Craigslist: screw your way to better housing
Finally, something both the Left and Right can bunch their panties over:
MIAMI – Want ads are getting new meaning in the Internet Age, with men posting advertisements for female roommates who can live virtually free, as long they're willing to have sex with them.One recent posting in the Florida area on the popular Craigslist.com states: "Upscale executive seeks beautiful female 18-24 to live in his luxury condo in Coral Gables for $1/month in exchange for some light duties. Help take care of dog, cook occasionally. Sex 2x/week. Serious inquires only. Please email a picture for consideration."
Now, the only thing novel about this arrangement is that it's being advertised on the Internet...leading to the usual calls for Net censorship....and the usual whines about "enticing young girls who may be strapped for cash" (Miami-Dade Police Dept.) and "offensive and disturbing" (Women's Movement Now).
Now, I would not think much of a woman who accepted such a relationship. A whore is a whore, even if she limits her client base and accepts payment in-kind. But these people don't need protecting from evil men. They enter into these relationships with open eyes. Women (and other humans) ALWAYS have an option to act according to principle, to share run-down slum housing. And if they have the additional option to live in luxury for sex twice a week, well, options are good, are they not?
I don't like these men's behavior, but I absolutely support their right to do what they are doing.
Comments
Posted by: Wendy
Posted on: March 20, 2006 09:27 AM
Well, the potential for problems is high. Not with the ad itself -- but with the reality of how human beings conduct themselves in such circumstances. If all were as advertised, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.
Do these "light duties" prevent her from working if she wishes? How light are they really? What's the health care plan? What if she gets pregnant? Can she end the arrangement if she gets tired of it? As far as I can tell, this is a bad deal for any woman stupid enough to think that her primary value is as a sex object... and for any man stupid enough to think you can peacefully co-exist with a woman on such terms.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: March 20, 2006 09:44 AM
I agree that it's problematic, for both parties. So, for that matter, is working for a day-labor agency. As you point out, both parties deserve each other. So why not use the Net to facilitate their action?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward
Posted on: March 20, 2006 10:04 AM
And the difference between this and a marriage of convenience is...?
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: March 20, 2006 10:43 AM
Uh, better contractual terms? Legitimacy of the children?
That had crossed my mind. But it's my first anniversary today, and marriage is an institution I'm rather sentimental about (even though previously I have not done well with it.) Yes, it's possible for marriage to degenerate into a contract for prostitution (less likely; sex seems to be the first thing to go) or other services. And a Dade Rental could surprise the participants when they fall in love with each other.
Posted by: Lee
Posted on: August 6, 2008 04:34 PM
Wouldn't that be the same as paying for sex? At least in principle it is because he's taking money off of the "rent" to pay her. That's disturbing. I wonder if someone took him up on his offer.