This Space for Rent

...The Internet has once again allowed for freedom of choice, and a few people find that downright offensive.

...The community classifieds Website Craigslist has come under fire for allowing postings of renters who want roommates with a catch. In some instances, men are offering to share their rooms with women in exchange for sex. One man, as an example, offers his Coral Gables condominium for rent at a rate of $1 per month, provided that the female housemate is willing to take care of the dog, cook, and put out at least twice a week. The Miami-Dade police call it prostitution; the renters call it bartering.

...In other instances, some renters want to live with people who are similar to them, making several so-called civil rights attorneys livid. One renter, as an example, was hoping to live with a Christian female. The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights calls that “discrimination.” Apparently it’s being mean to atheists, agnostics, and men.

Room & Headboard

...Law enforcement agents are quick to call the rooms-for-sex idea a form of prostitution. The rooms would otherwise be paid for with money, they argue, but instead are substituted with sexual favors. Therefore, they figure, the sexual favors have the monetary value of the room. That turns the exchange into prostitution, or so they say.

...My stance on real prostitution isn’t a popular one as it is, since I think that if a person chooses to rent their body for whatever reason, it’s their choice. I’ve never used the services of a hooker—hell, I don’t even like using public water fountains—but would argue that any person whose job involves agreement by all participants is one that should be allowed. Is hooking detrimental to our society in the long run? Possibly, but if we were to outlaw all things detrimental we’d have to outlaw fast food, television, spending too much time in front of the computer, pornography, violent movies, suggestive music, video games, and even using dirty words. Will those be next?

...If anything, rooms-for-sex is a form of bartering, able to work only if there’s an absence of coercion and hinging upon absolute agreement by all parties involved. If we were to see it otherwise, it would be expanding the definition of “prostitution” to the point where we might have to arrest quite a few girlfriends and wives for what might become known as solicitation. Allow me to offer a personal story as a possibility.

...I know a woman who enjoys collecting Longaberger baskets, but they’re notoriously expensive. If she finds herself craving a new basket, but happens to be low on funds, she and her husband have an agreement whereby she goes above and beyond the call of duty in the bedroom. In return, he’s more than happy to buy her the basket of her choice. (I offer my sincere apologies to the fine people at Longaberger who now know how one of their loyal customers has been able to stay loyal for so long.)

...This must be prostitution, correct? She’s doing sexual favors for something that would otherwise have a monetary value, is she not? I guess that we’ll have to call her a hooker and he a john. We’ll have to lock them up and throw away the key.

...Not to change the subject, but one other notable aspect which cropped up in the rooms-for-sex story is how it has drawn the ire of the modern women’s rights movement (I use the term “modern” because it bears little resemblance to the women’s rights movement of the late-nineteenth century and early-twentieth century). The Miami chapter of Women’s Movement Now says that this is a sign of how women continue to be marginalized and exploited. Of the advertisements, director Sophie Brion says, “They are an indicator of how much work still needs to be done to eradicate institutional inequities and harmful attitudes toward women that persist.”

...Let’s think optimistically, shall we? This creates an opportunity for women to illustrate how strong they can really be. No one is forcing any woman to respond to these rooms-for-sex advertisements. Allow me to be an even bigger optimist and suggest that advertisements such as these permit women to unite and say “no” to a bunch of chauvinist pigs; it also allows women to think for themselves and enter into the agreement if they so choose. Women making their own choices is a good thing, isn’t it, Ms. Brion?

...This is one more situation where the modern women’s rights movement confuses me. On one hand those who are involved in the movement argue that women are strong, liberated, and able to think for themselves. On the other hand they’re quick to suggest that women are easily manipulated and exploited at the whim of a cunning male.

...So which is it? Are women headstrong, confident, and in charge of themselves, or are they fragile little creatures that are easily deceived by manipulative men who are out to use them and toss them aside? If they are fragile, naïve creatures, is their survival dependent upon the “guidance” from organizations such as Women’s Movement Now?

...My personal belief is that women—as well as men—should not be generalized. There are decisive, headstrong women who know what they want and have the gumption to tell you what they think and why (my favorite kind of woman); there are other women who are fragile little creatures who do whatever they’re told by men who manipulate them, and oftentimes exploit them. Why is this? I’m guessing that it’s because people are different. I might even be so bold as to suggest that we’re diverse.

Birds of a Feather

...The diversity issue leads us nicely into the second half of this story, where we have a few people who are against free choice, but play the discrimination card to hide their intentions.

...It might be a shock to some people, but human beings are different. We look different, we smell different, we have different interests, we like different foods, we like different music, we like different books, we have different ideas when it comes to politics. In response, many of us like to group ourselves with other people who have similar interests; conversely, we often tend to avoid people whose differences are so great that we have little common ground.

...A person who enjoys conversations on politics, books, and classical music might have little interest in spending time with a person who likes country music, NASCAR, and raccoon hunting. Is that discrimination? Yes. Is it wrong, especially when it comes to living together? A group of lawyers in Chicago might think so.

...The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights filed a lawsuit against Craigslist for allowing advertisements which seek roommates of particular persuasions. They say that renters who want to live with specific people are discriminating against others.

...I’m not sure where to begin with this, because it reeks of something. Is it condescension? Stupidity? Political correctness? Social engineering? Indeed, it makes us wonder where it will stop. What are the odds that this is a move—similar to the bartering issue above—to broaden the definition of “discrimination” in an attempt to pave the way for more litigation and more laws to help create a “fair” society, as defined by those who are doing the paving?

...Since we’ve seen absurdities thus far, we must wonder how much more absurd things can become. Do we force a forty-something woman who seeks a similar roommate to live with a twenty-something college boy because allowing her to choose is discriminatory? Do we force a twenty-something college girl to live with a middle-aged man for “fairness”?

...If renters’ advertisements foster discrimination, let’s not be surprised if personal ads are next. If a woman is seeking a man who is tall, dark, and handsome, will it then be perceived as her discriminating against men who are short, pale, and ugly? Moreover, will she be deemed homophobic for not giving other women a chance to be her significant other? If a gay Latino man is in search of a similar person as a mate, does that mean that he’s discriminating against non-Latinos, women, or heterosexuals? Actually, in both cases they are discriminating. It’s their preference, isn’t it?

...Obviously these are extremes (for now), but every day we have a new idea of discrimination and a new group of people who are offended.

...If we’re going to be a nation of free choice and free association we must be willing to admit that those choices aren’t going to be agreed upon by 100 percent of the populace. Absolute agreement is impossible because of our diversity. In turn, we must be willing to admit that diversity isn’t limited to skin color or sex. Diversity also means different likes and dislikes, which can sometimes offend people.

...Then again, maybe this entire post was a waste of time because the cause of our disagreements is what we’re otherwise proud of: Our diversity.

Source: Miami Herald