Sex for rent: landlords offer 'room in return for cooking, cleaning and oral once or twice a week'

[JimW]

...You are just pulling my pud aren't you

Now you have to let him stay in your shed for a week.

 

[Spymaster]

Because we're talking about what's happening here and now. And that's a product of capitalism. That's not say it didn't happen under other conditions (e.g. where power was expressed through different means). But neither ought we to think it's inevitable under all.

You think? I’m struggling to think of a workable societal system in which prostitution wouldn’t exist.

 

[kabbes]

It’s not rape unless you’d consider paying a prostitute to be rape. There is the same level of consent. The piece says it’s illegal though so I assume it’s a morality thing.

I kind of do, yeah.

But this goes beyond even economic coercion in the abstract. Once the contract has been agreed, how is it enforced? Have sex with me or I’m throwing you out of your home? That reads like sex under threat of harm to me.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

So why was this not a hot topic in the late 90s and early 2000s when socialists were in power in England?

lol, wut

 

[maomao]

lol, wut

I was just about to quote that bit too.

Which socialists were these OzT ?

And there have been occasional articles about this sort of thing in the Guardian/Independent for decades.

 

[OzT]

Are not Labour socialists?

 

[bellaozzydog]

So why was this not a hot topic in the late 90s and early 2000s when socialists were in power in England?

I agree there should be actions against the landlords, it IS a disguisting thing. I am also making a point that it is a crime against humanity but not as simple as slotting it inder a capitalism or socialism or any political/economical label.

You've lost me

 

[OzT]

ah to add maybe I am not too familiar with British political parties, but have always taken Conservetives as capitalists and Labour as socialists

ps what does 'wut' mean please?

 

[kabbes]

ah to add maybe I am not too familiar with British political parties, but have always talen Conservetives as capitalists and Labour as socialists

To state the obvious, capitalists are those seeking to organise society along capitalist grounds, whilst socialists are those seeking to organise society on socialist grounds. Investigating the policies of political parties will tell you which is which, regardless of the labels being assigned by the parties themselves or other bystanders, such a newspapers.

The Labour Party of the 90s and 00s pursued a series of capitalist agendas based around deregulation and privatisation. They abandoned any attempt to bring any industry under government control and inequality increased during their tenure, albeit more slowly than it did under the Tory governments either side of them. In no way can any of this be said to be socialist.

 

[OzT]

Thanks kabbes, my wrong then, just Labour, certainly back home, is a socialist party.

I agree it is a very bad thing the landlords doing that. What I was disagreeing with was some posters saying it is due to capitalisms, where I am saying this bad has happened and is happening everywhere, regardless of social/political/economic labels.

ETA: because it is is, then to change it will be easy. Unfortunately it is not due to any labels.

 

[kabbes]

I agree it is a manifestation of power imbalance rather than capitalism per se. But the modern brand of ultra-selfish capitalism has atomised society to such a degree that this kind of thing is seen as acceptable by some people. This manifestation of the practice is all about seeing individuals as tradable commodities, and that’s thoroughly grounded in our time. You only have to see the defences of it on this very thread to understand the mindset of where this behaviour comes from. Who cares about the impacts on the self if everybody has had “free choice”, hey?

 

[Slo-mo]

ah to add maybe I am not too familiar with British political parties, but have always taken Conservetives as capitalists and Labour as socialists
?

Tony Blair was no more a Socialist than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.

He did a few good things, but no way a Socialist.

 

[Spymaster]

Well your argument would rely on a ready supply of easily affordable housing to provide an alternative and there isn't, so some measure of economic compulsion exists however you slice it.

But how is it different to regular prostitution where the woman is acting on her own free will, is the point. All that's different is that she's pre-choosing what she spends the money on. However, kabbes point regarding contract enforcement is pretty solid.

 

[JimW]

But how is it different to regular prostitution where the woman is acting on her own free will, is the point. All that's different is that she's pre-choosing what she spends the money on. However, kabbes point regarding contract enforcement is pretty solid.

Besides kabbes' point there the specific necessity of housing makes it worse imo - at base it's the same but the one-off transaction of regular prostitution seems qualitatively different.

 

[OzT]

I seldom post anything political or have much thoughts on it, so probably I best bow out now.

Injustices really does get to me, as does bad behaviour. What I also do not like is when the deeds are said to have happened because of so and so being in power. Then people write a lot about them, go on demos, protests etc. and a whole blame thing happen. But then nothing changes.

I do not have the answers to the problem(s), but I do wish society would become nice and caring again, where we all look out for each other and no one would even think of exploiting anyone else.

A dream etopia (sp?) I guess, but wouldn't it be nice.

ETA: I live in that dream world, where everyone is nice to everyone else and helps out. Yes it gets shattered sometimes but for me it's real

 

[kabbes]

If you want your utopia, you have to investigate the underlying connective tissue of society that creates the dominant psychology. Why is it that people become more or less caring? Start with that and you might achieve what you want, ie people that are more caring. You can’t do it the other way round.

 

[bimble]

The transactional model of sex as a commodity is at the root of so many shit things, this just being a really obvious manifestation of that.

 

[OzT]

Has there ever been utopia on Earth? Maybe in small isolated communities, but more likely once there are too many people then greed and nastiness comes into it.

Although I do believe in talk softly carry big stick, cause utopia wil be worth defending!!

now back to my How many alerts thread . . .... -->

 

[Spymaster]

Besides kabbes' point there the specific necessity of housing makes it worse imo - at base it's the same but the one-off transaction of regular prostitution seems qualitatively different.

Well kabbes' point aside I think it could be argued that any qualitative difference actually favours the sex-lodger. She chooses the punter and gets to know him exclusively rather than having sex with multiple random strangers.

 

[JimW]

Well kabbes' point aside I think it could be argued that any qualitative difference actually favours the sex-lodger. She chooses the punter and gets to know him exclusively rather than having sex with multiple random strangers.

But the latter could be done occasionally on an as-needed basis rather than set yourself up for an ongoing situation when all you want is a roof over your head.
ETA and getting to know him would be a downside, surely

 

[ska invita]

Yh, unfortunately this isn't new 'news', not just London either, my daughters both had reports of this while at uni in Leeds and Liverpool

theres also increasing sex work to pay student costs
Students are turning to sex work to cope with the rising cost of tuition fees
sex work to pay student - Google Search
...different to the OP set up, though the push factors the same

 

[kabbes]

You must see that committing to future sex on an indefinite timetabled routine is an unacceptable expectation even for somebody in a loving relationship, let alone for somebody to sign up to with a stranger under threat of losing their home at the whim of the other party. I can’t see how this can even begin to be viewed as a reasonable transaction even if you DO think it is okay to pay for a one-off here-and-now encounter. Even paid sex workers have the right to change their minds half way through.

 

[xenon]

I’d agree to an extent but not everyone in sex work is there under duress, physical or financial. Plenty see it as an easier way to make more money than working as a waitress or cleaner. If that’s their view should they be prevented from doing as they please?

If someone has choosen that line of work, they would just pay the landlord with money like anyone else.

 

[Spymaster]

But the latter could be done occasionally on an as-needed basis rather than set yourself up for an ongoing situation when all you want is a roof over your head.

I'd think that plenty of regular prostitutes do what they do precisely to put a roof over their heads and food on the table so they are where best the comparison is made.

ETA and getting to know him would be a downside, surely

Wouldn't knowing that your landlord, whilst a sleazy perv, is not a psychopath, be an advantage to trading with totally unknown punters?

I didn't see this particular documentary but I've seen one before on the subject and it was an argument made by one of the girls. They weren't homeless people. Many were university students who had decided that shagging the landlord a couple of times a month was preferable to working their fingers to the bone in a bar. I actually don't think there's too much wrong with that if that's what they want to do.

 

[Spymaster]

If someone has choosen that line of work, they would just pay the landlord with money like anyone else.

But to do that they'd need to go out and attract multiple random punters in other ways.

 

[existentialist]

Playing devil’s advocate, how bad is this?

It’s certainly sleazy as fuck but if the deal is clearly stated and pursued by the prospective tenant isn’t it her choice what to do with her body?

I can see that point of view, except that the context makes it dodgier.

We are in a situation, largely as a result of government policy on housing and employment, where a lot of people are seriously struggling to find out how to pay for somewhere to live. In a remotely equitable economy, the likelihood of someone even having to consider the idea of submitting to sex as a viable way of putting a roof over their head would be unthinkable; it is only because we have created a nightmare situation where accommodation costs represent a frighteningly large proportion of some people's incomes, that this is even a thing.

People often make choices they don't want to make - lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate, or where they are being exploited, because of fears that, if they refuse to tolerate it, they will be unable to access benefits or find another job (I am appalled at the level of employment and benefits-related paranoia I encounter in my work, for example); people don't call out landlords renting unfit properties for fear of eviction; and people are prepared to countenance offers of accommodation in return for sexual services as an alternative to being unable to find an affordable place to live.

To some extent, all of the above are situations that have either been allowed to develop, or have been deliberately engineered by government policy over the last couple of decades. Much of it is, no doubt, "unintended consequences", but it doesn't take a genius to realise that if you create the conditions in which exploitation can thrive, it will do.

 

[SpookyFrank]

People often make choices they don't want to make - lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate, or where they are being exploited, because of fears that, if they refuse to tolerate it, they will be unable to access benefits or find another job (I am appalled at the level of employment and benefits-related paranoia I encounter in my work, for example); people don't call out landlords renting unfit properties for fear of eviction; and people are prepared to countenance offers of accommodation in return for sexual services as an alternative to being unable to find an affordable place to live.

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.

 

[ricbake]

There are untold numerous instances of women being manipulated into having to give sexual consent under duress to get accomodation, food, work, health care - normal entitllements held ransom by unscrupulous deviant men with no moral compass.
doctors, teachers, managers, housing officers, caretakers, Landlords, loan sharks stc

 

[ska invita]

There are untold numerous instances of women being manipulated into having to give sexual consent under duress to get accomodation, food, work, health care - normal entitllements held ransom by unscrupulous deviant men with no moral compass.
doctors, teachers, managers, housing officers, caretakers, Landlords, loan sharks stc

though they dont usually put adverts in papers about it

 

[kabbes]

What kind of sick fuck even wants to have sex with a woman that is only doing it out of fear of losing her home? There’s a basis for condemnation even aside from the other things mentioned.

Can you imagine the conversation?

It’s time to... pay the rent.
Not now
No, you’re overdue. You have to do it now or you’re out.

What the everliving fuck?