Open for suggestion about a luxury condo in downtown Ottawa

[Jabba 18389]

Sounds like a Hollywood thing - combination Pretty Woman and 9 1/2 weeks concept?

 

Often, the reality is somewhat less sexy than the concept. So what if yer roomie wants to entertain? Is that going to be at your convenience? Music? Cooking? Laundry? CleanUp schedules, Dishes, TV, Rules of the house? How are you going to kick her out if she doesn't want to play the game 24/7? How do you really know the person you're inviting to live in your home - what if she has some friends who aren't so nice? Are you going to interview everyone she knows? Request a security deposit? What if extra keys are made and given to every Tom/Dick/Harry? Are you going to feel comfortable taking a vacation & leave your valuables? What's your insurance company going to say if you get ripped-off?

 

God, I love being paranoid!:icon_eek:

[Jade-S (Retired) 19717]

The other option is to sublet it for traveling SP's at a decent rate (lower than what it would cost them for DT hotel suite.) Though NOT in trade, that would once again be a horrible situation.

 

Once again helping yourself and helping out the SP.

 

Just a thought...

[brockvilleman 615]

it sounds to me like you are looking for someone to share your time with and talk to and have sex with without paying ofr it. hmmm, to me that would be a wife. when my wife was alive we had sex usually twice a week , guess that is more than you want. good luck with your endevour but a wife sounds like a better idea.

[TGirl-Kay 7485]

Many of the SPs that I know put a great deal of value in the freedom of choice that this type of work provides. An arangment like the one your suggesting would take away some of that freedom.

I also think that it's possible that your confusing what the work life and the home life of someone who works as a SP might be like. We arn't in SP mode all the time, we have hobbies, lovers, dogs, children, family's other jobs and often demanding university courses. SPs keep incalls so that day to day life and work don't overlap.

 

Don't do it bad idea.

 

Kay

[BootyLoving 2441]

And by unanimous consensus ... The recommendation is against 100 to none. Your idea has been voted off the island. There has been no argument for, only against from both sides... I have never seen such unanimous agreements. If we can only get the government to be this effective.

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

I could understand if you knew the SP but the problem is if you don't know each other, there is no trust established. And the other issue is that your home is no longer really your home. It's now a working space for someone else. Lots of rules and boundaries would have to be put in place for this to work out and quite often it doesn't.

 

Many SPs work well with other SPs because they are in it together so to speak and can relate to one another. I wouldn't recommend it. Sounds like a headache waiting to happen.

[MNO4 789]

1. for people leading a lifestyle that is slightly alternative to convention I am surprised at the judgement:)

 

2. there is risk, it is potentially an ilegal situation (and even if it isnt - the hassle of proving it could be cumbersome) and the hard part could be terminating the relationship; if she decides not to hold up her end of the agreement - it might be hard to get her to leave.

 

3. that being said, if it is with someone you have met with and appropriately vetted and with whom you have a great relationship, and have a very clear contract, It could be beneficial to both sides.

[Guest C*****tte]

I think what people are bringing up is based on good judgement about the risks and consequences of such an arrangement.

 

One thing I thought about is if I lived in a space under this arrangement I would not be happy with the client bringing ladies I did not know into the space for their trysts. It would be a matter of security for me and my belongings. I suppose a lock on the door would help. This is not me being 'judgy', but being prudent based on past experiences.

[MightyPen 67414]

1. for people leading a lifestyle that is slightly alternative to convention I am surprised at the judgement:)

It's the difference between an arrangement that says "I'll give you this if you'll sleep with me", versus one that says "sleep with me or I'll take that away from you"... when "that" is the place you live. This isn't just "an alternative to convention"; it's threat and exploitation.

 

For a client-SP relationship to be ethical there needs to be freedom of choice on both sides, at all times. But the OP was setting up a situation where someone made an agreement at one point in time in exchange for a place to live, and would then be held to that agreement at least weekly or be thrown out of her home. For some people -- especially someone willing to sign such an agreement in the first place -- being thrown out of a home can be extremely serious, and she may feel she has no choice but to compromise herself seriously to avoid it.

 

I thought at first that he'd missed that coercive element of the relationship. But then it turned out that he was specifically interested in her dependence upon him, because of the leverage it gave him over the terms of her service.

 

I sometimes pay women to (hopefully) have sex with me. That doesn't preclude me from condemning, let's say, human trafficking in the street trade. Nor from calling out a plan for exploitation when it's laid out so nakedly.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Good luck with this one!

 

This offer would attract exactly the opposite of what you are looking for (i.e. desperate provider looking for shelter). Well, if you want to provide a shelter then you might find some candidates that have found themselves in this industry.

 

You might be intrigued by the eloquent and sophisticated ladies in this forum and believe that a "shared" luxurious condo will sway an "independent" provider of moderate to high caliber with a head above her shoulder. Well, your chances here are next to zero!

 

Just for your own information, an independent provider with an established business will even refuse, IMO, to engage in more elegant arrangements, such as the sugar daddy, when she feels that her own space is being invaded and not even shared on daily basis.

[vs_81 606]

It's the difference between an arrangement that says "I'll give you this if you'll sleep with me", versus one that says "sleep with me or I'll take that away from you"... when "that" is the place you live. This isn't just "an alternative to convention"; it's threat and exploitation.

 

For a client-SP relationship to be ethical there needs to be freedom of choice on both sides, at all times. But the OP was setting up a situation where someone made an agreement at one point in time in exchange for a place to live, and would then be held to that agreement at least weekly or be thrown out of her home. For some people -- especially someone willing to sign such an agreement in the first place -- being thrown out of a home can be extremely serious, and she may feel she has no choice but to compromise herself seriously to avoid it.

 

I thought at first that he'd missed that coercive element of the relationship. But then it turned out that he was specifically interested in her dependence upon him, because of the leverage it gave him over the terms of her service.

 

I sometimes pay women to (hopefully) have sex with me. That doesn't preclude me from condemning, let's say, human trafficking in the street trade. Nor from calling out a plan for exploitation when it's laid out so nakedly.

Wow wow wow, this is very offensive, not because your opinion is wrong but because you based it on assumptions, which are completely false. Where did you get the impression that I wanted to exploit someone and take advantage of their situation. Instead I thanked someone for giving me this angle of thoughts that it would become a no-choice situation for that SP. I even mentioned that i was thinking that this way i may be helping someone to provide roof on her head. you wrote "I thought at first that he'd missed that coercive element of the relationship. But then it turned out that he was specifically interested in her dependence upon him, because of the leverage it gave him over the terms of her service." Where did you derive that from. Go back and read my posts carefully before making assumptions and then accusing someone based on your assumptions. I am also shocked by the fact that some people nominated this post without actually noticing that this poster is accusing someone falsely. Go and read my post before answering this one.

[Kimberly-Shea 28280]

The direct quote MightyPen is referring to:

 

"you don't have to pay too much cause she is completely dependent on you."

 

- That makes you sound like a creep.

 

 

why not make an SP your sugar baby knowing that she wouldn't be using your apartment for work and you don't have to pay too much cause she is completely dependent on you.

[vs_81 606]

The direct quote MightyPen is referring to:

 

"you don't have to pay too much cause she is completely dependent on you."

 

- That makes you sound like a creep.

Ok, now I know where the misunderstandings arises, what I meant to say is "in a sugar baby situation you have to pay too much because she is completely dependent on one person but in this case she would still be working as an SP and making money so she is [not] completely dependent on you" so my sentence should be read like this: " you don't have to pay too much in this situation instead of sugardaddy situation because [in sugar daddy ] she is completely dependent on you. Sorry for not putting things very clearly.

[Athos 108589]

Everyone else has said it, so there's not much point in reiterating it, but this is such a bad idea.

 

Just get a non-sp roommate, and use the additional income to hobby. Wouldn't that be far simpler than the complications and problems that are bound to ensue in what you are proposing.

[DeeperConnection 19567]

Wow wow wow, this is very offensive, not because your opinion is wrong but because you based it on assumptions, which are completely false. Where did you get the impression that I wanted to exploit someone and take advantage of their situation. Instead I thanked someone for giving me this angle of thoughts that it would become a no-choice situation for that SP. I even mentioned that i was thinking that this way i may be helping someone to provide roof on her head.

 

while on the topic of assumptions, it is a huge one to assume many of us would need help with our living situation. Not to be rude but how on earth could a woman feel at home at a place where she is not in control of her guests, living arrangements and especially body.

 

Can't speak for other ladies, but I personally would never agree to this. Any lady that may, could quickly become resentful and angry.

 

I can only imagine the fall out of a situation like this. And the personal info and slander that might end up being shared and slandered for both parties.

 

A woman should be in full charge of her body, mind and soul. Agreeing to such terms would easily alter the balance of things. I would without a doubt feel exploited, especially if and when expectations become more than what was expected.

[MightyPen 67414]

Ok, now I know where the misunderstandings arises, what I meant to say is "in a sugar baby situation you have to pay too much because she is completely dependent on one person but in this case she would still be working as an SP and making money so she is [not] completely dependent on you" so my sentence should be read like this: " you don't have to pay too much in this situation instead of sugardaddy situation because [in sugar daddy ] she is completely dependent on you. Sorry for not putting things very clearly.

Woah! That's an enormous difference. I thank you for clearing things up.

 

I acknowledge that in light of what you've explained, the second part of my statement:

 

I thought at first that he'd missed that coercive element of the relationship. But then it turned out that he was specifically interested in her dependence upon him, because of the leverage it gave him over the terms of her service.

 

... would not have been supported by the post you intended to write.

[Andee 220524]

This sounds like a great plot for a porn or an HBO show, but a very bad real life decision!

 

That being said, if you decide to go through with it and find someone who's willing, it's a good idea to have a lot of very clear conversations about your expectations! Like: how many times a month do you expect to have sex? If it stops working, how long do they have to find a new place? Can they have sex with other people in your condo (partners, lovers, etc.)? If they get sick and are in bed with the flu for three weeks and can't have sex, will they still be allowed to live there? And so on...

 

I personally would not want to live somewhere that I couldn't work out of or have a personal lover over for fun.