Sex for Rent - Raised in the Dail as issue of major concern

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are plenty of things my children will do that I wouldn't be fine about. There are plenty of things I did in my earlier life that my parents wouldn't have been fine about.

But your ridiculous scenario of giving your son advice on how to fellate his landlord has already gotten one thread closed so perhaps it's best to not bring it up again.

Two consenting adults coming to an arrangement is absolutely fine with me.

I still don't know why you changed the sex of the "victim" in all your scenarios though. It's odd.

LOL are you a mod now?

If you think sex should be a normal method of paying rent, then why you'd you not be comfortable with knowing about it when you're literally advocating for it?

The sex of the person giving the blowjobs doesn't matter. It's not sex for love or enjoyment, it's sex for rent so the sex and sexual orientation of the tenant doesn't matter.

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

That was not said. Im saying that propositions will always happen. It will be up to the person whether they accept or not.

I'm not quite sure how you took that as if I imagine that this dubious example given by a less than honest politician is going to open the floodgates to a whole new sex barter system.

Sex for rent will certainly not be normal any time on the near or distant future, but there will always be people who chance their arm.

OK. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to get an answer to the question but I'll try again.

Would you be fine with sex for rent in principle as a normal method of payment at the current frequency? Would you be fine with sex for rent in principle, being a normal method of payment of it happens at a greater frequency in the future?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL are you a mod now?

If you think sex should be a normal method of paying rent, then why you'd you not be comfortable with knowing about it when you're literally advocating for it?

The sex of the person giving the blowjobs doesn't matter. It's not sex for love or enjoyment, it's sex for rent so the sex and sexual orientation of the tenant doesn't matter.

For clarity sake, I meant that I shouldn't bring it up again. (I know that by me saying this has resulted in it being mentioned in two subsequent posts....mt bad)

You keep saying that I am saying certain things where I am not.

I never said it should be a "normal" way of paying rent. I said that if two consenting adults come to an arrangement, it is of no concern of mine. I still prefer bank transfer and would like that to remain normal.

I agree the sex of the person doesn't matter. I just find it odd that you kept referring to men when the whole thing that sparked off the story was a woman. Then you went on to suddenly bring up feminism.

circadian

Jesus christ this thread.

I don't think it can be explained any more simply than exploiting people sexually for a roof over their heads is not acceptable. In any way.

****ing hell.

Ironicname

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Would you be fine with sex for rent in principle as a normal method of payment at the current frequency? Would you be fine with sex for rent in principle, being a normal method of payment of it happens at a greater frequency in the future?

Yes. I think sex for rent once the two people are under no duress is ok. It wouldn't be my preferred choice of payment but I don't see how/why I should be able to tell an owner of a property what payment he should accept underneath the rental caps.

Junkyard Tom

Ironicname wrote: »

I'm saying I wouldn't want to know who or who not my son is sucking off.

Your son is sucking people off for favours and you think that's okay? What type of a Father are you?

Ironicname

Junkyard Tom wrote:

Your son is sucking people off for favours and you think that's okay? What type of a Father are you?

A parent of a hypothetical son whose sexual antics are none of my business

Junkyard Tom

Ironicname wrote: »

A parent of a hypothetical son whose sexual antics are none of my business

What if your Son was sucking off your next-door-neighbour for using his car? Would you be okay with that?

Suttree

Ironicname wrote: »

Yes. I think sex for rent once the two people are under no duress is ok. It wouldn't be my preferred choice of payment but I don't see how/why I should be able to tell an owner of a property what payment he should accept underneath the rental caps.

Being unable to afford a roof over your head isn't duress?

I'm really hoping a lot of people on this thread are trolls, because I fear for society if people are this stupid or amoral.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You keep saying that I am saying certain things where I am not.

I never said it should be a "normal" way of paying rent. I said that if two consenting adults come to an arrangement, it is of no concern of mine. I still prefer bank transfer and would like that to remain normal.

I agree the sex of the person doesn't matter. I just find it odd that you kept referring to men when the whole thing that sparked off the story was a woman. Then you went on to suddenly bring up feminism.

You would advocate for bank transfer bring the norm. So would I BTW. I find it fascinating that you would be fine with people paying for rent with sex without even questioning what factors are causing it to happen.

I used the male hypothetical for 3 reasons.

1 the sex of the tenant doesn't matter.
2 this kind of thing is happening more frequently to both men and women regardless of this one specific example in the news at the moment.
3 I think some posters see it differently when it's a young man prostitution himself instead of a young woman.

I consider young me and women having to prostitute themselves for rent as a symptom of something very wrong in society. I for one, would want to find out what has lead to this point and what can be done to address it. I genuinely think this would have gone very differently if the original story had been by someone else, about boys having to prostitute themselves for rent. The big brave bucks, who are always on the lookout for offences against men, would have taken the exact opposite view of this whole situation and would have considered it exploitation and further evidence of the denigration of young men. But the story was only about a woman so they're on the side of the landlord and not the silly woman.

Ironicname

Junkyard Tom wrote:

What if your Son was sucking off your next-door-neighbour for using his car? Would you be okay with that?

No. Not at all. I wouldn't want my son sucking anyone off if I'm being honest but again, in this hypothetical, it's none of my business.

If it came to my attention in both scenarios, I would try to dissuade him. But ultimately it would be his choice.

El_Duderino 09

circadian wrote: »

Jesus christ this thread.

I don't think it can be explained any more simply than exploiting people sexually for a roof over their heads is not acceptable. In any way.

****ing hell.

That's what I'd say. But amazingly some people are absolutely fine with it.

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

Yes. I think sex for rent once the two people are under no duress is ok. It wouldn't be my preferred choice of payment but I don't see how/why I should be able to tell an owner of a property what payment he should accept underneath the rental caps.

OK and the questions I asked were also about frequency of this type of payment. It's normalcy in society. Would you answer it?

"Would you be fine with sex for rent in principle as a normal method of payment at the current frequency? Would you be fine with sex for rent in principle, being a normal method of payment of it happens at a greater frequency in the future?"

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

No. Not at all. I wouldn't want my son sucking anyone off if I'm being honest but again, in this hypothetical, it's none of my business.

If it came to my attention in both scenarios, I would try to dissuade him. But ultimately it would be his choice.

Can you honestly say you wouldn't even look in to the underlying factors that have lead to your son suckkng off his landlord for rent?

Ironicname

Suttree wrote:

Being unable to afford a roof over your head isn't duress?

Jesus. What I am saying is that if two people are ok with the arrangement then it's ok. If a woman is being forced to do it, then it's not ok.

Ironicname

I don't think it is ever or would ever become normal in society and would hate it ever to be so.

I also don't think we have a right to tell people what they can and can't do to their bodies once they aren't harming anyone else.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You would advocate for bank transfer bring the norm. So would I BTW. I find it fascinating that you would be fine with people paying for rent with sex without even questioning what factors are causing it to happen.

I used the male hypothetical for 3 reasons.

1 the sex of the tenant doesn't matter.
2 this kind of thing is happening more frequently to both men and women regardless of this one specific example in the news at the moment.
3 I think some posters see it differently when it's a young man prostitution himself instead of a young woman.

I consider young me and women having to prostitute themselves for rent as a symptom of something very wrong in society. I for one, would want to find out what has lead to this point and what can be done to address it. I genuinely think this would have gone very differently if the original story had been by someone else, about boys having to prostitute themselves for rent. The big brave bucks, who are always on the lookout for offences against men, would have taken the exact opposite view of this whole situation and would have considered it exploitation and further evidence of the denigration of young men. But the story was only about a woman so they're on the side of the landlord and not the silly woman.

I of course would question reasons why they are doing it. But that isn't what I have been asked on many occasions to the point where I am at pains to repeat myself.

The situation that the politician put forward seemed to be nothing more than a chancer trying to get a date and sleep with a woman he fancied and offered to put her up in his house.

This is not in my opinion a grossly offensive or horrendous act. It's a little creepy and I'm glad that the woman turned him down.

When more scenarios (not hypothetical ones) are put in front of me, I will judge them on a case by case basis. This one in particular I think is ok.

It is not my place to determine what to do with their genitals. I abhor and condemn anyone who would force anyone to do anything (sexual or otherwise) against their will.

If you were referring to me as one of the "big bucks" that was only ok with this because it was a man doing it to a silly woman then you are wrong.

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

I don't think it is ever or would ever become normal in society and would hate it ever to be so.

I also don't think we have a right to tell people what they can and can't do to their bodies once they aren't harming anyone else.

If you would hate it to be normal in society, then why would you be fine with it at its current frequency?

You've long since nailed your colours to the mast so I don't expect you'll change your mind. But the evidence suggests this arrangement is increasing in frequency as rent becomes more and more expensive in relation to earnings. The fewer choices the person has, the more likely they are to give in to the landlords proposal.

I read a story about young dad in uni who had to live close to his child's mother, pay her any money he had, stay in education and earn a few quid in a sh1tty job. Had no hope of paying rent so he agreed to one of these arrangements where he paid for rent in sex with his landlord. He hated doing it but did it so he could get the qualifications to get a better job and to see his child.

Sure the big brave bucks will see nothing wrong with that scenario, but I do.

Suttree

Deleted User wrote: »

The situation that the politician put forward seemed to be nothing more than a chancer trying to get a date and sleep with a woman he fancied and offered to put her up in his house.

The woman on the article started she was no longer able to afford the rent - the private rental market in Dublin at the moment is horrendous - this woman wad in a vulnerable position. The landlord tried to exploit his power over her to coerce her into having sex.

This isn't a a male housemate chancing his arm with a good looking pal - this is exploitation - anyone who can't see that is a psychopath.

Suttree

Suttree wrote: »

The woman on the article started she was no longer able to afford the rent - the private rental market in Dublin at the moment is horrendous - this woman wad in a vulnerable position. The landlord tried to exploit his power over her to coerce her into having sex.

This isn't a a male housemate chancing his arm with a good looking pal - this is exploitation - anyone who can't see that is a psychopath.

I read it as if she was leaving anyway, he asked her to come live with him, not stay in that apartment. I didn't see it as exploitation, I saw it as a very clumsy and creepy pick up line.

I may have been wrong, but that is how I saw it.

Minime2.5

circadian wrote: »

Jesus christ this thread.

I don't think it can be explained any more simply than exploiting people sexually for a roof over their heads is not acceptable. In any way.

****ing hell.

It's not explotation in the slightest.

Suttree

Deleted User wrote: »

I read it as if she was leaving anyway, he asked her to come live with him, not stay in that apartment. I didn't see it as exploitation, I saw it as a very clumsy and creepy pick up line.

I may have been wrong, but that is how I saw it.

Then you're choosing to see it inaccurately compared to what was outlined in the article - I won't guess as to your motivation for doing that.

LeVaterIzVet

I'm quite shocked to read some of the posts in this thread. It really crystalises the diverging morals and values between older and younger millenials.

We can only draw assumptions from the information we're given, but the tenant seems to be moving out of the landlord's premises due to the cost of rent. The landlord then proposes to give her a reduced rent if she is willing to sell her body. When questioned about whether or not he's serious, he tells her that she already knew that he found her attractive.

In essence, we have a landlord who is in a position of power amidst one of the worst housing crises this country has ever seen. He then tries to takes advantage of his position of power to try and leverage a young woman into selling her body in return for cheaper rent. I would equate this to a stranger in a white van offering a child a lollipop to join him and to 'go for a spin'.

Anyone who doesn't see how disgusting this man's actions are needs to have a long look at themselves in the mirror imo.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read it as if she was leaving anyway, he asked her to come live with him, not stay in that apartment. I didn't see it as exploitation, I saw it as a very clumsy and creepy pick up line.

I may have been wrong, but that is how I saw it.

I think you're being naive. You think he was offering what, exactly? To be her boyfriend and they move in immediately?

Use your loaf.

El_Duderino 09

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

I'm quite shocked to read some of the posts in this thread. It really crystalises the diverging morals and values between older and younger millenials.

We can only draw assumptions from the information we're given, but the tenant seems to be moving out of the landlord's premises due to the cost of rent. The landlord then proposes to give her a reduced rent if she is willing to sell her body. When questioned about whether or not he's serious, he tells her that she already knew that he found her attractive.

In essence, we have a landlord who is in a position of power amidst one of the worst housing crises this country has ever seen. He then tries to takes advantage of his position of power to try and leverage a young woman into selling her body in return for cheaper rent. I would equate this to a stranger in a white van offering a child a lollipop to join him and to 'go for a spin'.

Anyone who doesn't see how disgusting this man's actions are needs to have a long look at themselves in the mirror imo.

I agree with the post but I've no idea what this has to do with young people vs old people. think a lot of the people who think it's fine are older than millennials.

strandroad

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

I'm quite shocked to read some of the posts in this thread. It really crystalises the diverging morals and values between older and younger millenials.

Which group do you think is the forgiving "sure it's only free market" one?
There is actually a lot more condemnation for such sex pest landlords on reddit and they are younger there, more likely to be renters themselves. Here's it's more of a middle aged group no?

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't see how disgusting this man's actions are needs to have a long look at themselves in the mirror imo.

I completely agree. And the posters who say they would look the other way if it was their children having to pay with sex :rolleyes: I'm hoping that it's just posturing. "Dear son, enjoy your college, I can't afford your Dublin rent, but I'm hearing you can do well if you're open minded, make your choices, I won't interfere".

LeVaterIzVet

strandroad wrote: »

Which group do you think is the forgiving "sure it's only free market" one?
There is actually a lot more condemnation for such sex pest landlords on reddit and they are younger there, more likely to be renters themselves. Here's it's more of a middle aged group no?



I completely agree. And the posters who say they would look the other way if it was their children having to pay with sex :rolleyes: I'm hoping that it's just posturing. "Dear son, enjoy your college, I can't afford your Dublin rent, but I'm hearing you can do well if you're open minded, make your choices, I won't interfere".

I'm saying that it's the older generations who seem to be in favour of landlords being in a position to exploit younger tenants

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you're being naive. You think he was offering what, exactly? To be her boyfriend and they move in immediately?

Use your loaf.

Perhaps I have been naïve.

Again, I am only commenting on the case put forward in the dail but from that WhatsApp exchange, I saw very little wrong in it.

I stand by my reasoning for allowing people who are above age and consent to choose what they do with their bodies.

But I feel like we/I am talking around in circles and will bow out.

For clarity though, not once was I ever condoning sexual exploitation and was only ever comfortable with an exchange like this were both parties were consenting.

El_Duderino 09

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

I'm saying that it's the older generations who seem to be in favour of landlords being in a position to exploit younger tenants

Ah yeah. I thought you suggested it was the other way around. Free market arguments are pretty gross in this context. Imagine the world these people are happy to create for their children and grandchildren.

LeVaterIzVet

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps I have been naïve.

Again, I am only commenting on the case put forward in the dail but from that WhatsApp exchange, I saw very little wrong in it.

I stand by my reasoning for allowing people who are above age and consent to choose what they do with their bodies.

But I feel like we/I am talking around in circles and will bow out.

For clarity though, not once was I ever condoning sexual exploitation and was only ever comfortable with an exchange like this were both parties were consenting.

Do you not realise that you're blatantly contradicting yourself??

You just said that you don't condone sexual exploitation, but you're comfortable with an 'exchange' that is anything short of rape? (Sex w/o consent)

Just because a young woman consents to selling her body to a creepy predatory landlord, doesn't mean that she wasn't exploited. This is the very definition of exploitation!! Come on ffs