Sex is Not Rent

Palmach

godtabh wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1174296581639745537?s=20

Is this where the debate has gone?

That one scumbag represents the entire pool of landlords in this country? Apparently the landlords has too much power!

Context is everything (and aside from the pervert) but how does this relate to the housing crisis? She appears to be leaving freely (and probable understandable). Whether she could afford the rent isnt the issue

How is this linked to the housing crisis?

If two citizens agree a rent that is part or in whole the provision of sex for housing then the state should not interfere.

victor8600

Palmach wrote: »

If two citizens agree a rent that is part or in whole the provision of sex for housing then the state should not interfere.

This seems like bartering and prostitution rolled in together. I am not sure what the Revenue's position on taxing the private exchange of services, but the landlord would be a buyer of sex.

Portsalon

Well Ruth the Boot has achieved her main objective of having her face on the front page of the Irish Times and Indo websites!

Mission accomplished, now she can resume acting the jennet in whatever God-forsaken constituency returned her to the Dail as being the best candidate to govern the country.

Mitch Connor

TheValeyard wrote: »

Oooohhh Ding Dong GDPR

Or Dail privilege probably covers it.

There is no identifying information in the text, so don't think GDPR is an issue for this.

ELM327

What an absolute moron. We're worse for playing into her publicity stunt

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

The fact Coppinger has put #metoo in her tweet takes all credibility away from it. What a donkey.

meeeeh

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Mate can you show me what properties produce the returns to be one of these landlords, most that i know are making a few quid on top of the mortgage and the government bends them over arseways to make it barely worth it.

Also we have absolutely no confirmation that this guy is the landlord and not just the flatmate...

With a good reason. If that kind of cowboy behaviour is acceptable to some there is maybe a good reason to encourage institutional landlords into the market. There is no law that says rent should cover mortgage repayments.

I'm not one of poor tenants brigade but this is a business not a way to pick up dates. People should treat it as such.

Airyfairy12

Ive seen this happen a few times, landlords asking for sexual favours in lieu of rent.
I dont think the point of sharing the messages was to suggest all landlords are perverts, I think the point of it is to show how the housing crisis is in some cases resulting in the objectification and exploitation of tenants. If the girl in the messages was in a desperate situation were she couldn't afford rent, as many tenants are these days, she could potentially be very vulnerable to this type of exploiton. The messages are highlighting what is happening as it's becoming more common.

Riskymove

Tabnabs wrote: »

GDPR only applies to a company or entity which processes personal data as part of their activities. Doesn't apply to individuals, private citizens or foghorn TDs.

incorrect

Brussels Sprout

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Ive seen this happen a few times, landlords asking for sexual favours in lieu of rent.
I dont think the point of sharing the messages was to suggest all landlords are perverts, I think the point of it is to show how the housing crisis is in some cases resulting in the objectification and exploitation of tenants. If the girl in the messages was in a desperate situation were she couldn't afford rent, as many tenants are these days, she could potentially be very vulnerable to this type of exploiton. The messages are highlighting what is happening as it's becoming more common.

Don't be coming in here talking sense. Can't you see this a thread for edgy centrist-Dads to tell us all how the real villain here is the TD bringing this perfectly reasonable request to light.

The_Conductor

Its not a landlord anyhow- note the 'live with me in my house' part. Its a rent-a-room situation. Using it as ammunition to tar the entire sector is a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation- however, Ruth is gaining a reputation for misrepresenting situations. How she is managing to keep a straight face while using this 'example' is beyond me. I have no doubt that there are genuine cases of what she is suggesting happening out there- however, she has really shot herself in the foot by not even reading the sliocht carefully............ Not that she cares.

splinter65

This is going on since the beginning of the whole concept of the owner of a house charging someone else to live in that house,
A friend of mine rented a place in flatland in Dublin for 15 years. A very accomplished smart girl. The landlord was a retired Garda, a widower with several properties.
She told us that she really only paid rent for about 2 years and after that she was rent free.
She was never interested in being in a relationship. A bit of a loner really.
Anyway he died and much to her astonishment he left her a 1/2 share in that house.
His adult kids were furious.

Vargulf

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Am I the only one who actually doesn't really see an issue here, he made her an offer , she said no, thats it. Standard transaction really. Theres no duress or 'ill kick you out if you don't' its an offer she could decline handy, pure and simple.

I'm interested in your thoughts, would you say the same if it was for a job? Let's say some entry level position in a small-medium business and "sure maybe we can agree to something" (sex) is said by the employer during an interview or via text message? Or is this different because the landlord owns the property?


What if the tenant was desperate for a roof over her head? I understand in this case that the tenant was maybe not desperate but just for argument's sake. Would it be exploitation to ask for sex even if she is desperate for a roof over her head or would it be ok since the landlord owns the property and can ask what he likes for it regardless of how badly the potential tenant needs a roof over their head?


What if, for argument's sake, there was a male tenant desperate to not be homeless and the female agreed to sex in lieu of rent so the male tenent had to find somewhere else, only he can't find somewhere else because of a housing crisis?


It just seems crazy to me the idea that we should just be like, "Well the landlord made a fair offer and it's his property so she can just find somewhere else to live if she isn't ok with sex in lieu of rent".


What if she manges to find somewhere else to live but it's nowhere near her place of work so she has to quit her job and go on the dole and apply for HAP? Another person on the HAP scheme and another person on the dole.

This obviously doesn't mean every landlord is like this, but like I said it seems crazy to me to be ok with the idea of landlords offering free rent for sex and to describe it as a "Standard transaction".

um7y1h83ge06nx

In fairness I don't know if it represents a very good value transaction for the fella, particularly if it is in Dublin with high rents. Unless she's a stunner and a great ride I'd keep things simple and take the cash.

He should have had the cop not to go down that route but I presume it is a very rare situation and not indicative of the general market.

overkill602

Jealous ruth would get such an offer unless it was a blind LL
so was it love at first sight?

GGTrek

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I thought law changed regarding this. It's illegal for a guy to offer money for sex, but not illegal for a girl to accept. Something crazy like that.

You quote is almost correct, whomever solicits sex by offering compensation is guilty of an offence since 2017, but not the other way, it is just part of this hypocrite and illiberal current govvie who follows to the letter the latest "feminist" or "gender" theories.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print#sec25


"7A. (1) A person who pays, gives, offers or promises to pay or give a person (including a prostitute) money or any other form of remuneration or consideration for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a prostitute shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction—"


So in theory the person soliciting in the case presented by the OP could be guilty of an offence. This is the state of the things in illiberal Ireland nowadays where some social liberties have been added and many economic liberties removed.

GGTrek

splinter65 wrote: »

This is going on since the beginning of the whole concept of the owner of a house charging someone else to live in that house,
A friend of mine rented a place in flatland in Dublin for 15 years. A very accomplished smart girl. The landlord was a retired Garda, a widower with several properties.
She told us that she really only paid rent for about 2 years and after that she was rent free.
She was never interested in being in a relationship. A bit of a loner really.
Anyway he died and much to her astonishment he left her a 1/2 share in that house.
His adult kids were furious.

This has been going on since the beginning of times actually

HamSarris

I was very curious to read this thread to see if landlords would defend the indefensible. And I was not disappointed. If someone's daughter has to sleep with 4 landlords to make her way through college then that’s the free market - and she should be honoured a landlord would find her attractive enough.

People have compared this to soliciting a prostitute but such men are higher on the moral hierarchy than pervy landlords. A man who visits a prostitute is humble enough to admit he needs to pay for sex. A pervy landlord is an opportunist, taking advantage of a woman in a vulnerable position and pretending like she’d get with him anyway.

Forgetting individual morality, society starts to become unstable if you get this type of informal prostitution for basic needs like accommodation and work. Men would struggle to get accommodation because they can’t provide ‘other benefits’ to their landlords. Women would have an ongoing sense of disgust anticipating meeting their landlord’s needs after lectures.

These situations are more common in the UK, I guess a landlord might care less about his reputation in a big city. But the housing crisis here has created a sense of grandiosity among landlords, such that some would believe they're doing the woman a favour.

Heres Johnny

I've a spare room, don't need the money, fiance away quite a bit with work tax on air BnB is prohibitive, might get involved in a few short term lettings between consenting adults

slipperyox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zoj8OYEmNg

Ardent

One swallow does not a summer make. Incredible that we have such imbeciles as elected officials.

garhjw

I think it’s bull. Just another publicity stunt by the Trotskyites

HamSarris

HamSarris wrote: »

I was very curious to read this thread to see if landlords would defend the indefensible. And I was not disappointed. If someone's daughter has to sleep with 4 landlords to make her way through college then that’s the free market - and she should be honoured a landlord would find her attractive enough.

People have compared this to soliciting a prostitute but such men are higher on the moral hierarchy than pervy landlords. A man who visits a prostitute is humble enough to admit he needs to pay for sex. A pervy landlord is an opportunist, taking advantage of a woman in a vulnerable position and pretending like she’d get with him anyway.

Forgetting individual morality, society starts to become unstable if you get this type of informal prostitution for basic needs like accommodation and work. Men would struggle to get accommodation because they can’t provide ‘other benefits’ to their landlords. Women would have an ongoing sense of disgust anticipating meeting their landlord’s needs after lectures.

These situations are more common in the UK, I guess a landlord might care less about his reputation in a big city. But the housing crisis here has created a sense of grandiosity among landlords, such that some would believe they're doing the woman a favour.

Dunno what thread you're reading, but it certainly isn't this one..?

terrydel

Portsalon wrote: »

The thong-waving, brain dead Coppinger seeks publicity and is prepared to post any old tripe on twitter to help her to gain it.

Unfortunately, the opener of this thread has unintentionally helped her to achieve her objective.

Yeah, because Ruth Coppinger is the real problem here. Maybe turn your ire on your friends in fine gael, it may prove more productive.

terrydel

godtabh wrote: »

There maybe voters on here in her constituency. If it helps get her out I'd post it again 1000 times !

Who do you vote for?

terrydel

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Am I the only one who actually doesn't really see an issue here, he made her an offer , she said no, thats it. Standard transaction really. Theres no duress or 'ill kick you out if you don't' its an offer she could decline handy, pure and simple.

Good God, you really are pathetic.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dunno what thread you're reading, but it certainly isn't this one..?

Yes it is I'm no fan of Ruth Coppinger but all complaints are about her and how the poor slandered man should sue her for the breach of privacy.

No one can empathise how someone would feel sleeping in their rental property knowing that their scum of a landlord has keys to their home. Normally functioning market would spar out scum like that but at the moment people are forced to rent from people like him because there is nothing else.

terrydel

TheBoyConor wrote: »

You're actually dead right.

It might be sleazy at but at the end of the day nothing illegal. He asked, she said no, he accepted that. No crime committed, no laws broken.

Jog on Coppinger

Could quite easily be classed as sexual harassment, maybe in your world that not illegal.

terrydel

TheBoyConor wrote: »

He didn't actually ask for sex. And he didn't offer money.

And on the GDPR point, three conversation didn't reveal any personal data like names or phone numbers. It is just an anonymous conversation.

Boy. That name suits you.

terrydel

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its a trend, women screenshot any messages guys send them and upload them to twitter as a "woo look at all the attention I get" kinda thing.

You must be suffering a lot of rejection lately.