Sex for free rent: Why is this so wrong between consenting adults?

The thing is they and others have an image in their head and I don't think they get that really they don't like the mechanics of how it's working, rather than the actual agreement itself.

Most people would agree that a woman should be allowed to sell her body if she wants as long as she is in control of the situation and it has been entirely her choice.

Most people are also disturbed by the idea of a young vulnerable girl having no option and being coerced into this situation.

What some people aren't realising is that they're actually pro the idea, but they're against how it is currently working because the vulnerable girl is exposed. So instead of thinking it through they're just saying let's ban it altogether. When really, for example, allowing the setup to happen on escort websites where escort drive the deal might be an option that protects the young vulnerable girl who doesn't even want to think about it, while maybe giving better options to escorts and women who are happy to live life that way.

The first question that has to be answered is whether a person is completely against prostitution, or whether they're just against the mechanics of how this is currently working. If certain rules were in place around it, would it suddenly not be so bad?

Do you seriously believe an economically disadvantaged woman is delighted to have sex with a man she's not attracted to in order to put a roof over her head?

Like seriously?

This. I only came upon this thread by mistakenly clicking on the "trending" column. I can't claim to have read this entire thread, only a few posts. Shocked though I was at the number of thanks on some posts.

Do we really want to go back to the era when the paedophile arch bishop McQuaid and his coward second in line de Valera ruled this land?

For centuries I guess it was the cornerstone of many marriages and probably does still play a role in many relationships. But as a blatant transaction with a major power balance the problem with it is clear

Factor in its concerning landlord it was never going to go well.

Parking up the seedy side of this and the morality discussion, as a landlord you would want to be really stupid to enter into this arrangement.

I've rented different properties since 2005 and have never had a single issue with tenants for two main reasons; the contract is really clear from the start and there is mutual respect on both sides.

If I was to enter this type of arrangement I would be hyper exposed to sexual abuse/rape charge if not in the criminal courts, certainly in the civil courts. The phone records alone would be enough to get a case going irrespective of the truth.

Even if you didn't lose a potential case you would still be down €10k minimum and if it got going it could be remortgage time.

It could get very expensive very quickly, aside from the reputational damage.

I've always rented to couples and have always felt the power imbalance with renting to a single lady as a potential source of trouble and have avoided it.

Aside from all that if you can tidy yourself and string a sentence together is it that hard to get a ride

I'm sure she doesn't feel a particular beneficial glow of wellbeing when some sweaty opportunist grunts away on top of her, delighted with himself he found a woman desperate enough for a roof that she agreed to have her desperation exploited.

As for ladies of the night, they have the right to refuse services and provide services to whoever they want, the money is what keeps the roof over their heads, not the individual customer. The rent/sex arrangement doesn't give the tenant a right of refusal if the landlord considers the initial agreement to be lasting and binding then the tenant never gets to say not tonight, and one of their fundamental requirements for life is withdrawn if they do; shelter.

It's coercion, and coercion is rape.

Given that the person likely looking for the rent free option is a woman - and the landlord is likely a man. The woman would have to be a type of person with a very strong constitution. Viewing it as her taking advantage of the man's primal weakness, rather than her being subservient to the man.

But given the shady nature of it and the fact that the Landlord could throw the woman out if he does not get 'satisfaction' it could break a woman mentally. And the woman could be damaged for life as she is basically a 'toy' in the spare room for the landlord until he tires of her. Imagine what the atmosphere would be like in the house?

For example would a woman feel comfortable eating her breakfast near the landlord while he ogles her up and down?

For it to work the woman would need to have extreme confidence in herself, and mental fortitude. Otherwise she would be only slightly better than a sex slave.

On the landlord, (assuming it is a he) must feel empty deep down knowing that the woman is only interested in him financially - and it could be argued he is cheapening himself as a person.

--

On the other hand years ago in Ireland there were plenty of marriages of connivance (match making) where the much older man took care of the woman financially, while she did her duty. The 'rent free' situation seems like the 21st century new temporary take on this.

What elsewhere? Where is the elsewhere? Constantly hearing how Ireland is full. This shoves power to the landlords who can squeeze vulnerable people for sexual favors they wouldn’t otherwise in a million years. In perpetuity this just encourages sexual predators to be realtors.

"On the other hand years ago in Ireland there were plenty of marriages of connivance (match making) where the much older man took care of the woman financially, while she did her duty. The 'rent free' situation seems like the 21st century new temporary take on this."

Indeed, it's as old as the hills. Just dressed up in different ways. I came across a story down west where a particular farm became well known in the 19th century for taking in women in distress. The story went that the old lad there was having his way with them all. It was polygamy, although marriage wasn't involved.

Then there's the 'gold diggers'. Where do they fit, in all of this? Humans have all sorts of odd arrangements. As long as coercion is not involved, live & let live.

Conditions of renting aren't a threat. a good use of over emotive language

by your logic , any rent and or any house rules would be a threat to not be allowed stay there either.

and that's fine , landlords property . they should be able to set what standard they want.

shitty terms or no.

if you don't like the terms then find another spot.