that I worked some 17 or 18 year old started a relationship with her supervisor who was older so she could get a promotion. The bastard almost got fired but believe you me; she went after him and of course the ugly, lonely bastard didnt turn her down.

This whole; all females are victims thing is an utter crock.

[Tradewind]

Now you're just inferring and making assumptions...it's pretty clear that it's not a positive relationship going by what the OP has said. A girl getting with a supervisor for a raise or promotion has nothing to do with a landlord taking advantage of a tenant for sex. It's not even in the same ballpark...until you get that through your head this is futile even discussing it...nevermind the seething misogyny.

PS. it doesn't take a genius to look up cases where landlords have been landed with harassment suits for this exact practice and that it is illegal in most rental jurisdictions.

[Deleted]

Didn't she sign a contract with her landlord? A contract like that ( usually signed yearly ) would not permit the landlord to evict her before the expiration.

[Halicia]

One time somewhere that I worked some 17 or 18 year old started a relationship with her supervisor who was older so she could get a promotion. The bastard almost got fired but believe you me; she went after him and of course the ugly, lonely bastard didnt turn her down.

In most places thats a felony. A person in a position of authority is legally obligated to say NO, even in places where a 17 year old would legally be able to consent. It doesn't matter if she said yes anymore then if a 2 year old said yes. Its still statutory rape.

[Ashnazg]

In most places thats a felony. A person in a position of authority is legally obligated to say NO, even in places where a 17 year old would legally be able to consent. It doesn't matter if she said yes anymore then if a 2 year old said yes. Its still statutory rape.

Do you have any evidence to back it up? I doubt consensual sex for promotions would be considered a felony. Stat rape - yes, but trading sex for favors - no.

I'm not surprised you don't understand what extortion, exploitation or coercion entails and why it is fundamentally a moral problem. He used the threat of homelessness as leverage to gain sexual favors...it's really simple.

Opportunism? Really? Taking advantage of a teenage girl for sex for rent is an opportunity now?

What in your opinion makes "shovel the snow and wash the floors" and "have sex with me when I want it" equal in morality?

Do you even understand the basic argument here? If you think that offering sex as an option to a woman who is about to be evicted for non-payment is extortion, then you must also think that offering that same woman in the same position physical work as an option to pay down her rent is slavery/forced labor. Otherwise your argument has no logic whatsoever. I don't know why I am wasting my time on this, but it just baffles me that you fail to understand the basic logic behind the argument so utterly. Or maybe its been a while since you took a dictionary and looked up the definition of coercion and extortion.

[Llunai]

Your brother is a piece of shit. See if you can help her find some other place to stay.

Wow, man. You basically have a sexual predator for a brother. That's... unpleasant.

Your brother is an Ahole. Seriously.

These, and so many other, comments in this thread, speak the truth. Your brother is taking advantage of somebody who is having a very difficult time in their lives. The word 'predator' certainly applies here. The worst kind of filth is somebody who takes advantage of the weak and helpless for personal gain.

[Valz.]

Imagine it was your sister... Do what you gotta do - go and cut his balls off.

[Seegtease]

Really? You're actually trying to rationalize an argument for "option C...fuck for rent" over a myriad of alternatives? He's exploiting someone's situation for sex, plain and simple.

Yes, I'm actually trying to look at the situation rationally and the best way to do that is to label the options by letters so you don't get all emotional about it. If I give someone options A and B (which is what we agreed upon, pay or leave), how am I doing a bad thing by now giving them options A, B, or C? Adding a third option does not change the fact that those original two options are still there.

No one has been able to answer this question, all people can say is "wtf you're justifying this pervert!!1" which isn't an argument.

Why is giving A/B as options better than giving A/B/C as options?

Note 2 points: He did not have any obligation to give a C option, and she did not have to choose it.

[Tradewind]

Yes, I'm actually trying to look at the situation rationally and the best way to do that is to label the options by letters so you don't get all emotional about it. If I give someone options A and B (which is what we agreed upon, pay or leave), how am I doing a bad thing by now giving them options A, B, or C? Adding a third option does not change the fact that those original two options are still there.

No one has been able to answer this question, all people can say is "wtf you're justifying this pervert!!1" which isn't an argument.

Why is giving A/B as options better than giving A/B/C as options?

Note 2 points: He did not have any obligation to give a C option, and she did not have to choose it.

I answered that stupid loaded question before, you likely missed it, just like you're missing the point. The problem isn't the existence of an "Option C" it's that Option C in this case is specifically taking advantage of her situation for sex. Get it yet?

Do you even understand the basic argument here? If you think that offering sex as an option to a woman who is about to be evicted for non-payment is extortion, then you must also think that offering that same woman in the same position physical work as an option to pay down her rent is slavery/forced labor. Otherwise your argument has no logic whatsoever. I don't know why I am wasting my time on this, but it just baffles me that you fail to understand the basic logic behind the argument so utterly. Or maybe its been a while since you took a dictionary and looked up the definition of coercion and extortion.

It's astonishing you are this morally abject that you're unable to distinguish between "sex for rent" and "clean the house for rent." You almost seem to take pride in your ignorance and want to just argue semantics. Ignoring the issue at hand, that she is being exploited for sex in exchange for rent as the alternative to living on the street and caring for a dependent child. Extortion, exploitation, coercion, immoral, opportunist, pick one I don't give a fuck. I'm going to simplify it for you and just refer to the brother as "Asshole." That should work out well for all intents and purposes but I'm sure you'll craft up more strawmen anyway while you defend the Asshole's right to continue being an Asshole.