NationStates Jolt Archive

Look through some property websites and you can see the advertisements: the phrase you are looking for is contre services - when a room in an apartment is offered, sometimes "free", in exchange for services.

Sometimes the service is perfectly innocent - cleaning the apartment or washing clothes, to defray some of the high cost of renting property.

But sometimes it is not: instead the requests are sexual, demeaning, bordering on the perverse. "Sex twice a month," is one blunt demand. Another asks for someone "open in spirit and elsewhere".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/7290139.stm

France is in the grip of a housing crisis, to the extent that some people are willing to sell their bodies in return for a rent free room. While some may think that this is an acceptable method of 'payment', the fact is that it is little more than prostitution, leaving people who are already vulnerable exposed to the danger of living with someone who thinks nothing wrong in demanding this. And how will they react if you fail to 'pay' on time?

Would you defend such a method of rent, or even take up a room on this basis yourself?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/7290139.stm

France is in the grip of a housing crisis, to the extent that some people are willing to sell their bodies in return for a rent free room. While some may think that this is an acceptable method of 'payment', the fact is that it is little more than prostitution, leaving people who are already vulnerable exposed to the danger of living with someone who thinks nothing wrong in demanding this. And how will they react if you fail to 'pay' on time?

Would you defend such a method of rent, or even take up a room on this basis yourself?

LOL!

Selling sex is ok if it is a COMPLETELY consensual choice, as in developed countries that allow prostitution- Australia?
Here it is a person's choice.
It is NOT a choice if you are forced into it, whether it be by phyisical force or just because its the only way to get money for you- or because someone makes you think that, or puts you ina situation where that is true.
This also includes things like STI testing and checks to ensure that the women are not mistreated in any way.
This makes it a true choice, not the 'choice' many women recieve- prostitution or homelessness, for instance. or deportation. or any of a number of worse options. that is a choice- but not much of one- and there are many who will take advantage of the situation you are in to push you towards the result they want.
In other words, i'd say it was ok if it were a government regulated transaction and COMPLETELY consensual.

Well that's kind of lame. And no, I probably wouldn't have sex to pay rent, unless it was really worth it, also not with a man.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/7290139.stm

France is in the grip of a housing crisis, to the extent that some people are willing to sell their bodies in return for a rent free room. While some may think that this is an acceptable method of 'payment', the fact is that it is little more than prostitution, leaving people who are already vulnerable exposed to the danger of living with someone who thinks nothing wrong in demanding this. And how will they react if you fail to 'pay' on time?

Would you defend such a method of rent, or even take up a room on this basis yourself?

Yuck. I would never let myself become that desparate. I'd rather work 3 jobs to pay my rent than have to provide sexual services for my room.

I wouldn't be too happy with that.
While I believe that prostitution ought to be perfectly legal for adults, I also believe it's not something anybody ever ought to be forced into one way or another.

Hmmm. Reminds me of the movie about the Amish bowler.....

If it's an arrangement between consenting adults, my reply is "meh."

If it's an arrangement between consenting adults, my reply is "meh."

If the women is desperate because she can't afford somewhere else, is that really 'consenting'?

Prostitution is work. It is a job you do, and are paid for ... and it's very hard, when you are being paid, to determine whether your "work" is something you would do just for the satisfaction of it.

So whether you pay your rent from your earnings as a prostitute, or deliver sexual favours directly as rent, really makes no difference. You have to pay the rent, or find a comfy cardboard box under an overpass.

It is different in this one thing: sexual favours are not taxable. Putting out to be put up is a grey area, a barter arrangement which avoids tax for the landlord. The law is unfit to deal with barter, because barter covers many personal arrangements which have never been taxable, and are very difficult to put into the monetary terms necessary to assess for taxing.

So, it's a tax dodge. Apart from that, no different from taking rent for a room, from a tenant who earns their money by selling sexual favours.

EDIT: To the poll question: no. I hate paying rent, I hate working, and I'm not that keen on having sex, even with correspondents of my own choice. Put all three in a package, and I'd opt for the cardboard box instead.

If i did then I'd want a BIGGER place!!

I can't see the problem with it. You can always find lodging somewhere else if you don't like selling your body. I wouldn't do it, but it is an open option.

It is even more free than just "You have money, you have room, no money no room"

"You have money or a willing orifice, you have room, no money, no orifice, no room", more options, more choices, more freedom.

Well, its not nice, but I guess if woman's only alternative would be working as ordinary prostitute for earning money to pay the rent then such alternative may seem quite nice in some cases. It probably heavily depends about person to whom rent needs to be payed.

I can't see the problem with it. You can always find lodging somewhere else if you don't like selling your body. I wouldn't do it, but it is an open option.

It is even more free than just "You have money, you have room, no money no room"

"You have money or a willing orifice, you have room, no money, no orifice, no room", more options, more choices, more freedom.

How is more freedom? The kind of person who would ask for sex for rent is properly quite a distinct person from the general house owner looking for a lodger, and probably not someone you'd want to have such a large degree of control over you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/7290139.stm
Would you defend such a method of rent, or even take up a room on this basis yourself?

Defend such a method, sure...
Pay rent (or get paid rent) that way, no....
well, maybe if I was renting to or from Señorita Estarlish...

Any agreement between consenting adults is between them - you have no right to pass judgment, and your approval is not necessary.

I am actually in an arrangement where I pay a reduced rent in exchange for doing various 'household maintenance' duties (mowing the lawn, doing a little construction, cleaning the jacuzzi, helping to fulfill the sexual needs of my landlady, etc). I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Any agreement between consenting adults is between them - you have no right to pass judgment, and your approval is not necessary.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13523963&postcount=8

If the women is desperate because she can't afford somewhere else, is that really 'consenting'?

no less so than paying high rental prices in a tight market is. Just because you might not like the deal doesn't mean your consent is waived. More to point you only create a dichodemy where the only time someone would agree to it is "desperate". Is it not possible that some would find such an arrangement to their liking?

Well, I don't condone it, but you gotta see, payment is payment, be it in cash or booty. LOL!:D

Neg. Sex for a place to live is not worth it. I would rather live on the streets.

How is more freedom? The kind of person who would ask for sex for rent is properly quite a distinct person from the general house owner looking for a lodger, and probably not someone you'd want to have such a large degree of control over you.

How its more freedom? Pretty simply, by having more choices. If without such offer you would be on street anyway, then now you have alternative. If you consider alternative to be unacceptable then you dont need to accept it. In such case result is same as if alternative hadn't existed at all.

no less so than paying high rental prices in a tight market is. Just because you might not like the deal doesn't mean your consent is waived. More to point you only create a dichodemy where the only time someone would agree to it is "desperate". Is it not possible that some would find such an arrangement to their liking?

There are always those who will find a thing to their liking. They're not the issue. The people we need to concern ourselves with are those who are forced into such a situation.

Asking someone to pay you rent in money is one thing; a standard financial agreement, with the relevant protections and security. But sex? Firstly, you don't know what kind of person you're agreeing to sleep with. The potential for sexual abuse is obvious and undeniable. Secondly, exactly what protection do you have when he 'puts the rent up', or threatens to kick you out?

Asking someone to pay you rent in money is one thing; a standard financial agreement, with the relevant protections and security. But sex? Firstly, you don't know what kind of person you're agreeing to sleep with. The potential for sexual abuse is obvious and undeniable. Secondly, exactly what protection do you have when he 'puts the rent up', or threatens to kick you out?

Pretty much all of these concerns can be eliminated through the well regulated scheme of legal prostitution, which would allow the transaction to be contractually adhered to just like a financial transaction.

Pretty much all of these concerns can be eliminated through the well regulated scheme of legal prostitution, which would allow the transaction to be contractually adhered to just like a financial transaction.

Legalising prostitution generally means government regulated brothels, with the appropriate checks and balances. This is nothing like that; you are essentially allowing a man to 'buy' himself a girl to stay at the house, for his own personal use - and, no matter what you do, you cannot keep an eye on that to the degree that the women is always going to be safe.

Olmedreca;13524119']How its more freedom? Pretty simply, by having more choices. If without such offer you would be on street anyway, then now you have alternative. If you consider alternative to be unacceptable then you dont need to accept it. In such case result is same as if alternative hadn't existed at all.

I find your case persuasive. It is quite reasonable to assume that this "offer" does not exclude cash payment of rent. (There will still be plenty of property owners who want money for the use of their property.) Thus, it is an added option which removes no other options.

Legalising prostitution generally means government regulated brothels, with the appropriate checks and balances. This is nothing like that; you are essentially allowing a man to 'buy' himself a girl to stay at the house, for his own personal use - and, no matter what you do, you cannot keep an eye on that to the degree that the women is always going to be safe.

you cannot keep an eye on things to that degree now. How in the world are we to ensure that someone is "always going to be safe"?

France is in the grip of a housing crisis, to the extent that some people are willing to sell their bodies in return for a rent free room. While some may think that this is an acceptable method of 'payment', the fact is that it is little more than prostitution, leaving people who are already vulnerable exposed to the danger of living with someone who thinks nothing wrong in demanding this. And how will they react if you fail to 'pay' on time?

Would you defend such a method of rent, or even take up a room on this basis yourself?

A year ago or something a guy rented an apartment like that in my city. I think nobody ever lived there...

Personally I don't think people should ever be desperate enough for a place to live that they would want to prostitute themselves for an apartment. I think I'm also not the kind of person the people renting these apartments are looking for so they wouldn't rent it to me.

you cannot keep an eye on things to that degree now. How in the world are we to ensure that someone is "always going to be safe"?

With money, there may be abuse. There is no doubting that. But it's much easier to spot - bullying in the house, demanding too much money, or violence towards the lodger can all be reported and investigated.

But when the rent is sex, what can you do? The rent is twice a month, it's the last day of the month and you've not 'paid' - is it rape for him to take his rent when you don't want to at that time, or have you already consented to it? After all, we send in the bailiffs if you don't pay on time.

How do you complain about sexual abuse when you've agreed to sex in this way? It's hard enough convicting people of sexual assaults about prostitutes at the moment, without exposing a whole group of people to the dangers who might otherwise never consider things like this but are now sufficiently desperate.

But when the rent is sex, what can you do? The rent is twice a month, it's the last day of the month and you've not 'paid' - is it rape for him to take his rent when you don't want to at that time, or have you already consented to it? After all, we send in the bailiffs if you don't pay on time.

I would consider it rape, the same way that it would be theft if the land lord stole your money because you hadn't paid the rent.

The response to a breach of the contract should be legal repercussions, not the landlord "taking what he is owed".

Pretty much all of these concerns can be eliminated through the well regulated scheme of legal prostitution, which would allow the transaction to be contractually adhered to just like a financial transaction.

It seems more complicated to me. Yes, it could be legally regulated, but putting a cash value on (a) the sexual services, and (b) the rent charged, allows for easy comparison with other available options. The actual cash need not even change hands: tenant provides sexual services at a competitive market rate, landlord provides rental property at a competetive market rate. Both can be assessed for fairness by calling around the brothels and realtors in the area.

I guess what I'm saying is that the potential for abuse is reduced if we require that any deal like this must have a financial equivalent. If the rental agreement says "$150 cash or one half hour of sexual intercourse" then we have a de-facto rate of rent which can be assessed for fairness (and tax!) and likewise for the sexual services.

But when the rent is sex, what can you do? The rent is twice a month, it's the last day of the month and you've not 'paid' - is it rape for him to take his rent when you don't want to at that time, or have you already consented to it? After all, we send in the bailiffs if you don't pay on time.
Use a formal tenancy contract. If you don't "pay", your landlord can cite the contract to bring your case before court and have you evicted. If he tries to take it without concent, you can bring your landlord to court for breach of contract and then to the criminal courts for a rape claim.

But when the rent is sex, what can you do? The rent is twice a month, it's the last day of the month and you've not 'paid' - is it rape for him to take his rent when you don't want to at that time, or have you already consented to it? After all, we send in the bailiffs if you don't pay on time.

"We" do, yes. We, the law. Not the the landlord. If he takes the money he is owed, (say by entering the house and 'confiscating' the tenant's DVD collection, then selling it) he'd be breaking the law.

Despite the flawed analogy, you have a point. Could the law, having determined that the tenant owes the contracted rent, order the tenant to consent to sex? That doesn't sound like something a court should be involved in ...

Here's a simple solution: rent in advance. Withdrawing the use of the house is no more difficult than it is already when tenants cease to pay their rent.

Despite the flawed analogy, you have a point. Could the law, having determined that the tenant owes the contracted rent, order the tenant to consent to sex? That doesn't sound like something a court should be involved in ...I doubt the court could order you to have sex with your landlord anymore than it can order you to mow his lawn to make up for failing to pay rent.

I'd do it if the landlady was hot...

Use a formal tenancy contract. If you don't "pay", your landlord can cite the contract to bring your case before court and have you evicted. If he tries to take it without concent, you can bring your landlord to court for breach of contract and then to the criminal courts for a rape claim.

Yeah, that sounds right. I think Philosopy dismissed the overwhelmingly common case of rent-in-advance to manufacture a situation where the tenant is in "debt."

It's a nasty scenario for sure, but easily avoided with (as you say) a formal tenancy contract.

I'm not sure I would want to be the landlord. If the tenant is ugly, has a nasty disposition, and a bad case of the clap...

Use a formal tenancy contract. If you don't "pay", your landlord can cite the contract to bring your case before court and have you evicted. If he tries to take it without concent, you can bring your landlord to court for breach of contract and then to the criminal courts for a rape claim.

So we have a case where the courts are getting involved in essentially saying 'sleep with this man or sleep on the streets'?

I don't think that is something the courts should be involved in, no matter how many legal documents you disguise it behind.

If i had the choice between living on the street or having sex with someone I would probably go with the latter and be happy about having the option. Prostitution should be legal anyway.

Making the argument that the person was forced into the situation is moot. The person still has the choice not to do it. If the person considers giving sex as rent preferable to living on the street, then that's what he/she will choose.

I really don't see the difference between giving money and sex as rent. What if it was a hug and not sex? Just because you have outdated moral views and are sexually repressed does not give you the right to interfere in a private agreement between two consenting adult parties.

When it's money it's called taking rent, when it's sex it's called taking advantage. Makes no sense to me.

So we have a case where the courts are getting involved in essentially saying 'sleep with this man or sleep on the streets'?

I don't think that is something the courts should be involved in, no matter how many legal documents you disguise it behind.I'm pretty sure if a court in Germany handled it, the contract would be deemed illegal.

Yeah, that sounds right. I think Philosopy dismissed the overwhelmingly common case of rent-in-advance to manufacture a situation where the tenant is in "debt."

It's a nasty scenario for sure, but easily avoided with (as you say) a formal tenancy contract.

'Rent in advance'?

So, we already have 'sex two times a month' becoming 'two times a month after the first month, when it will be four times because you have to pay for that month and the next month in advance'. Rather than 'ordinary' sexual abuse, we start to have 'legal loophole' sexual abuse. Great.

People fail to pay rent all the time, and they're not immediately evicted. Tenants in 'debt' is not an 'uncommon' situation whatsoever.

If it's an arrangement between consenting adults, my reply is "meh."

There is an inherent power imbalance created by the housing shortage which vitiates consent.

Any agreement between consenting adults is between them - you have no right to pass judgment, and your approval is not necessary.

I am actually in an arrangement where I pay a reduced rent in exchange for doing various 'household maintenance' duties (mowing the lawn, doing a little construction, cleaning the jacuzzi, helping to fulfill the sexual needs of my landlady, etc). I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I would have thought it would be obvious that this should not be an all or nothing proposition. Eithe it`s completely fine all the time that this kind of arrangment ocur, or it`s never okay. It makes more sense to look at the situations individually and say....does this person WANT to do this, or are they essentially forced by market conditions into it in order to provide a basic necessity of survival for themself. My fucking quesiton mark key isn`t working.

It is regrettable that France's economy is in such a poor condition that the less well off people are forced to sell sexual services. It leaves these people in an extremely precarious position, as they are completely dependent upon the whims of their landlords, who could easily keep them hostages with no other way out.

It is also worth noting that France has among the most heavily regulated housing markets in the developed world, calling into question the value of the faith that people have regarding their government as an end-all solution to their problems.

Paris in particular is well known as a sleepy city that works very hard to maintain their cultural integrity. New shops are resisted from being opened, industry is heavily regulated, low cost competitors like Wal-mart are fought tooth and nail. Who wins? The rich artsy-fartsy types who have a specific vision of what they want Paris to be. Who looses? the poor and middle classes who are having to contend with scarce jobs and high costs of living. In particular, poor muslim immigrants who are stuffed into ghettos, completely dependent upon the government dole to support them, as good jobs and cultural acceptance are hard to come by.

Would I sleep with my landlord as a payment for rent? Considering that I am a guy and I make enough money to pay my rent on time, my opinion would be colored. In my case I have the choice to make the money or to save the money by providing sexual services. I am not a poor woman whose livelihood is dependent on the good conscious of her landlord. But I would rather look at the larger picture; namely, why is the woman in this position in the first place? Because she is poor. Why is she poor? Because of the lack of quality jobs available to her. Reduce the conditions that make good jobs hard to find, and the issue of having to deal with women who prostitute themselves goes away on its own.

It is common in heavily regulated markets that people will resort to perks to attract patronage in lieu of the ability to price competitively. For example, when the airline industry was regulated under the ICC, a plane ticket cost about 800 dollars. Because they were forbidden from lowering fares, they resorted to perks like in-flight meals, airport VIP clubs, etc. When the industry de-regulated, competitors who were once again answerable to their customers found that people prefered lower fares to nice perks. Nowadays, a plane ticket usually costs 300 dollars or less, and things like in-flight meals and VIP clubs have largely gone to the wayside. In the same light, tenants are offering "perks" to their landlord in order to allow them to continue using their services. Sadly, these perks involve compromising a person's bodily integrity, and for something like sex, where emotions run white-hot, this can spell a recipe for disaster.

This obviously isn't an option for a landlord who is making mortgage payments on the property, unless he's already independently wealthy.

Giving the landlord sex doesn't pay the landlord's bills or provide any monetary income.

From a strictly capitalist outlook, it's not a very good strategy for the landlord.

I would have thought it would be obvious that this should not be an all or nothing proposition. Eithe it`s completely fine all the time that this kind of arrangment ocur, or it`s never okay. It makes more sense to look at the situations individually and say....does this person WANT to do this, or are they essentially forced by market conditions into it in order to provide a basic necessity of survival for themself. My fucking quesiton mark key isn`t working.
I usually just type a capital Q instead, particularly when naming files.

I usually just type a capital Q instead, particularly when naming files.

QQQQQ
What is this supposed to doQ
My keyboard shifts into Francophone mode when I`m online sometimes. Drives me crazy.

'Rent in advance'?

Yes. It's a no-brainer. How does a landlord retract the use a tenant has already made of their property? They can't. Rent in advance is the overwhelmingly prevalent agreement between tenants and landlords.

So, we already have 'sex two times a month' becoming 'two times a month after the first month, when it will be four times because you have to pay for that month and the next month in advance'. Rather than 'ordinary' sexual abuse, we start to have 'legal loophole' sexual abuse. Great.

Sigh. Look, you give the landlord cash, they let you move in.

I don't know how many houses you have rented, but if it ever went like tenant:"hmm, nice house, I'll move in now" and landlord: "fine, pay me next week" I want a bit of whatever scandinavian liberal paradise you live in.

In Australia, is is common to pay two or four weeks rent in advance, PLUS a bond of four weeks rent (or more) which the landlord can take defaulted rent out of for the time it takes to get defaulting tenants out of the property or repair any damage they've made.

People fail to pay rent all the time, and they're not immediately evicted. Tenants in 'debt' is not an 'uncommon' situation whatsoever.

Landlords can choose to do that if they want. They're within their rights to evict (or at least commence that process) the moment the tenant is overdue with rent. If they prefer to keep a tenant who might pay someday, than go through the hassle of finding new tenants or perhaps having none at all, then good on them. If they do it from compassion, all the better.

It doesn't give them rights over the tenant which aren't written into the contract, though. There may be a clause there for breach of contract (failing to pay the rent for instance) but otherwise the owner has only one right: to withdraw the use of their property, ie evict.

QQQQQ
What is this supposed to doQ
My keyboard shifts into Francophone mode when I`m online sometimes. Drives me crazy.Ow... I thought the difference between English and German kezboards was bad. Then I saw a French one, and things were never the same again.

no less so than paying high rental prices in a tight market is. Just because you might not like the deal doesn't mean your consent is waived. More to point you only create a dichodemy where the only time someone would agree to it is "desperate". Is it not possible that some would find such an arrangement to their liking?

It is possible of course, just as it is possible and likely that others would find this a terrible bargain to make, and yet be forced to nonetheless. There is a fundamental difference between being forced to pay high market prices in order to provide oneself with shelter, and being forced to provide sexual services in order to provide oneself with shelter.

Pretty much all of these concerns can be eliminated through the well regulated scheme of legal prostitution, which would allow the transaction to be contractually adhered to just like a financial transaction.

Very nice and not at all the issue here, or even a suggested possibility. Since this is in fact NOT the case, what point is there in bringing it up. We could elimate all sorts of concerns through all sorts of imaginary regulations, but that is neither here nor there.

*grumble grumble need coffee*

Ow... I thought the difference between English and German kezboards was bad. Then I saw a French one, and things were never the same again.

That does it. I'm throwing out this crappy old US keyboard, just as soon as you tell me where to buy one of those English kezboards. I'm sure it will help with my spelling, too! :)

That does it. I'm throwing out this crappy old US keyboard, just as soon as you tell me where to buy one of those English kezboards. I'm sure it will help with my spelling, too! :)

LOL

My keyboard shifts into Francophone mode when I`m online sometimes. Drives me crazy.

I believe there is a key-combination which turns a keyboard from azerty to querty. Maybe it could be that?

Legalising prostitution generally means government regulated brothels, with the appropriate checks and balances. This is nothing like that; you are essentially allowing a man to 'buy' himself a girl to stay at the house, for his own personal use - and, no matter what you do, you cannot keep an eye on that to the degree that the women is always going to be safe.

You are assuming this could only go a single direction. It could always be the opposite where a man is desperate and needs a home to live in and yet cannot afford the rent.

I believe there is a key-combination which turns a keyboard from azerty to querty. Maybe it could be that?

Aha! This was not the solution, but I had a great need to demonstrate my regained ability to use the question mark?

This obviously isn't an option for a landlord who is making mortgage payments on the property, unless he's already independently wealthy.

Or bought the house from Pimp Realty, signing over the 4,000 fucks which he borrowed from Ho Bank.

Or bought the house from Pimp Realty, signing over the 4,000 fucks which he borrowed from Ho Bank.

Now that's an idea. Make "the fuck" the official currency.

of course, if you have plenty on hand in paper form, or in the bank, you can always pay off using that.

And, if you're short of cash, you can always "print" fucks the old fashioned way.

You are assuming this could only go a single direction. It could always be the opposite where a man is desperate and needs a home to live in and yet cannot afford the rent.

It's easier to refer to it one way. It doesn't really make any difference to anything that has been said.

You are assuming this could only go a single direction. It could always be the opposite where a man is desperate and needs a home to live in and yet cannot afford the rent.

Yes, yes, very PC.

How about this: the contract states that the tenant must consent to sex at regular intervals. But does it specify that the tenant remain as hot as they were when the contract was first signed? Hotness is pretty damn subjective. For that matter, does the contract specify that the tenant must remain the same gender, or forbid them from smearing their own body with faeces and singing like Cindi Lauper whenever the landlord drops around?

Pfft... If you need a place to stay, join the Army.

Now that's an idea. Make "the fuck" the official currency.

In a probably perverted bid to please everybody, the idealistic young nationstate N-B H-B did in fact adopt the fellatolingus as the national currency. We didn't want a damn population explosion.

of course, if you have plenty on hand in paper form, or in the bank, you can always pay off using that.

And, if you're short of cash, you can always "print" fucks the old fashioned way.

I'm opposed to any paper equivalent, or else we'd end up with the same mess we have with bucks now.

Nope, we're keeping the Fuck Standard. Any fucks promised in contract must be backed by actual fucks in the bank.

Banking is an extremely pleasant and popular activity, of course ... but most citizens find the goings-on down at the stock exchange a bit excessive.

If the women is desperate because she can't afford somewhere else, is that really 'consenting'?

She's not 'forced' to live there.

She's not 'forced' to live there.Irrelevant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/7290139.stm

France is in the grip of a housing crisis, to the extent that some people are willing to sell their bodies in return for a rent free room. While some may think that this is an acceptable method of 'payment', the fact is that it is little more than prostitution, leaving people who are already vulnerable exposed to the danger of living with someone who thinks nothing wrong in demanding this. And how will they react if you fail to 'pay' on time?

Would you defend such a method of rent, or even take up a room on this basis yourself?

It is, in essence, no different from prostitution. Except that prostitution typically refers to exchanging sex for capital, whereas this is more of a barter agreement without reliance on currency.

In fact, sex twice/month seems (to me) a rather 'cheap' (if undesireable) rate for rent, then again I am unaware of current prostitution fares in general.

It is possible of course, just as it is possible and likely that others would find this a terrible bargain to make, and yet be forced to nonetheless. There is a fundamental difference between being forced to pay high market prices in order to provide oneself with shelter, and being forced to provide sexual services in order to provide oneself with shelter.

You're assuming that the only available housing options charge sexual service fees rather than cash. The OP seemed to state that it was an alternative to paying rent, rather than the only possible option aside from homelessness.

For example, I get free rent, in exchange for cleaning duties, and caretaking performed daily (as well as at the end of each month). IF I don't feel like doing this anymore, I can certainly go back to renting in exchange for the more common capital. The company is not forcing me to be a housekeeper, but rather it is my ongoing choice.

Irrelevant.

I disagree, the fact that she is not forced to live there (and therefore, not forced into unconsented sexual acts) is very relevant. What about really stupid porn stars? If they are unqualified for other types of work they are not typically considered 'forced into sexual activity'. There are other options, though it might not always seem like it. How did this lady live prior to her apparently forced sex-for-rent agreement, and why could she not go back to that?

Yes, yes, very PC.

How about this: the contract states that the tenant must consent to sex at regular intervals. But does it specify that the tenant remain as hot as they were when the contract was first signed? Hotness is pretty damn subjective. For that matter, does the contract specify that the tenant must remain the same gender, or forbid them from smearing their own body with faeces and singing like Cindi Lauper whenever the landlord drops around?

Indeed not (necessarily), however, should such a situation arise, the landlord can (in the US) give the tenant a 30-day notice to vacate the residence. Also, any intelligent landlord would assign a cash value to the monthly rent (if there would be otherwise no value assigned) for the purposes of being reimbursed through legal processes should the tenant find ways to try to get out of having sex without breaking the contract.

I disagree, the fact that she is not forced to live there (and therefore, not forced into unconsented sexual acts) is very relevant. No, it isn't. It needn't involve actual force to be unlawful. Coercion suffices, which this would be. No force needed, and still illegal.

Depends how hot the landlady is.

Already have, in a manner of speaking. :p

Depends how hot the landlady is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28eC57Xniko
Musta shook something loose!

Pfft... If you need a place to stay, join the Army.

That reminds me ... this is TOTALLY Muravyets and Verdigroth's thread. :p

How is more freedom? The kind of person who would ask for sex for rent is properly quite a distinct person from the general house owner looking for a lodger, and probably not someone you'd want to have such a large degree of control over you.

More choices, more freedom. The "kind of person" is a subjetive thing. I could point at several sweet yet ugly people, or too old, who would like to have sex once in a while, and would be quite glad to share their apartments in exchange for a twice-a-month action, if this was accepted/permitted/allowed/widely acknowledged.

As long as both parties agree, I can't see the problem.

More choices, more freedom. The "kind of person" is a subjetive thing. I could point at several sweet yet ugly people, or too old, who would like to have sex once in a while, and would be quite glad to share their apartments in exchange for a twice-a-month action, if this was accepted/permitted/allowed/widely acknowledged.

As long as both parties agree, I can't see the problem.

If you ever come to the US for a visit, I'll be glad to rent you a room for a couple of fucks.

If you ever come to the US for a visit, I'll be glad to rent you a room for a couple of fucks.

Well, as long as I have the option of that or a normal hotel, I'd take that into consideration.

However, I still earn enough as to go with the normal Hotel, and more likely that is what is going to happen. It makes me glad to have more options of payment should I ever run out of money, although.

A couple of fucks for a month seems to be rational. Where do you live, again?

Well, as long as I have the option of that or a normal hotel, I'd take that into consideration.

However, I still earn enough as to go with the normal Hotel, and more likely that is what is going to happen. It makes me glad to have more options of payment should I ever run out of money, although.

A couple of fucks for a month seems to be rational. Where do you live, again?

San Diego, California.

San Diego, California.

Do you have air conditioner?

Do you have full facilities?

Can I have free reign of coming and going?

Does you house have a pool?

Can I cook there?

Can I have my private bathroom?

Just to know if two fucks are a proper exchange, or just a uninspired striptease that maybe, if I have clean sheets everyday, can escalate to a quick handjob.

If the women is desperate because she can't afford somewhere else, is that really 'consenting'?

Shall we apply that standard to other means of paying rent such as working at Mc. Donalds?

Hmmm. Reminds me of the movie about the Amish bowler.....

Kingpin.

*snip*

It is common in heavily regulated markets that people will resort to perks to attract patronage in lieu of the ability to price competitively. For example, when the airline industry was regulated under the ICC, a plane ticket cost about 800 dollars. Because they were forbidden from lowering fares, they resorted to perks like in-flight meals, airport VIP clubs, etc. When the industry de-regulated, competitors who were once again answerable to their customers found that people prefered lower fares to nice perks. Nowadays, a plane ticket usually costs 300 dollars or less, and things like in-flight meals and VIP clubs have largely gone to the wayside. In the same light, tenants are offering "perks" to their landlord in order to allow them to continue using their services. Sadly, these perks involve compromising a person's bodily integrity, and for something like sex, where emotions run white-hot, this can spell a recipe for disaster.

You have clearly never flown out of a non-hub city. I can't get out of Bismarck by air for under $500 unless I'm flying only to Denver, Minneapolis or Las Vegas.

Now that's an idea. Make "the fuck" the official currency.

of course, if you have plenty on hand in paper form, or in the bank, you can always pay off using that.

And, if you're short of cash, you can always "print" fucks the old fashioned way.

Paper form? So Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt are now the Treasurer and Federal Reserve Chairman? Does that make pron on DVD the same as debit or credit cards?

There are always those who will find a thing to their liking. They're not the issue. The people we need to concern ourselves with are those who are forced into such a situation.

Asking someone to pay you rent in money is one thing; a standard financial agreement, with the relevant protections and security. But sex? Firstly, you don't know what kind of person you're agreeing to sleep with. The potential for sexual abuse is obvious and undeniable. Secondly, exactly what protection do you have when he 'puts the rent up', or threatens to kick you out?

The same protection you have when he (or she) raises your monetary rent and threatens to kick you out if you don't pay?

With money, there may be abuse. There is no doubting that. But it's much easier to spot - bullying in the house, demanding too much money, or violence towards the lodger can all be reported and investigated.

And why could it not be reported if the rent is being paid in sex?

But when the rent is sex, what can you do? The rent is twice a month, it's the last day of the month and you've not 'paid' - is it rape for him to take his rent when you don't want to at that time,

Yes. Just as it would be robbery if someone beat you down to take money that you owed them. The Landlord would be entitled to start an eviction but sex or money he is in NEITHER case entitled to take what he's owed by force.

i think once they know me they will give me the apartment to not have sex, with anyone :D

So we have a case where the courts are getting involved in essentially saying 'sleep with this man or sleep on the streets'?


But give him the money you need to buy food with or sleep on the streets is somehow better?

She's not 'forced' to live there.

Irrelevant.

Um, no it isn't?

Do you have air conditioner?

Do you have full facilities?

Can I have free reign of coming and going?

Does you house have a pool?

Can I cook there?

Can I have my private bathroom?

Just to know if two fucks are a proper exchange, or just a uninspired striptease that maybe, if I have clean sheets everyday, can escalate to a quick handjob.

3800 square foot house, full facilities, your own key, use of a car for yourself (car, van, or SUV), full kitchen available, private bathroom. The pool is around the corner (we belong to a private pool with a limited number of members). Yes, it's air conditioned, and the whole place is about four years old.

3800 square foot house, full facilities, your own key, use of a car for yourself (car, van, or SUV), full kitchen available, private bathroom. The pool is around the corner (we belong to a private pool with a limited number of members). Yes, it's air conditioned, and the whole place is about four years old.

Fair. Should said thing ever going to happen, I would like to specify in the contract the actions that I'd have to do to be permitted to live there for a month, with what frequency and quality, and what services I am going to get in return. However, I am not planning future trips to San Diego. I can't think of any turistic attractions there.

Fair. Should said thing ever going to happen, I would like to specify in the contract the actions that I'd have to do to be permitted to live there for a month, with what frequency and quality, and what services I am going to get in return. However, I am not planning future trips to San Diego. I can't think of any turistic attractions there.

Not a problem. A lot of people disagree with you on the attraction of San Diego itself, though.

Just to know if two fucks are a proper exchange, or just a uninspired striptease that maybe, if I have clean sheets everyday, can escalate to a quick handjob.Erm, sigworthy?
*nods emphatically*

I should've guessed the appearance of a hookup was kinda inevitable. :)

Erm, sigworthy?

It was nicely worded, yes. Out of context (sigged) the snooty hooker thing probably isn't so funny.

It was nicely worded, yes. Out of context (sigged) the snooty hooker thing probably isn't so funny.

NSG ... = ... context?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/740586_1ab799bf85_m.jpg

NSG ... = ... context?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/740586_1ab799bf85_m.jpg

Nice doggy! Wanta play catch, nice doggy?

*throws stick up on the barn roof*

Nice doggy! Wanta play catch, nice doggy?

*throws stick up on the barn roof*

Name's Hosehead. *bows*
No, seriously, barns are dangerous.

I would "pay" for rent that way, sure. But if I was renting to someone, I wouldn't accept payment that way. I got to get my paper son.

Well, I don't condone it, but you gotta see, payment is payment, be it in cash or booty. LOL!:D

There was a bumper sticker that was fairly popular in the 70's. Read something like this: Ass, cash or grass no rides for free.


Seems to me that this is an arrangement by consenting adults. As for the people giving up sex in exchange for a place to stay it happens all the time. Usually it is women doing it but occasionally I am sure a guy does it too however I never heard of it. Example would be a girlfriend wanting to break up with a boyfriend and not having a place to go because she cant afford it. That girlfriend stays with the boyfriend giving up the goodies until she can find another place. Now if she stopped giving it up it would end up with her moving out. Take your pick on how it would end but if sex stops for an extended period of time in relationship that is just boyfriend or girlfriend there usually is trouble. So I don't see the problem with this. It is just putting a spotlight on something that goes on all the time.

Depends on what the landowner looks like. :)

There was a bumper sticker that was fairly popular in the 70's. Read something like this: Ass, cash or grass no rides for free.


Seems to me that this is an arrangement by consenting adults. As for the people giving up sex in exchange for a place to stay it happens all the time. Usually it is women doing it but occasionally I am sure a guy does it too however I never heard of it. Example would be a girlfriend wanting to break up with a boyfriend and not having a place to go because she cant afford it. That girlfriend stays with the boyfriend giving up the goodies until she can find another place. Now if she stopped giving it up it would end up with her moving out. Take your pick on how it would end but if sex stops for an extended period of time in relationship that is just boyfriend or girlfriend there usually is trouble. So I don't see the problem with this. It is just putting a spotlight on something that goes on all the time.

Yeah, a bit sad, but true. Of course, you also have the school girls that offer sex to older men in order to afford tuition and other goods. I´ve heard about this too. Let me check if I can find the article I read on that.
I guess sex is a form of payment in many fields in life. You have men and women who offer sexual favors in order to get promoted at work. If it was done between consenting adults, then it´s fine if it happens. It´s not something I would do though.

This is the article I read and that I mention on the post below.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article665019.ece

I like sex but no.

This is the article I read and that I mention on the post below.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article665019.ece

Easy way to make cash shaking that moneymaker.

Easy way to make cash shaking that moneymaker.

Ditto!

I vote a THOUSAND percent no. Contradict me, I really don't give a damn, but I fully believe that sex is supposed to be something special between a married couple that love each other deeply, not a form of barter.

Depends on the landlord.

So the question is whether I would have sex (which is alot of fun, I have to say) and pay rent with what I earn for doing something which I enjoy?

That's seriously your question? Dude.

HELL YEAH!! :fluffle:

So the question is whether I would have sex (which is alot of fun, I have to say) and pay rent with what I earn for doing something which I enjoy?

That's seriously your question? Dude.

HELL YEAH!! :fluffle:


By the way, anybody have the link to that Dupre chick's MySpace account? She's a hottie from what I can tell of the news photos.

By the way, anybody have the link to that Dupre chick's MySpace account? She's a hottie from what I can tell of the news photos.

Yes there is a link in the thread dedicated to her.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551839

I vote a THOUSAND percent no. Contradict me, I really don't give a damn, but I fully believe that sex is supposed to be something special between a married couple that love each other deeply, not a form of barter.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but we can't contradict you. We can disagree/argue with you, but you're the only one who can contradict you.

No. Not that I have a problem with casual sex, but I wouldn't want to have sex with someone who thought it was a matter of exchange.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but we can't contradict you.

Yes, we can.

Hence the phrase, "I contradicted myself." Otherwise, "myself" would be redundant.

I vote a THOUSAND percent no. Contradict me, I really don't give a damn, but I fully believe that sex is supposed to be something special between a married couple that love each other deeply, not a form of barter.

This is one of those questions where contradiction isn't required. You wouldn't participate in such an exchange (I wouldn't either) but I don't see any reason to stop anyone else doing so.

But, using the term "supposed to be" is asking to be contradicted. It implies intent, implies that some intention (presumably a supreme being, a law of nature perhaps) dictates a "correct" way of having sex.

Your opinion is your own, you're welcome to it. The only trouble is this: what would you do about it? Do you think this "right and wrong way" carries it's own consequences ... or would you enforce the "right" way with the law and the courts?

I vote a THOUSAND percent no. Contradict me, I really don't give a damn, but I fully believe that sex is supposed to be something special between a married couple that love each other deeply, not a form of barter.

[Bold removed so I don't have to yell, too.]

Good for you. There but for the grace of God, go you. You don't ever have to worry about it. Huzzah!