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

[Neonic]

this is illegal and he should be punished

[Jokerfiend]

you never proved anything wrong. consent gained through coercive means is invalid consent. sexual activity with lack of valid consent is rape. all you've done is argue that this case does not involve coercion. and i frankly think your case for that is very weak and based on nothing but your opinion that using authority to obtain consent is only coercive if you are actively issuing threats.

Valid consent is a funny definition.

What makes it invalid? So when can you say yes, but say no?

So was it forced? If so, by what?

Answer those questions.

[Deleted]

Yes, hence why she wasn't coerced. The money she would save is more important to her than avoiding sex with him.

I'm sorry but what you just said doesn't make any sense.

The guy wants to have sex with her, so, he makes a deal that she can't deny, he's not forcing her physically, but mentally, if that makes any sense.

And that's coercing someone in my opinion. It's subtle, but still coercion.

[Deleted]

Nope, because the definition for rape is not all inclusive. Which is what I was discussing with the wikipedia comparison.

I'm tired of trying to understand you.And I don't think I suck at debates and analysing arguments,nobody tried to strawman you,not willingly at least,I doubt anyone is able to go as crazy as you on this whole matter.It's just miscommunication between simple vocabulary and your ...whatever you got going on when you're analysing something.

[Deleted]

She could have said no.

Yes she could, but the offer was too good to decline it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'm sorry but what you just said doesn't make any sense.

The guy wants to have sex with her, so, he makes a deal that she can't deny, he's not forcing her physically, but mentally, if that makes any sense.

And that's coercing someone in my opinion. It's subtle, but still coercion.

She can deny it, is what you are either avoiding, not understanding, or exaggerating on purpose. Apparently she didn't like having sex with him, but would for a certain amount of money, and that amount is 60% of her rent.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 02:31 AM ----------

yes she could, but the offer was too good to decline it.

what? What? The offer was too good? So if someone offered me 1million dollars for sex, they are essentially raping me because i wouldnt like it?

[Deleted]

She can deny it, is what you are either avoiding, not understanding, or exaggerating on purpose. Apparently she didn't like having sex with him, but would for a certain amount of money, and that amount is 60% of her rent.

Like I've said before, offer was too good to decline.

I don't know how much I can say, but that's it, I was just giving my thoughts on the matter, I wasn't expecting to change anyone's mind.

[Jokerfiend]

The wiki definition of rape includes coercion. But this does not matter. Here, I will fix it, she chose to have sex for money. She was not coerced sexually, or raped.

This right here, change 60% rent, for an (allotted price) of a weekly customer for sex. Change 60% to 100 dollars, and we have a prostitute. From the information given, there was no, "otherwise" I'm going to kick you out, statement made.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. Just "WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN", this has not happened. It's basically a weekly payment for sex. To say otherwise, is blatantly making assumptions.

[Deleted]

Yes she could, but the offer was too good to decline it.

Who says the offer is too good?
Herself.Thus she's responsible for what she choses.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Like I've said before, offer was too good to decline.

I don't know how much I can say, but that's it, I was just giving my thoughts on the matter, I wasn't expecting to change anyone's mind.

This is to say, she is too stupid or easily swayed by money, that there is no possible way she could decline the deal?

[Deleted]

Who says the offer is too good?
Herself.Thus she's responsible for what she choses.

But isn't a 60% "discount" on anything a good offer?

I think it is.

This is to say, she is too stupid or easily swayed by money, that there is no possible way she could decline the deal?

She's 18.

I'm pretty sure 18s are easily influenced or more easily coerced than most people that are above their 20s and so on.

Even so, assuming she doesn't have much money and this was the only option, coercion it is, for me.

[Mavecryst]

Holy shit, do you guys realise this topic has exploded into an argument that is literally going in circles? Someone argues it's immoral and illegal, then someone goes it's only immoral!, not illegal, then someone goes it's not either, then back to immoral and illegal.

geez. Just recognise everyone has very different opinions on morality, and regarding legalities, the OP's brother is in the clear. (Though for those of you thinking that she has other options, it's not black and white easy. Not everyone realises the full amount of options available to them until they're told, reality can be a real bitch sometimes.)

Edit: She's also just gone through a crisis, and at 18, has to take care of an 11 year old. A kid is an extreme handful. She's not in the clearest state of mind atm, I wonder how many of you saying that she can easily choose another option could actually think that clearly given the circumstances.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

But isn't a 60% "discount" on anything a good offer?

I think it is.

She's 18.

I'm pretty sure 18s are easily influenced or more easily coerced than most people that are above their 20s and so on.

That is ludicrous. So he is a rapist or a sexual coercionist because she is so susceptible to money and suggestions?

[Beeflord]

I think the story was pretty erotic and I doubt it's true. And if it was true it would not be against the law (at least in my country where I studied the law) because he didn't threaten to kick her out he only made an offer. Also to all these people acting like they know how the girl feels: You don't even know her! She may well be masturbating to this.
Don't assume women are all cute and innocent. Most are pretty tough and have "dark sides", too. To really judge the situation you'd need much more valid information.

[Deleted]

But isn't a 60% "discount" on anything a good offer?

I think it is.

She's 18.

I'm pretty sure 18s are easily influenced or more easily coerced than most people that are above their 20s and so on.

Even so, assuming she doesn't have much money and this was the only option, coercion it is, for me.

Think of this scenario,she goes to a club and meets a guy.They have a friendly conversation and she tells the guy about her situation.
The guy proceeds to offer money for sex.Is the guy raping her?

[Jokerfiend]

I'm sorry but what you just said doesn't make any sense.

The guy wants to have sex with her, so, he makes a deal that she can't deny, he's not forcing her physically, but mentally, if that makes any sense.

And that's coercing someone in my opinion. It's subtle, but still coercion.

See you are acting like this is a forced option. This woman isn't a victim, quit making her out to be one.

IF, I walk up to a a girl co-worker knowing she need 5k to get her car fixed, and say: So I will pay 60% of your rent, for so many months, if you let me fuck you in the ass while my wife eats you out. That is coercion? That is an offer for prostitution.

She made a trade agreement with buyers remorse. End of story.

[Gilgemesh]

This right here, change 60% rent, for an (allotted price) of a weekly customer for sex. Change 60% to 100 dollars, and we have a prostitute. From the information given, there was no, "otherwise" I'm going to kick you out, statement made.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. Just "WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN", this has not happened. It's basically a weekly payment for sex. To say otherwise, is blatantly making assumptions.

Since rape is the synonym of sexual coercion he countered both definitions?Why would he see the need to specifically use ''sexual coercion'',if no rape happened,no sexual coercion happened,is there any need to complicate things?

The laws act differently than our morals, thanfully. If the man offered her ANY benefit she would otherwise not get from having sex with him, then he is at fault and is liable for any damages, emotional and financial, she suffered. If they then had sex and he lowered her rent, then it is sexual coercion, a form of rape. Understand that if her rent was the same before sex and lower after, and she did not want sex before the offer was made, then she was pressured to enter a situation she would otherwise avoid. If she did not want to have sex and did anyway because of his offer than it is coercion.

On the other hand: If the idea were hers. Then she is liable. It would more than likely fall under prostitiution laws from that point.

I see both of your points, but the laws have been interpreted to act differently than either of you are willing to acknowledge. The truth is there is not enough information in the original post for us to draw an accurate conclusion. Simply too much is left in interpretation and assumption. This is why there are so many IF's in this post. The OP simply wasn't clear enough on all the details.

[Kivimetsan]

Sorry... but your brother is a cunt.
Who even does that? If his financial situation is good, just give it to her for free.

[Deleted]

That is ludicrous. So he is a rapist or a sexual coercionist because she is so susceptible to money and suggestions?

I'd say a sexual coercionist(?)?

I honestly don't see the rape here tbh............................................

Think of this scenario,she goes to a club and meets a guy.They have a friendly conversation and she tells the guy about her situation.
The guy proceeds to offer money for sex.Is the guy raping her?

No, he isn't raping her if they have sex.

I never once said that this was rape, just coercion.

[Mavecryst]

Since this is moving so friggin fast, let me get this out once again "Holy shit, do you guys realise this topic has exploded into an argument that is literally going in circles? Someone argues it's immoral and illegal, then someone goes it's only immoral!, not illegal, then someone goes it's not either, then back to immoral and illegal.".

W...T....F. Seriously just check the last, oh, 5 pages, and you have exactly what happened in the last 70.