I'm a pervert

[westwoody]

This sort of thing always works out great in porn, right? So it must work in the real world too, since porn is so realistic.

 

[kalel]

it's not what you do it's what they can prove. ever hear of home field advantage in the playoffs? point being that it makes a difference if the boinking takes place in her place or yours. if it's yours it's as simple as you saying she was late on the rent and she came on to you to keep you from getting pissed and throwing her out. that way you don't even have to excuse her from the rent. also remember most people don't want to be dragged through a legal system as sexual predators even if they don't get convicted but the onus is on her to prove your guilt, not on you to prove your innocence. i still don't see the difference in exchanging sex for rent versus exchanging sex for dinner/a movie/ and some drinks but hey, that's the world we live in.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

So I have a tenant in a rental property of mine and her Nov 1st rent cheque bounced. Now this chick is smokin' hot. (I'm a perv, and I only rent this place out to hot chicks, lol) So being the perv that I am, I want to fuck her a few times in lieu of getting paid. How do you suppose I go about bringing this proposal up without being kicked in the groin or getting sued for sexual harassment?

Not a good idea Joe. You're better of going to an SP. My rule of thumb:

Keep your pecker out of the payroll.

 

[kalel]

Truly fucking amazing. Its not about morals, is it? Its about whether you can get away with it or not.

I hope you aren't a person in any sort of a position of trust.

are you serious??? why is it right for our governments to take advantage of somebody's misfortunes and not right when a landlord wants to get some nooky.

as for me bein in a position of trust - i am. people trust my advice to obtain specific results.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

thread killer

AM, how about they incorporate you into the sentencing somehow.."you are hereby sentenced to either 10 yrs in jail or a mandatory session with Anita's massage, your decision is required in 24 hours"

Judge - I'll take the jail time!! LOL

BTW - here's my picture of the day:

http://www.wimp.com/royue/

 

[Sonny]

it's not what you do it's what they can prove.

It is always about what you do, but I doubt if you understand this.

 

[Juggy]

Manipulated how. She bounced the damn cheque. She put herself in this position. Now depending how he chooses to proceed with this matter, he could have a great thing here. We should encourage it, but ask that he proceeds cautiously. Go for it buddy!!!

 

[Juggy]

"How"?!?! Are you guys fucking serious?

There is an implicit threat here you stupid fuck.

She bounced a cheque...she didn't murder anyone. Big fucking deal. I'd bet half the people on the board here have bounced a cheque at some point in their lives.

When you rent a place part of the risk a landlord takes is that they might not be able to collect rent. Both parties know what they are getting into when they get in a contract.

If landlord buddy here really doesn't like the cheque being bounced, he can sue her. He can give her an eviction notice. He can allow her to pay late. He has lots of actions of recourse.

To procure is illegal for a reason. A pimp justifies his actions by arguing that he is simply just giving the woman an opportunity to survive, to earn a living.

What they don't communicate, but which everyone knows, is that the reason she is likely hooking for him is because she owes him a debt. Pimps prey on the runaways in the same manner. They take them in, give them a place to sleep, sometimes hook them on drugs, and then the girl is indebted.

Its the same fucking thing. The girl is now indebted to this guy. And the only out you're going to give her is to have her suck your cock...or else what???

If she says "no", then you throw her out???


"Procuring" comes with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. That should give you an idea of the immorality of what you are doing when you prey on the vulnerable.

That is what you're doing. You're a predator.

The cops should not be focusing on busting the girls or the guys who are offered a service and accept it.

What they should be doing is coming after the sick fuck predators like you guys. But why we even waste our breath trying to bash this idea of morality into your moronic skulls is beyond me.

However, if you ever put my daughter into a place where she had to choose to suck your cock or be evicted from her home - I wouldn't be trying to bash your skull in with morality...I'd find an object that's a little more blunt I would think.

I offered my opinion without making a personal attack towards you or your daughter. I'd appreciate it if you would stop calling the people on this site, me included, names and obscenities, just cause we disagree with your opinion. I wouldn't want you to get banned, simply cause when your daughter joins this site, I want to rub your face in it while I bang her senseless for a green and a blue.

 

[Juggy]

Your opinion is not a personal attack on my daughter, but is on someone elses.

Your opinion supports a criminal act. This act is an offence of the criminal code because what you are advocating is the predation of a vulnerable person.

If my daughter happened to join this site and decides to partake in this profession, you hope to dear god that she is doing it because she is choosing so.

However, if she is being coerced into this line of work by criminals with a similar sense of consciousness as you, so that sick fucks like you can "bang her senseless" for thirty bucks and then you feel pride so that you can "rub it in my face", then I can't help but wish only the worst to people like you.

You are the reason why this world is going to the shitter.

You make it sound so innocent when you say that you only offered "an opinion".

Saying you're an idiot isn't a strong enough word.

My opinion clearly states that he make a choice. How he goes about it is a suggestion. My suggestion is that he carefully pursues this matter, and sets goals and limits to his perversion.

And no, I believe it was one green one blue, so 25 bucks, not thirty.

 

[Sonny]

Manipulated how. She bounced the damn cheque. She put herself in this position. Now depending how he chooses to proceed with this matter, he could have a great thing here. We should encourage it, but ask that he proceeds cautiously. Go for it buddy!!!

I guess she deliberately bounced the cheque, eh? Just so she could put herself in the position of being coerced and manipulated by a self-admitted pervert who clearly has no respect for women, and probably no one else, not to mention himself, since he self-indulges in perversion. So you advocate the encouragement of another person's mental deficiency? Ah yes, of course, cautiously, for forbid that one be caught in one's lack of humanity. Botttom of the barrel, and definitely puerile.

 

[Juggy]

Do you advocate the "choice" to have sex with children...so long as he "carefully pursues this matter, and sets goals and limits to his perversion"?

So long as he can get away with it, I guess?

Hey, your talking to a 36 year old guy who has a 17 year old gf, what do you think?

 

[Juggy]

I guess she deliberately bounced the cheque, eh? Just so she could put herself in the position of being coerced and manipulated by a self-admitted pervert who clearly has no respect for women, and probably no one else, not to mention himself, since he self-indulges in perversion. So you advocate the encouragement of another person's mental deficiency? Ah yes, of course, cautiously, for forbid that one be caught in one's lack of humanity. Botttom of the barrel, and definitely puerile.

Weird we haven't heard from the original poster yet? Likely sitting back and enjoying your hypocritical judgements on this matter. You do SP's but you don't like the fact that women sometimes want to be SP's. Perhaps she did bounce it on purpose. I'm openminded enough to believe that. The best part of this discussion is that were debating facts that will likely never be proven, hell, the original poster might be an unemployed wanna be landlord with an active imagination. Bottom line, he should go for it, but only if she provokes the subject. If not, he should go back to looking at her undress on the hidden cameras in her bedroom and shower.

 

[JustAGuy]

Not that I really needed a reminder that this world is full of halfwits, but reading some of the replies in this thread definitely served to remind me of that fact.

To summarize:
A self-professed "pervert" has a rental property he only rents to hot chicks.

One of them bounces a rent cheque and his first impulse is not to inquire why the cheque bounced but to see if she wants to fuck him in order to cover it.

That idea gets a big thumbs up from a few board members, one of whom even suggests she probably bounced the cheque on purpose just so she could be put in a position where she can be coerced/propositioned by her landlord.

What planet do you people live on? Clearly one that is devoid of any ethical framework beyond "what can I get away with?".

I presume this wouldn't be an issue if the tenant wasn't a particularly attractive looking woman but then mustangjoe wouldn't have rented the place to her if that was the case, would he?

Give your head a shake, people. Try, for just once in your life, to think of someone other than yourself. Here's a word you're likely unfamiliar with: empathy. Look it up in the dictionary.

 

[littlejimbigher]

If not, he should go back to looking at her undress on the hidden cameras in her bedroom and shower.

Definitly reminds me of an old porno I've seen.

 

[nube]

Hey some great posts here!! Helps restore some faith in humanity. I am with imrochard on this one. The rest of you think about it for a minute...where is the thrill of forcing the renter to have sex with you? Is it because you probably could'nt even get her to date you let alone score??? How do you feel after?? What happens the next time you see her? What does she really think of you then? Just remember that the little bit of gratification now could haunt you forever.
Let the big head think this one thru....

 

[souljacker]

Firstly, as a landlord myself I personally don't think he should go there but to suggest his merely asking the question is in someway a type of cohersion seems a little far fetched to me.

The law disagrees with you. So do I.

For starters the way I look at she has several options in terms of how to respond. One is she can be outraged and act accordingly. Secondly she can decide to pay the damn rent, which was her obligation to begin with, and thirdly she can simply move out. Lastly she can accept the offer.

Apparently if she did decide to exercise the last option there's cohersion and all kinds of implications to this. Yet when we go a visit an SP and pay them for sex how exactly is that any different. The only difference is this is a barter situation whereby actual money isn't being exchanged.

No, that's definitely not the only difference. It's a little matter called free will. With an SP, generally you're just another customer to her, and if she doesn't want to have sex with you she doesn't feel like she has to anyway (there are exceptions to this, of course, such as girls who are coerced by pimps, but AFAIK that's not the norm here in Vancouver).

A situation in which a person in a position of some sort of power or authority (and yes, a landlord has power over a tennant - there are all sorts of ways that a landlord can make a tennant's life miserable) makes a suggestion like this is entirely different. The person being propositioned may reasonably believe that if she refuses, the authority/power figure will retalliate in some way. People who are afraid that they may get kicked out of their homes if they don't say yes are going to have a difficult time exercising free will in that decision, aren't they? It really doesn't matter if the landlord really would evict them, or otherwise cause problems for them, what matters is if the tennant thinks that this will happen. Because of that, people in a position of power, trust, or authority are held to a higher standard when it comes to coersion. And rightly so.

 

[JustAGuy]

For starters the way I look at she has several options in terms of how to respond. One is she can be outraged and act accordingly. Secondly she can decide to pay the damn rent, which was her obligation to begin with, and thirdly she can simply move out. Lastly she can accept the offer.

Apparently if she did decide to exercise the last option there's cohersion and all kinds of implications to this. Yet when we go a visit an SP and pay them for sex how exactly is that any different? Or what about those who respond to ads about an SP needing to pay her rent, how is that any different?

The only difference is this is a barter situation whereby actual money isn't being exchanged.

If you're unable to differentiate between seeing an SP and paying her to have sex with you and being a landlord who tries to get it on with a civilian (as in NOT an SP) tenant because she bounced a rent cheque, you have quite the value system, cl. I'm certainly glad it isn't mine.

 

[Sweetiepie]

it's not what you do it's what they can prove. .

Why not just rape her then? Just set it up in such a way that nobody can prove anything. That way you get your fun AND the rent.

 

[nube]

You guys are dillusional, you really are. So it's okay to go see some SP trying to feed her kids who wouldn't touch you with a 10 foot pole if money wasn't involved and yet somehow it's immoral to engage in the same activity with a girl who consents to do so but just happens to be a tenant. The key word being consents.

Wow that's quite the moral high ground you're taking..sounds like I'm practically discussing this with the Pope himself.

Actually you are dillusional. If the tenent WAS in the trade then you have a barter potential. The key word is NOT consenting, he is suggesting how she should pay him - he'd be better off OFFERING to PAY HER for sex and if he doesn't get slapped he is well on is way to getting rent MONEY - which is the key here.

 

[Sonny]

Weird we haven't heard from the original poster yet? Likely sitting back and enjoying your hypocritical judgements on this matter. You do SP's but you don't like the fact that women sometimes want to be SP's.

By your side-steps, it appears you do not follow the logic of this thread. MustangJoe's original post is about the attempt to procure a sexual favour through intimidation, plain and simple, and his reference to himself as a pervert is an acknowledgement of that. It is not about speculation that all women are closet SPs.

Yes, there are women who freely choose to be SPs; several of whom I know socially (so obviously their work is not an issue with me). But this thread is not about that, is it.

Why have we not heard from the original poster? Hopefully, it is because he is too embarrassed to write anything further.