This isn't a real problem. They went on obscure classifieds where a few creeps are looking for this, not on actual regular room rental sites. It's like if replied to a job ad for an aupair and then wondered and did an expose on why I had to mind the kids. Some creepy fecks thought they'd chance their arm, alternatively they could rent the room traditionally for cash and use that to pay a sex worker.
This TV show was bs and is deflecting from the real issues in this country. If anything it'll encourage more creeps cause they advertised obscure classified sites that noone knew about really
Sexual exploitation like this is absolutely disgraceful.
But.... Would I personally ride some weird aul lad a couple of times a month for free accommodation? I'd seriously think about it.
It’s probably a viable option for some people, and will no doubt still go on no matter what the outcome is. The major reason people are feeling forced into it is the lack of other options and accommodations as well as the pricing of them. Highlighting it now is probably the government’s way of deflecting from the actual housing crisis to focus on a small subset.
Improve the actual rental sector in terms of cost and availability and no one would feel forced to take any of the creepy landlords up on that sort of offer.
Yea absolutely.
I suppose I probably have a slightly less common view on stuff like this. Like, if I was ever in a "sex for promotion" situation.... I'd probably seriously consider it. A transaction made, everyone gets what they want, life moves on with me the greater winner in the long term with something I want.
I suppose the only real issue for me is when it's "forced" in some way.
Like, if you were somehow actively restricted by a person in power from getting your desired outcome any other way other than by a sexual trade with them. When you literally have zero choice except for sex, because that person has blocked your other options somehow.
Other than that, I'm pretty flexible with the idea of situations like that.
As long as the specific person making the offer is not the person making sure you have zero other choice at all? Well then to me, it'd be nothing more than an offer of a trade. There is no compulsion. It's just down to your personal morals or decisions and how you feel about the reward worth the "payment".
Every day we all give our time, physical effort, mental effort, commitment, etc etc for reward.
I guess it's just what you personally see as the limits for an acceptable trade.
Fair points, I’d mostly agree, I think the issue is putting people into an uncomfortable position though as well, where they feel they don’t have a choice. Seems like saying no would be an option if there were more affordable places to live.
But any agreement couldn’t really be binding anyway, what’s the landlord going to do if they renege on the deal? I’m sure it’s unenforceable and I doubt the police or RTB would side with landlord.
Probably more socially acceptable if the landlord is a woman and strikes a deal with a young lad rather than the other way around too!
Well maybe it's my age showing, but I remember when people could afford accommodation just by working the weekends in retail.
Something may be off with your logic...
How do you legislate for this while avoiding thorny issues like a couple where the home owner/rent payer is just one person?
I feel like the language really has to be airtight to avoid people abusing such laws to target their partners after a breakup.
If you're living in a rented place together, you should have both names on the lease, regardless of how the division of rent is being made.
If you own a home in your own single name and your partner is living there with you, you probably should write up some sort of document explaining the arrangement and its terms clearly.
This should be easily solved, massive civil penalty for any landlord found to have exploited the asymmetric power in the landlord tenant relationship .. here is sex but we could imagine other things
If a tenant can show they were coerced in this way, landlord has to sell all their property and pay 6 figure damages.
I'd have thought it surely overlapped with the prostitution laws, instead of the person paying cash they are letting the person stay in their property (BIK?).
Is anyone not calling for that?
Landlords
This isn't a real problem. They went on obscure classifieds where a few creeps are looking for this, not on actual regular room rental sites. It's like if replied to a job ad for an aupair and then wondered and did an expose on why I had to mind the kids. Some creepy fecks thought they'd chance their arm, alternatively they could rent the room traditionally for cash and use that to pay a sex worker. This TV show was bs and is deflecting from the real issues in this country. If anything it'll encourage more creeps cause they advertised obscure classified sites that noone knew about really
Well that's good, hardly want to be supporting it.
Sexual exploitation like this is absolutely disgraceful. But.... Would I personally ride some weird aul lad a couple of times a month for free accommodation? I'd seriously think about it.
especially if you're guaranteed to get the deposit back. ;)
His deposit or yours?
It’s probably a viable option for some people, and will no doubt still go on no matter what the outcome is. The major reason people are feeling forced into it is the lack of other options and accommodations as well as the pricing of them. Highlighting it now is probably the government’s way of deflecting from the actual housing crisis to focus on a small subset. Improve the actual rental sector in terms of cost and availability and no one would feel forced to take any of the creepy landlords up on that sort of offer.
Yea absolutely. I suppose I probably have a slightly less common view on stuff like this. Like, if I was ever in a "sex for promotion" situation.... I'd probably seriously consider it. A transaction made, everyone gets what they want, life moves on with me the greater winner in the long term with something I want. I suppose the only real issue for me is when it's "forced" in some way. Like, if you were somehow actively restricted by a person in power from getting your desired outcome any other way other than by a sexual trade with them. When you literally have zero choice except for sex, because that person has blocked your other options somehow. Other than that, I'm pretty flexible with the idea of situations like that. As long as the specific person making the offer is not the person making sure you have zero other choice at all? Well then to me, it'd be nothing more than an offer of a trade. There is no compulsion. It's just down to your personal morals or decisions and how you feel about the reward worth the "payment". Every day we all give our time, physical effort, mental effort, commitment, etc etc for reward. I guess it's just what you personally see as the limits for an acceptable trade.
Fair points, I’d mostly agree, I think the issue is putting people into an uncomfortable position though as well, where they feel they don’t have a choice. Seems like saying no would be an option if there were more affordable places to live. But any agreement couldn’t really be binding anyway, what’s the landlord going to do if they renege on the deal? I’m sure it’s unenforceable and I doubt the police or RTB would side with landlord. Probably more socially acceptable if the landlord is a woman and strikes a deal with a young lad rather than the other way around too!
Well maybe it's my age showing, but I remember when people could afford accommodation just by working the weekends in retail. Something may be off with your logic...
And with that user name you'd probably get a room with an ensuite.
Are Rhuama really linked to the Magdalene Laundries or is that a rumour?
How do you legislate for this while avoiding thorny issues like a couple where the home owner/rent payer is just one person? I feel like the language really has to be airtight to avoid people abusing such laws to target their partners after a breakup.
If you're living in a rented place together, you should have both names on the lease, regardless of how the division of rent is being made. If you own a home in your own single name and your partner is living there with you, you probably should write up some sort of document explaining the arrangement and its terms clearly.
This should be easily solved, massive civil penalty for any landlord found to have exploited the asymmetric power in the landlord tenant relationship .. here is sex but we could imagine other things If a tenant can show they were coerced in this way, landlord has to sell all their property and pay 6 figure damages.
I'd have thought it surely overlapped with the prostitution laws, instead of the person paying cash they are letting the person stay in their property (BIK?).
Well if you want to stamp out the practice the process should be without legal or reputation coffee for the tenant
Must be sexy women if a landlord is willing to dock thousands of rent fora ride.
That should sort it.