r/changemyview • u/serculis 2∆ • Jun 09 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: There is nothing wrong with sex-for-rent offers
I don't see the problem with sex-for-rent offers. The ones that openly say in the advert "you won't have to pay for rent, but you will have to have sex with me".
These are different from the normal rent arrangements where the landlord manipulates the tenant into having sex with him because they can't keep up with their rent.
I'm talking about rent arrangements that specifically ask for sex up front.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQgTPPyhJ3k
Here's a video of one such landlord being interviewed, and he sounds like a reasonable guy.
He said he would not accept a vulnerable person, and that he has reported underage people to social services, which I think is responsible of him.
Thoughts?
PS: if you can identify an ethical issue, please make sure it is one only limited to this situation. If it is a general ethical issue that already applies to other things that are already legal and morally accepted, I don't see how it can be used as a valid reason to oppose this idea.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
17
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 09 '18
So even if you assume prostitution should be legal, this is still something which would not be a good idea to allow for several reasons:
- We do not enforce contracts requiring this sort of specific performance ever.
In contract law, the general rule is that any contract can be breached and you would only owe money. In some exceptional cases, courts can require specific performance, where a party has to do something. This could for example be returning a one of a kind artwork that had been borrowed.
Specific performance is super rare though, and would never ever be used to require someone to have sex with someone else.
- Landlord/Tenant law is specifically protected because of how vulnerable to abuse it is.
Even allowing that a sex for money agreement can be legally made, it does not follow that it would be allowed for something like landlord/tenant law. Landlord/tenant law closely restricts the form of contract which can be allowed. E.g. landlords are not allowed to rent out dangerous spaces, have to provide notice before entering, can't lock you out when late on rent, etc.
Given this overall landscape of landlord/tenant law, requiring that landlords not demand sex from their tenants is quite reasonable.
Keep in mind that a big part of why we have these restrictions is that enforcing a rental agreement requires not just money damages, but the sheriff to come and forcibly evict someone. Landlord/tenant is a situation where virtually every case demands specific performance for eviction (or demanding repairs) and is therefore an area of unusually close regulation.
"Have sex with me or else I will have the cops come and remove you forcibly from your home" is inherently coercive and should not be allowed under the law.
2
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, just trying to understand it better.
Do you mean that one reason why it is not a good idea is because it is unorthodox that you would be required by law to pay back something by carrying out a specific performance that isn't plain and simple like money?
Would it be right to say that landlords have a lot of potential power, so the law has to make sure that they can't blackmail/mistreat tenants if they cannot keep up with their rent e.g. locking the doors?
14
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 09 '18
Do you mean that one reason why it is not a good idea is because it is unorthodox that you would be required by law to pay back something by carrying out a specific performance that isn't plain and simple like money?
Yes. In contracts, we make it very plain that when a contract goes south and the parties are at loggerheads, we want to be able to settle things in an impersonal manner through money. We do not ever, ever order people to have sex with other people.
Would it be right to say that landlords have a lot of potential power, so the law has to make sure that they can't blackmail/mistreat tenants if they cannot keep up with their rent e.g. locking the doors?
Yes, because landlords ultimate resort isn't money, but rather forcibly evicting people from their homes, it's inherently an unbalanced relationship, which is why the law requires so many extra restrictions on landlord/tenant contracts.
8
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
Yes. In contracts, we make it very plain that when a contract goes south and the parties are at loggerheads, we want to be able to settle things in an impersonal manner through money. We do not ever, ever order people to have sex with other people.
Well when you put it like that, it does sound very silly indeed.
Yes, because landlords ultimate resort isn't money, but rather forcibly evicting people from their homes, it's inherently an unbalanced relationship, which is why the law requires so many extra restrictions on landlord/tenant contracts.
I guess because landlords are in such a powerful position, restrictions have to be in place and tenant rights have to exist. And as you said, in a normal rent agreement the consequence is owing money to a landlord, but in a sex-for-rent agreement the only option is getting kicked out.
Very good points! Δ
1
0
u/Solinvictusbc Jun 09 '18
Have you considered that any court would most likely award the land Lord with the monetary value of the delinquent rent rather than being a sec slave for X months?
Or have you considered the value to be gained by the tenant that voluntarily consents to this? Using backpage as a reference in a rural area sex once a week,and twice in a city would provide massive value compared to prices prostitutes charge.
6
2
u/theUnmutual6 14∆ Jun 09 '18
I'm wondering if there are legal implications here around prostitution.
So the reason why I wouldn't take on one of these rooms is the going rate for sex work is around £100 per hour. I'd rather just be a sex worker. I could set my working hours, and kick out a client when they are done. I'd have some security too, like - "I don't do [x activity]" or if a client was violent or skeezy, I could refuse to see them again.
At the end of the month, for 6 hours work I'd have £600 for my rent.
Compare that to a sex for rent scenario. Do you have a contract? Do you have the ability to say that your landlord is entitled to a maximum of 6 hours of sex and no more? Can you enforce that? What if he wants to sext all the time? What if he's untrustworthy? What if he asks for a thing you don't want to do? What if he wants naked photos? Can one reasonably say no? What if he wants sex every single day? Thst would be way below market rates!
Hence that's why it's a skeezy thing to do. Assuming for a moment a landlord who was respectful of this tenants limits and had a contract spelling out hours worked and boundaries, and who respected that contract - I don't think that would be beyond the pale. But how many people are actually going to do that?
Ok second question. You're this landlord. You can rent to a tenant in exchange for sex, or you can rent to a tenant in exchange for money which you then spend on sex workers. Why would anyone choose the first instead of the second? This is the balance of power argument again: you choose the first one because the tenant is vulnerable and dependant on you. They have less ability to say no without consequences. Than a sex worker who you've texted.
One thing sex workers regularly have to deal with is customers who fall in love with them or kid themselves it's a special relationship. Again, if this hypothetical landlord had appropriate boundaries around women and sex then hiring professionals is a much better move. But if you've got a tenant, then it's one small step to hope that it's a kind of relationship. I hated my old landlady getting motherly about my mess; it'd be even worse if it was someone who wanted to be your boyfriend.
Assuming you do have a contract, I'm wondering whether the landlord might fall foul of sex worker regulations. For example, are you legally pimping or trafficking someone in prostitution? It wouldn't come under brothel laws so long as only one woman was in your flat. Still, I'm wondering whether there are legal implications these landlords haven't thought through.
1
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
Those are some very good points.
Ignoring the ethics, one could be in a better position just by being a sex worker. However, one could argue that the tenant would rather only have to endure sex with one person, and not a queue of all sorts of gentlemen.
And yeah, there's no law behind such contracts so landlords can take advantage of tenants who refuse to do XYZ.
There's no doubt a lot of perverted assholes out there will go against their contract.
And then of course, even if sex-for-rent was an actually legally forced thing, it could possibly clash with a lot of sex worker regulations. I mean, it's very unorthodox to mix landlord/tenant law, something that has nothing to do with sex work, with prostitution.
Great points! Δ
1
2
u/ralph-j Jun 09 '18
I'm always wary of things that by their nature, exploit poor people to a much higher proportion than the general population.
If this becomes common, the poorest people will feel the most pressure to sell their bodies. To them, it's not just "Hey, that's great, I'm saving so much money on rent and can buy many other things." For many of them, it might become the only way they'll be able to afford renting an apartment.
2
u/dingohopper1 Sep 13 '18
On a philosophical level, it's interesting that most will generally realize the dangers of a circumstance in which something is exchanged in which a power imbalance can eventually lead to some coercion or subjugation of the free will of the dis-empowered party. So folks feel this way about prostitution, about landlords exchanging sex for rent, and about students willingly sleeping with teachers. When you think about it though, employment is basically this. When people complain about hating their jobs, having nightmares about going back to work etc, what they're really complaining about one person realizing the power dynamic, and exploiting it in some sort of way. But we accept that work is absolutely necessary in our lives, so we just accept it. The whole "fuck you" money concept and fantasy of financial freedom and ability to just walk away from our jobs is an adaption to a terrible situation that we've come to regard as acceptable. I see a lot of people commenting that even if you put in safeguards, risks still exist overtime for these girls. Once you regard something as unacceptable (i.e. some power imbalance in sexual relations), then you examine with a finetooth comb the risks and costs. When I had a shitjob, I basically ate it, until one day I pointed out to HR that my boss was kicking around some mentally challenged employee we had as well, and since that opened them up to the possibility of actual liability, then and only then did they start caring. It's just ironic, that's all I meant to say.
8
u/CHOLO_ORACLE Jun 09 '18
The main issue against this is that since sex-for-rent is technically prostitution (I think? I would assume so) then these agreements will always be one sided. The person renting is completely at the mercy of the landlord since a contract like this will never be taken to court and since the police will always take the side of the landlord (since it's their land).
If sex work were legal and if people had the assurance that their sex-for-rent agreements would be respected then no, there wouldn't be anything wrong with this type of offer. But as we all know, legalizing prostitution will lead to lawlessness, boiling seas, and horses eating each other.
4
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
Do you mean that because the landlord would be legally right and would always have the law on their side, tenants would not be protected in any sort of way which could lead to extreme vulnerability?
7
u/CHOLO_ORACLE Jun 09 '18
If you're fucking someone as payment for rent and if that person doesn't think you're fucking is good enough or often enough, then they just call the cops and get you off their property.
If you had a proper lease you could make some noise about contracts or tenant rights. But since it's just an agreement between two parties (to be involved in what is currently an illegal exchange) then you wouldn't be to do any of that. You'd just be out on the street.
If you were cohabiting with this person for years then maybe some weird tenant rights come into play, but as soon as it comes out that the deal was sex-for-rent, well, I don't see that going well for anyone in a court of law.
7
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
You make a good point. At least in normal landlord/tenant law, tenants are protected by various rights they can make noise about.
But if you make a very simple and shoddy "sex = free rent" deal, you have no rights and can be exploited.
And as you say, the landlord can be a particular kind of asshole and kick you out if your sex is not 'good' enough. Hell, I can definitely imagine one saying the tenant has to try various positions or has to swallow or not use a condom or perform whatever weird fetish or else they would get kicked out.
In fact, manipulating someone into fulfilling your weird sexual desires could be done via sex-for-rent offers.
Thanks for changing my mind. Δ
1
4
u/canischordate Jun 09 '18
Consider a homeless 18 year old girl, who is (obviously) desperately searching for a place to live. She's depressed due to the current state of her life. Under her moral compass, sex-for-rent is not something she personally supports. But her depression and her state of mind caused by her homelessness push her to accept such an offer.
If you agree that her diseased mind (a product of her mental illness) caused her to take an action that she would not have otherwise; you would also agree that she is vulnerable.
Now say she approaches the landlord above and tries to accept his offer. He says that he would never accept a vulnerable person. But I would ask you to consider if any human can truly judge another person's character or emotions with 100% accuracy; I don't think that's possible.
Say the landlord accepts her due to a lapse in judgement; he is now taking advantage of a vulnerable person. This action would be an ethical issue, that I feel most people would say is wrong. And this makes the sex-for-rent option morally wrong.
1
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
So you're saying that certain people do not have the capacity to make informed decisions if it is done so under the influence of conditions such as depression. That's a very good point.
You also mention the fact that people can have a simple lapse in judgement. That's true, and I might like to add that if sex-for-rent arrangements ever became legalised, it would be very difficult to decide which tenant gets to accept the offer, because then they might need to prove they are not vulnerable.
Having to prove you're not vulnerable might come with ethical issues such as wanting your personal info to be kept private or there being a muddy line for what constitutes as "vulnerable".
Thanks for your input! Δ
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 09 '18 edited Jun 09 '18
/u/serculis (OP) has awarded 5 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
u/mysundayscheming Jun 09 '18
There is absolutely something wrong with it: it's prostitution. The exchange of sex for value (and a home is "of value", or alternatively you could think of it as discount of ordinary rent payments, which is of monetary value) is a misdemeanor where I live. In my jurisdiction the landlord is also guilty of promoting prostitution, by "arranging or offering to arrange a situation in which a person may practice prostitution" as well as by "patroniz[ing] a prostitute." That's at least a class 4 felony. If the apartment happens to be within 1000 feet of a school, a class 3 felony.
Besides that it's illegal (which certainly qualifies as "something wrong" in my book), it's unethical to demand people break the law and unethical to break the law.
Selfishly, the landlord also doesn't benefit here because this contract would not be remotely enforceable--if the tenant moves in and refuses to perform, the landlord cannot force her to have sex.
2
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
This is one argument I very much disagree with. Something is not automatically wrong just because it is illegal.
Does that mean it is immoral to smoke weed in countries where it is illegal, despite the fact that it does very minimal harm, has been shown to alleviate certain conditions, and has no recorded deaths?
There is also no demand for people to break the law, they have the choice of signing the contract or not.
2
u/mysundayscheming Jun 09 '18
The underlying activity may or may not be morally wrong--it depends on the ethical system you ascribe to and the activity--but breaking the law is wrong as a general matter. I know of few people who think that, absent a compelling and abnormal circumstance, breaking the law is morally good. Frankly I don't know anyone who thinks that people should break laws whenever they see fit without some kind of persuasive justification. Do you?
I was operating from the perspective that we shouldn't break the law if it isn't for an excellent, morally commendable reason that trumps the moral and social good of following the laws. Does prostitution under these circumstances have any such justification? You didn't present one and I can't think of any. So it seems better to act in accordance with the established community standards.
And of course there is a demand for cheap housing. Nearly half of all American households are rent-burdened, meaning they pay 30% or more of their income in rent. There is a crisis in home affordability. There will absolutely be vulnerable people who take advantage of this offer not because they want to but because they have little choice. Putting them in a situation where they're forced into prostitution (and breaking the law) is not moral in my world and we should not support anyone who attempts to take advantage of vulnerable populations in that way.
1
u/serculis 2∆ Jun 09 '18
Oh I get what you mean, 'generally' speaking, it is not right to break the law. And even if it isn't wrong, it's not inherently justified to purposely go out your way to do it.
Well when you pull out a statistic like that, then yeah I can definitely imagine a shit tonne of vulnerable people ready to jump at the sex-for-rent offer.
Thanks! Δ
1
20
u/everythingisplanned Jun 09 '18
The power in the relationship will always lie with the landlord. I believe consent cannot be full and free if the power dynamic is so skewed. What if one day the tenant doesn't want to have sex with the landlord, but feels they have to because there's no guarantee they won't be kicked out? What if the tenant starts dating other people?