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

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You found the definition, and overlooked the fact that it has just proved you wrong? He is extorting her

If he had told her that he would kick her out if she did not accept, THAT would be extorting.

[Kasierith]

This whole thread is obviously sexually related so even if you say coercion it's still about sexual coercion,thus about rape.Nobody is strawmanning you.

If you really can't comprehend that I am discussing sexual coercion every time I say coercion, you might want to study up on situational awareness. Again, sexual coercion is related to rape, and can be covered by rape if you're liberal with its definition, but the connotations are distinctly different and so saying that it is rape and then attacking an argument based on sexual coercion as if it were the word rape instead is a strawman.

[Deleted]

OP, you really need to pull your brother aside and MAKE him see that what he is doing is disgusting both morally and ethically and that it is severely damaging the girl emotionally.

And personally speaking, if it were my brother I'd beat him bloody.

If what's he's doing is so bad how come the girl will end up on the streets and her brother in state orphanage without his deal?

[Adamas102]

Ignore me all you want. You are accusing him of coercing sex from her, and that is wrong. You provide no real facts or evidence, you just keep saying "he is coercive, etc etc"

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 12:03 AM ----------



co·er·cion [koh-ur-shuh n] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Yes, if he offers a deal, not an ultimatum, she consents and chooses to accept money for sex, this is not coercion.

You keep ignoring the fact that he essentially holds power over her strained finances. It's easy for you to say that she has other options but you don't know how realistic those options are for her. You say she can leave but you don't know how easy or difficult it would be for her to find a comparable place to live for a price within her budget. Going back to the previous rent might make sense, but knowing that her finances were pretty strained at that point AND that she had already put off her plans for higher education in order to save more money then even that option might seem less and less realistic for her. She's vulnerable and desperate, and for someone in a position of power (such as a landlord) to USE that vulnerability in order to obtain something that they want is pretty much the definition of coercion.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

They do suffer an undue burden. That's why prostitution is illegal.
Prostitutes may continue to do what they like, and more power to 'em, but the court will still see it as an unjust imposition of incentive.



Funny thing about using an online dictionary is that there are many others readily at one's disposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
"...the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force."

There are others I can cite if you wish, but then it's just a numbers game.
Call it coercion or don't call it coercion; it's irrelevant to my point.

Again, there was always another option, so he is not forcing her to do anything at all, just offering a scummy way for him to get sex.

[Kasierith]

If what's he's doing is so bad how come the girl will end up on the streets and her brother in state orphanage without his deal?

So you're an advocate of subjective consequentialism.

[Adam Jensen]

That's sexual exploitation and that should be illegal, if it isn't already.

Sorry, but your brother deserves a punch in the face.

[hellosaltygoodness]

No one has proven she required the discount on her rent to make ends meet. Period.

they don't have to. it was observed in the OP that the girl did not want to be in the situation of having to give sex for a discount, and that she felt herself to be forced into it. the landlord was fully aware she was not having sex of her own free will. that is all the information required.

[Deleted]

If you really can't comprehend that I am discussing sexual coercion every time I say coercion, you might want to study up on situational awareness. Again, sexual coercion is related to rape, and can be covered by rape if you're liberal with its definition, but the connotations are distinctly different and so saying that it is rape and then attacking an argument based on sexual coercion as if it were the word rape instead is a strawman.

How can you come to such a question when myself I say that when you talk about coercion it's about sexual coercion...
We've got some hardcore miscommunication going on here.
You may try to make it seem like you're getting strawmanned here but sexual coercion is synonym to rape,that's all there is to it.

I could also point you to a source of mine but do you expect people to read your entire explanative webpages?This is forum discussion,we keep it simple.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You keep ignoring the fact that he essentially holds power over her strained finances. It's easy for you to say that she has other options but you don't know how realistic those options are for her. You say she can leave but you don't know how easy or difficult it would be for her to find a comparable place to live for a price within her budget. Going back to the previous rent might make sense, but knowing that her finances were pretty strained at that point AND that she had already put off her plans for higher education in order to save more money then even that option might seem less and less realistic for her. She's vulnerable and desperate, and for someone in a position of power (such as a landlord) to USE that vulnerability in order to obtain something that they want is pretty much the definition of coercion.

You are correct, WE don't KNOW that. Its not in the post. So you CANNOT pretend like you know that. You CANNOT pretend like she couldn't move to prove your point. Its possible she has a rich uncle, but chose not to accept their aid out of pride, or because she doesn't like her aunt/uncle. See how that goes?

We can only go off the evidence given. The OP did not say she was about to be kicked out due to not having money.

Don't get me wrong, he is a douche, and preying on the week. But its no extortion, rape, coercion, or anything else like that.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 12:17 AM ----------

they don't have to. it was observed in the OP that the girl did not want to be in the situation of having to give sex for a discount, and that she felt herself to be forced into it. the landlord was fully aware she was not having sex of her own free will. that is all the information required.

No, she chose to take the sex for money option. So she was willing. She just didn't like it.

My trade is an Electrician. Sometimes I have to do things I don't like, but that doesn't mean anyone is coercing me, or raping me in that job. When I am told I need to do a task I do not like, I am trading money for something I think is gross.

[Goik]

Im removing myself from this thread. thanks for all your opinons. i think i improved myself reading what you guys think! some last points.
I think this thread is fake, but i like to think, so no harm done!
I pretty much agree with @LEMONPARTYFAN she had choices, alot of them. she choose what she think it was the best, looks like she regretted, its not the end of the world. she can get up!
If she went to the police im pretty sure that the guy would be arrested (im not saying that she is right or something like that, but we all know our society)
The guy is a douchbag!
the whole situation is sad! but think there is alot of prostitutes in similar situations and they are fighting for better life condition!
bye

[Destruktion]

Again, there was always another option, so he is not forcing her to do anything at all, just offering a scummy way for him to get sex.

The point of undue influence/undue burden is to describe cases in which free will is not an equitable option. Free will is not an equitable option in this case because the woman is in impoverished circumstances and is being offered the choice to surrender her dignity in order to support herself and her son under those circumstances. And remember that we're not talking about a coupon book or leniency with late rent payments, we're talking about a 60% rent reduction. That's outrageous.

[Kasierith]

How can you come to such a question when myself I say that when you talk about coercion it's about sexual coercion...
We've got some hardcore miscommunication going on here.
You may try to make it seem like you're getting strawmanned here but sexual coercion is synonym to rape,that's all there is to it.

They are similar, but not the same due to the connotations attached to each, that mean that although you could equate them saying that sexual coercion = rape and then attacking someones argument as if they said rape, it is not a logically coherent argument.

[DisposableHero]

Don't have to. It's been established that she is impoverished, or at best having financial difficulties. And a court will see an 18-year old with a son, living in some perv's basement as a victim of impoverished circumstances, no question about it.

Its established she does not have enough money to attend university. Nothing else is established as far as her financial state other than she describes it as difficulty. Furthermore, it is her brother, not her son.

Actually, the entire scenario is from her accounting of her own financial state. An 18 year old woman's definition of financial difficulties may not have a lot of bearing on reality. She might in fact make a decent wage, but make incredibly poor decisions involving money. She has told the OP that she cannot go to university because of financial difficulties, and the OP's brother has told him that her acceptance of their arrangement was financially motivated, but we actually aren't told anything else. She is working full time and could easily be making a living wage and squandering it, or *gasp* she could be lying about her financial state to get a break on her rent.

The above paragraph is me applying a narrative ripe with assumptions to this situation at hand. The paragraph I quoted is precisely the same thing, except framed as established fact rather than assumption.

[Deleted]

So you're an advocate of subjective consequentialism.

Nope I'm trying to make you folks realise that you can't hurt people with a simple question.Because that's what the landlord asked,without a threat,that offer is nothing more then a simple question.Thus if the girl wasn't threatened to accept the offer,why did she?
Because of self-interest.Turns out the fatass's deal is actually a positive gain for her life quality.
Thus he might not be helping her but he's certainly not hurting her.

[Adamas102]

Nope,for it to be coercion there has to be a threat at refusal...she's not a kid she's an adult.Whether the law is right on that age,that's an entirely different debate.

Like I said, he holds a position of authority that directly affects the finances that can dictate her future. He doesn't need to threaten to kick her out for it to be coercion. What he threatens is her ability to make good on whatever plans she has that require her to save her money (higher education). Sure, she can leave or go back to the old rent and perhaps see her plans on getting a degree sputter out because she can't put away enough money. To hold that over someone's head, especially someone who likely doesn't have the experience or knowledge to find alternate routes to what they need, does not lead to mutual agreements. Even if there wasn't an overt threat, it's pretty clear that she is in an unfavorable position and doing something that she would rather not do in response to financial pressure. The fact that the OP's brother used his position as her landlord to exploit that is indeed coercion.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The point of undue influence/undue burden is to describe cases in which free will is not an equitable option. Free will is not an equitable option in this case because the woman is in impoverished circumstances and is being offered the choice to surrender her dignity in order to support herself and her son under those circumstances. And remember that we're not talking about a coupon book or leniency with late rent payments, we're talking about a 60% rent reduction. That's outrageous.

Look, it totally is gross and outrageous. A person who is well off should probably choose to help out someone if they can. This guy chose to be a douchebag.

She chose the accept the deal, so its not rape.

She was not given the "accept or leave" ultimatum, so its not coercion or extortion. She ALWAYS had the option of paying the original rent, or to leave. She was not held down, she was not threatened, etc. She willingly chose to accept money for sex.

[Kasierith]

Nope I'm trying to make you folks realise that you can't hurt people with a simple question.Because that's what the landlord asked,without a threat,that offer is nothing more then a simple question.Thus if the girl wasn't threatened to accept the offer,why did she?
Because of self-interest.Turns out the fatass's deal is actually a positive gain for her life quality.
Thus he might not be helping her but he's certainly not hurting her.

Given that the exchange is clearly upsetting her, as per the OP's scenario, I'm not quite sure how you could say it's not hurting her. Perhaps not physically, but emotionally.

[Goik]

I think like ZRebellion too... now im out!

[DisposableHero]

they don't have to. it was observed in the OP that the girl did not want to be in the situation of having to give sex for a discount, and that she felt herself to be forced into it. the landlord was fully aware she was not having sex of her own free will. that is all the information required.

Given that the exchange is clearly upsetting her, as per the OP's scenario, I'm not quite sure how you could say it's not hurting her. Perhaps not physically, but emotionally.

My answer to both of you is the same. Regretting having consensual sex after the fact does not retroactively make the sex non-consensual.