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

[SpookyFrank]

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

You left out police officers.

 

[bimble]

Gumtree / craigslist (back then at least) used to carry ads from the other side of this too, women looking for someone to provide accommodation and buy them things etc. And of course there are several 'sugar daddy' dating sites, should those be illegal too?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Gumtree / craigslist (back then at least) used to carry ads from the other side of this too, women looking for someone to provide accommodation and buy them things etc. And of course there are several 'sugar daddy' dating sites, should those be illegal too?

In the real world it is beneficial for sex workers to have online platforms where they can arrange these transactions with a certain degree of safety. The difference is that from this angle nobody is being coerced, nobody can say they had no choice but to pay a sex worker. Well, probably some people would say that but it would be bullshit. You can go without sex, less so without a place to live and money for food.

 

[killer b]

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.

Funny, I've been seeing news stories about students turning to sex work to make ends meet ever since maintainance grants were scrapped, with a sharp increase in the years since the fees increased so dramatically. It's talked about as if it's just a fairly normal part of student life now.

I wonder if these things are related?

 

[Spymaster]

I wonder if these things are related?

Well of course they are.

 

[killer b]

it was a rhetorical question tbf

 

[existentialist]

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?

I don't imagine that the kind of person who gets as far as posting a "room for sex" advert has really thought through the likely consequences at all. And I suspect a fair few will be those scummy incel types who see it completely amorally, and as no more than a transaction. You may be projecting your own emotional completeness onto these sad fucks.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

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.

WTAF?

What would you think if you met a woman and started dating, then she told you she couldn't see you on Tuesdays or Thursdays as she had to suck her landlord's cock twice a week or be slung out of her home?

 

[Spymaster]

it was a rhetorical question tbf

I realise that. It's just not relevant.

People require more money to live on than they used to. Therefore people will find different ways of making that money.

For the girl at uni if it's a choice between shagging the landlord or getting some other job and she chooses the former that's up to her. Now you can blame capitalism or whatever else you fancy but the debate here was whether or not sex for rent was more morally dubious than regular prostitution.

 

[Spymaster]

WTAF?

What would you think if you met a woman and started dating, then she told you she couldn't see you on Tuesdays or Thursdays as she had to suck her landlord's cock twice a week or be slung out of her home?

That was Kabbes' point.

 

[existentialist]

Gumtree / craigslist (back then at least) used to carry ads from the other side of this too, women looking for someone to provide accommodation and buy them things etc. And of course there are several 'sugar daddy' dating sites, should those be illegal too?

To me, it's all about the coercive aspect. I don't think potential "sugar daddies" are usually faced with the same restrictions on their choices that people looking for somewhere to live are.

Though both are a form of exploitation

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

That was Kabbes' point.

And it doesn't really need saying, ffs. The whole set up has no justification whatsoever, none.

 

[Spymaster]

And it doesn't really need saying, ffs. The whole set up has no justification whatsoever, none.

You're reading that out of context. The post you're quoting is a response to JimW's post #44 which wanted to set that aside and discuss the qualitative aspects of what are effectively two types of prostitution.

 

[kabbes]

That was Kabbes' point.

Since it's a point you agreed with, I'm not sure what you've been seeking to achieve with your subsequent posts. What, it's okay apart from this really rather fucking enormous problem? Even if I agreed there were no other problems, that's still like saying murder is okay except for the fact somebody ends up dead.

 

[Spymaster]

Since it's a point you agreed with, I'm not sure what you've been seeking to achieve with your subsequent posts.

Again, I was subsequently responding to Jim's post.

 

[killer b]

I realise that. It's just not relevant.

People require more money to live on than they used to. Therefore people will find different ways of making that money.

For the girl at uni if it's a choice between shagging the landlord or getting some other job and she chooses the former that's up to her. Now you can blame capitalism or whatever else you fancy but the debate here was whether or not sex for rent was more morally dubious than regular prostitution.

There's more than one debate going on here. I'm more interested in the structural/economic reasons stuff like this happens than the moral ones (which follow the structural and economic reasons)

 

[kabbes]

Again, I was subsequently responding to Jim's post.

I know. But I don't think it's helpful to try to cut a situation into divisible components and argue each of those components as if it exists in isolation. Other qualitative aspects of the arrangement are also all affected by the underlying fact that somebody is expecting contractual enforcement of a sexual arrangement. That pervades the whole interaction.

A good example of this attempt at divisibility is this:

For the girl at uni if it's a choice between shagging the landlord or getting some other job and she chooses the former that's up to her.

It's not just "a choice between shagging the landlord or getting some other job", is it?

 

[SpookyFrank]

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.

Here's that marvellous 'choice' people get under capitalism, laid bare in a couple of sentences. It's not exploitation if you can choose between two slightly different forms of exploitation.

Unless there's a viable 'none of the above' option there is no choice. This is true with selling labour in all its forms; sex work is just a particular case where the grubby underlying power dynamics are easier to see.

 

[Spymaster]

It's not just "a choice between shagging the landlord or getting some other job", is it?

Why not? In the documentary I saw it was regarded as a better option than getting a regular job by some of the girls and certainly better than regular prostitution.

Let me remind you that this is not a defence of the practice of sex lodging but an extrapolation of your assertion that it's rape and my rejoinder that it is no more rape than paying a prostitute.

It is not rape.

 

[Spymaster]

Unless there's a viable 'none of the above' option there is no choice. This is true with selling labour in all its forms; sex work is just a particular case where the grubby underlying power dynamics are easier to see.

Sure. But again, until someone comes up with a workable alternative to capitalism and everyone votes for it, we have what we have.

 

[Pickman's model]

Here's that marvellous 'choice' people get under capitalism, laid bare in a couple of sentences. It's not exploitation if you can choose between two slightly different forms of exploitation.

Unless there's a viable 'none of the above' option there is no choice. This is true with selling labour in all its forms; sex work is just a particular case where the grubby underlying power dynamics are easier to see.

i don't know about your job but i know i'm being exploited in mine. doesn't matter about choice, anyone who has to work is being exploited. anyone who has to pay rent is being exploited. anyone who has to offer sexual 'favours' in return for housing is being exploited.

 

[kabbes]

Why not? In the documentary I saw it was regarded as a better option than getting a regular job by some of the girls and certainly better than regular prostitution.

Let me remind you that this is not a defence of the practice of sex lodging but an extrapolation of your assertion that it's rape, and my rejoinder that it is no more rape than paying a prostitute.

It is not rape.

It is rape the moment the landlord insists on collecting his rent under the threat of eviction

 

[Spymaster]

It is rape the moment the landlord insists on collecting his rent under the threat of eviction

Are you saying that there is an ever present threat of eviction should the tenant not comply so all of the sex is necessarily coercive?

 

[kabbes]

Are you saying that there is an ever present threat of eviction should the tenant not comply so all of the sex is necessarily coercive?

Absolutely it is.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Maybe a bunch of blokes arguing about what constitutes rape or coercion is not the order of they day here.

 

[Spymaster]

Absolutely it is.

So you are saying that it is always rape.

That is simply not true under present law.

Do you think it should be illegal for a woman to enter into a sexual contract?

 

[kabbes]

So you are saying that it is always rape.

That is simply not true under present law.

Are you so sure?

Did you know the legal definition of rape and 'consent' is changing? Here's how

Here's an example you may want to think about

In 2009 in the case of one woman, the defendant and complainant were in a relationship for some time. They had sexual intercourse on many occasions but the complainant wanted to end it. At this point the defendant hatched an elaborate and juvenile plan to continue the relationship by impersonating a police officer by text message to trick and manipulate the victim into believing that if she did not continue the relationship and to have sexual intercourse with him she would be fined. The Court of Appeal said this was rape.

So it can certainly be rape under present law if you feel you have to have sex due to economic coercion.

Do you think it should be illegal for a woman to enter into a sexual contract?

That question is rather confused. Either the contract is legally binding or it isn't. If it isn't, the signing of the contract isn't the illegal part, it's the enforcement of it. And enforcement doesn't have to be physical.

 

[Spymaster]

Are you so sure?

Did you know the legal definition of rape and 'consent' is changing? Here's how

Here's an example you may want to think about

So it can certainly be rape under present law if you feel you have to have sex due to economic coercion.

The piece you quote is irrelevant. That's sex by trickery or fraud which is clearly rape and has been for some time.

The article you link to is about consent and the sex lodger is as consenting as a prostitute, albeit perhaps until enforcement takes place but that may never happen. You are saying that it's happening from the very start and is therefore rape from the off. That's exactly like saying that all prostitution is rape.

 

[kabbes]

The piece you quote is irrelevant. That's sex by trickery or fraud which is clearly rape and has been for some time.

The contracts we are talking about here are not legally enforcable. To insist on sex as payment on the grounds that it was agreed in advance in spite of this non-enforcability is also sex by trickery or fraud.

The article you link to is about consent and the sex lodger is as consenting as a prostitute, albeit perhaps until enforcement takes place but that may never happen. You are saying that it's happening from the very start and is therefore rape from the off. That's exactly like saying that all prostitution is rape.

As the article says, "consent" is about more than somebody not being physically forced. It takes state of mind into consideration. The moment the tenant feels that they have to have sex with a landlord or else they will lose their home, that's not consent.

Now, I personally feel prostitution is in the same ballpark of coercion. But there is a key difference, that the prostitute can always say no at any time with no loss other than the pay for that specific transaction, which is a much lower stake. Where is the tenant's opportunity to say no?

 

[Spymaster]

The contracts we are talking about here are not legally enforcable. To insist on sex as payment on the grounds that it was agreed in advance in spite of this non-enforcability is also sex by trickery or fraud. no?

No. As I recall the "contracts" aren't like that. The tenant has a standard tenancy agreement with a financial amount stated and the landlord just doesn't collect in lieu of sex. I would assume that if the tenant is not forthcoming the contract enforced is for non payment of rent. That is legally enforceable.

But it may not happen at all anyway.

As the article says, "consent" is about more than somebody not being physically forced. It takes state of mind into consideration. The moment the tenant feels that they have to have sex with a landlord or else they will lose their home, that's not consent.

Do you agree that it's possible for a tenant to have consensual sex with a landlord in lieu of rent?