Sex for Rent

I see Jeremy Kyle has been talking to landlords and tenants who are using sex as a currency for rent payments.

He opens the show with "I talked to one woman who is trapped in such an arrangement."

Absolute bollocks, Jeremy! Unless she' s being held prisoner (literally!), she has the same option as any other tenant - she either pays her rent or she gets out. If the landlord offers to accept sex in lieu of money, that's an offer she can either accept or refuse.

Since time immemorial, sex has been used as currency by both men and women.

The fact that we're suddenly getting so terribly offended about it is just a sign of the times: the PC Brigade has all our necks under the jackboot.

Bastards!

How much would you charge per hour, Rood Eye?

Quote: beaky @ 5th March 2019, 9:16 PM

How much would you charge per hour, Rood Eye?

View original

For some, my charges would be very competitive.

For others, there wouldn't be enough money in the world.

There are factors to consider like sexual health, infidelity and the tenants children growing up around that so I don't think landlords should be able to accept sex as the rent. It might suit the landlord in fact I'm sure it would suit the landlord but it's degrading and the tenancy agreement would never have that specified so the landlord would be breaking his own tenancy agreement which would probably invalidate his business insurance. It's male exploiting female because I'm sure the male landlord wouldn't offer sex in lieu of rent arrears to a sweaty John Prescott lookalike. Next it will be loan sharks and drug dealers. The daytime adverts of the future will be "In debt? F**k your way out of it with our guaranteed six month plan and if you can't afford the admin fee I'm sure we can sort something out". Call NOW!!!

Quote: Definitely Tarby @ 5th March 2019, 10:26 PM

I'm sure the male landlord wouldn't offer sex in lieu of rent arrears to a sweaty John Prescott lookalike.

View original

I agree, and the John Prescott lookalike would therefore find himself out on the street - homeless and destitute.

The attractive female tenant, in stark contrast, has the option of avoiding that fate by having sex with the landlord.

If the female tenant is perfectly happy to enter into such an arrangement, I say good luck to both her and the landlord. If, on the other hand, she is distressed by the arrangement and enters into it only because it is just about preferable to being out on the street, homeless and destitute, she has my genuine sympathy and the landlord has my genuine condemnation.

The point, however, is that she has the choice whereas the John Prescott lookalike has no choice.

If Jeremy Kyle was really interested in exposing the plights of people who are having a seriously hard time keeping a roof over their heads, shouldn't he be out there interviewing all the homeless and destitute John Prescott lookalikes rather than interviewing attractive young women in comfortable accommodation who'll titillate both him and his TV viewers with stories of their sexual exploitation?

Quote: Rood Eye @ 5th March 2019, 10:45 PM

The attractive female tenant, in stark contrast, has the option of avoiding that fate by having sex with the landlord.

View original

OK you got me

You can't be serious that you think that would be a good idea. The landlord has to maintain a professional relationship with the tenant and using sex to get out of debt is not the answer. It would be a nightmare when filling out the self assessment forms. How do you tell the tax man six months rent was liquidated.

Quote: Definitely Tarby @ 5th March 2019, 11:33 PM

You can't be serious that you think that would be a good idea.

View original

It's a brilliant idea - if both parties are genuinely happy with the arrangement.

At the upper end of the economic scale, a great many beautiful women are providing sexual services 24/7 in exchange for money, designer clothes, luxury accommodation and executive motorcars. These women are called WAGs.

At the lower end of the economic scale, a great many reasonably attractive women are providing sexual services once or twice a week in exchange for free accommodation in a modest flat or house. In a less-enlightened age, these women were called slags: in the 21st-century, they are called helpless victims of unscrupulous property owners.

It's a funny old world.

I had thought it might be a tough choice. Suck off Jeremy Kyle in exchange for him paying for my apartment. But then I googled his name. I watched a couple of his clips on YouTube. He's like a dipshit Brit version of Jerry Springer (but without acknowledging that he's shamelessly exploiting the most wretched dumbasses of society via tawdry sleaze). No way would I suck him off for the South Kensington apartment. Why do you people watch this shit?

I thought this might be the name of a new Sitcom alas no

*Considers starting an all in one consolidated Jeremy Kyle show thread that I don't have to click on

Rood if it was based on a voluntary and mutual arrangement then its fine by me as I don't care what people do as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses.
But as you pointed out there is a sinister side to this revolving around poverty and desperation and while a person can be held 'Prisoner' there are no chains needed just a few kids who need a roof over their head and a mother desperate to provide it.
On my estate people are being evicted because they can't afford the Bedroom Tax and thats by a Labour Council (To their shame)
Make no mistake the poor are open to all sorts of abuse and this is one form of it and there are currently more 'Slaves; in this country than at the height of the slave trade.
The B&B's of most seaside towns are being used to 'Store' the homeless so the the 'Sad the mad and the bad' are housed alongside the desperate and that is a breeding ground for abusers of all ilks.
Its not that nice out there if you look closely.
Meanwhile the likes of Kyle and the other Poverty Porn peddlers knock me sick as the people we see are often 'Beyond Feckless' and I wouldn't be surprised to find that their researches are working off lists of people supplied by a bent member of the Social Services.

Life, for many people, is indeed a complete and utter bitch.

I sincerely wish it were different - but it isn't.

The women, in many cases, are choosing the lesser of two evils.

It may not be much of a choice but at least it's a choice.

And it's a choice that a man in her position wouldn't be offered.

Rood I have read and enjoyed your posts and I can't believe you can say that, I hope its flippancy.
You can change things and the first step is for people to stand up and say that we won't tolerate it.
Just because some bastard has a room to let it doesn't mean they can force people (It can affect both sexes) into doing their bidding out desperation.
When a roof over a kids head is the lesser of two evils something is radically wrong with the society its happening in.
I'd like to leave it at that please as I hate looking like a 'Nark' and I am in no way PC but 'Exploitation' is my pet hate so I had to speak out as thats more about me than anything .

What's wrong with being a John Prescott lookalike? Fine figure of a man.

Beaky in fairness his figure went once he git that second Jag .

I should make it clear that I absolutely deplore a world in which anybody is obliged to provide sexual services with a gun (actual or metaphorical) to his or her head.

I would, on the other hand, absolutely love a world in which everybody enjoyed comfortable and affordable accommodation.

In cases where the woman's provision of sexual services is, to her, the lesser of two dreadful evils, the landlords in question are, at least from a moral perspective, to be condemned unreservedly for such exploitation.

Having said that, I have to ask myself from a practical perspective what a landlord is supposed to do if a tenant cannot pay her rent. Should he let her remain in the property rent-free, potentially forevermore, or should he commence proceedings for eviction?

Historically, those have been his only two options but nowadays there is an increasingly popular third option: it's arguably a disgraceful and deplorable option but it is nevertheless an option.

As I think I've said before, I don't condone such arrangements unless both parties are genuinely happy with them.