Controversial New Way for Women to 'Pay' Rent

[ecstatic]

The hottest new living arrangement is for women to rent a room from a man --oftentimes a complete stranger--and instead of paying a monthly fee, she cooks and cleans. Call it a "roommaid."

TIME magazine reports in its May 1 issue that a growing number of men want a woman to look after them without the financial burden of a formal housekeeper or the emotional commitment of a live-in lover or wife. Some call it an "adult au pair." Many women are jumping at the chance to live in an apartment or home that is far nicer than anything they could afford alone in exchange for keeping house. The nationwide roommate matching service, RoommateExpress.com, says about 25 percent of its male clients are looking for a female barter arrangement, up from 10 percent three years ago.

While feminists are horrified, the arrangements are often successful especially when clear parameters and house rules are set up in advance for both sides. TIME reporter Jeninne Lee-St. John notes that the biggest challenge for women is to weed out the men who are just looking for sex or a topless housekeeper.

http://channels.netscape.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20060503-1332

[Boojatta]

1. How about the reverse?

Is there no such thing as a poor man who is not a security threat or do women like to do their own cooking and cleaning?

[Egalitariat]

3. Farmers and ranchers have had similar arrangements with men

for centuries.

[Trillo]

24. How do the finances for such an arrangement work?

I've read that the IRS has said that people who barter are liable for the market value of their trades from a tax liability standpoint.

In this type of case, labor (cooking, cleaning; or ranch and farming) is traded for a tangible good (food, room and board), yet, the person receiving the tangible goods receives no money, so does the IRS think that the boarder or person supplying the labor owes something in excess of their 'cash in' (assuming they have no other income source)?

I'm also curious about the analogy to corporate mechanisms that may offer similar types of benefits for 'subsidiaries' that utilize 'expertise' but shovel the tax liability up to the top 'owner' where averaging occurs across all subsidiaries, some of which lose money, and some which do not.

Is that what the IRS's position will be on this type of arrangement? That the boarder is not tax liable, but the tangible good provider will be? Is the provider then responsible for saying the value of the room and board is X amount, and the cooking and cleaning provided is X amount in the opposite direction (debit and credit), and the two average out to zero?

[Egalitariat]

31. The boarder in any of these situations would be liable to claim

their "free rent" as income with the IRS, and would likely owe tax. But you owe your state sales tax (or use tax) on anything you buy over the internet from another state. You also owe "State B" gasoline tax when you drive on their roads even though you purchased (and paid taxes on) the gas in "State A" (where you are eligible for a refund for the gas not burned in that state).

Nobody ever pays these taxes, and nobody ever gets caught.

[Trillo]

40. That is how I understand it works, but I'm afriad I have a lot of

dissonance when comparing it to the rules allowed for corporate entities that have been bought up by other entities. Nobody ever suggests in any authoritative way in the U.S. that corporations shouldn't be allowed to average taxes across their entities.

Just because no person ever gets caught (in the OP's types of barter arrangements between humans) doesn't mean that the governmental entities involved can't decide to make selected examples, turning some lives into a living hell for those people the government decided to prosecute.

Something seems fundamentally wrong when a goverment can say that cash money is owed when no actual cash money came to the laborer. That would seem to me to be one definition of a tyrant.

However, if the same rules applied to corporate entities that have similar types of arrangements, then at least the rules would be fair for all. Currently, they aren't.

[hedgehog]

75. Yet if sexual favors are exchanged, the IRS isn't involved.

I'm thinking of all the couples living together who keep separate incomes and file separate taxes as "Single".


Gasp! The US Tax Code encourages an immoral life style! Oh, the humanity!

[Trillo]

76. Hadn't thought of that.

To make an analogy, corporations are allowed to marry each other far in excess of what is considered monagamy or marriage for humans. For tax purposes, of course.

I wonder which corporation has the greatest number of subsidiaries under it which all file a single "joint" return.

[TheFarseer]

79. It's doubtful that would be claimed

What the law is and what people claim are often different things.

[Trillo]

80. The point is not what people are likely to claim,

but what they are legally allowed to claim, contrasted against what non-human entities are legally allowed to claim. The difference is at best a hypocritical schism or chasm leading to many unfortunate and real conditions, and at worst, near complete subservience of humanity and democracy to corporate rule under the banner of greed.

[MADem]

4. I know a woman who had a "live in handyman" for years

It wasn't a romantic or physical relationship, either. It was a large house, with plenty of room. He mowed, he landscaped, he shovelled snow, he frequently cooked, cleaned a bit, though not much it seemed, and always barbecued, he did electrical work, and fed the animals--no rent changed hands. It worked out fairly well for them.

[crispini]

20. Oh. My. God.

Where can I get one of THOSE room-mates?

[rkc3]

47. My wife has one of those roommates already.

No money or sex ever changes hands - except for the hall sex. That's when we yell f*ck you at each other down the hall.

[Donailin]

70. ROFL!

:rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

25. That sounds like a great

and mutually benefecial relationship for both of them. I don't have a problem with this at all, as long as there are strict parameters. Cooking and cleaning for rent? Here in NYC that would be a good deal! I would sign a contract before I agreed to it, though!

[Jacobin]

35. Yep. Its actually pretty common

Don't know what all the fuss is about, unless the fundies are going to freak out because the pair is not married.

I would actually be somewhat surprised if the gender roles were not more often reversed in these situations

[louis-t]

36. See "Who's the Boss?"

[Sequoia]

15. I can't even get my spouse to clean the house sometimes.

I sing to my home: You are like a hurricane, there's dustballs everywhere, you are like a hurricane, nowdays I just don't care.

[SoCalDem]

23. My son has a "similar" situation

One of his high school buddies bought a house (well Daddy bought the house for him)..My son and two other friends moved in and each paid $500 a month and all three guys had the run of a 5 bedroom, 4000 sq ft house..and then the friend got a girlfriend..a very young one.. She got pregnant and my son found out his friend was into drugs .

My son contacted his dad (My son's not a rat..just a concerned friend who saw HIS friend getting into big trouble)..Before they could have an intervention, the baby was born, and all of a sudden my son seemed to be the only one who heard the baby crying, so HE would be the one to change & feed the baby.. It really started wearing on him, so they finally had the intervention and the friend went off to re-hab, and the girlfriend moved in with the guy's Mom & Dad.. My son was afraid that once he got out, the living arrangement would never work out, so he got his own place..

2 years go by and now the friend's sister is living in the house, and asked our son if he would please move back in.. By this time he's eager to save a buck so he came back. Now it's the friend's sister (a teacher), my son's other friend from soccer, and my son. but now he only pays $300 a month because he also does the yardwork and the home maintenance. All three of these "kids" are mid twenty-somethings with significant others, who all get along. Their schedules are pretty diverse, so there's rarely a time when they are all there together..

His friend who was in rehab, married the girl and they now have two kids. They still live with Mom & Dad, since two kids are too much for this young thing he married, but apparently they are doing ok. The rift has never healed for him and my son, but my son is still tight with the guy's parents and sister..

It's kind of sad, since these two have been friends since 2nd grade, but drugs killed their friendship.. My son cannot tolerate drug-using ..and seeing his friend becoome a careless father and ruin his health in the process was more than he could handle..

sorry to ramble..but the shared living experience may be the ONLY way that some young people can share a decent living standard..

[seabeyond]

27. my brother would love that. he is a neat freak. and likes to cook

probably why his marriage ended, he went to work and mom said home. more than anything she is the type that should not be stay at home and should be in the workforce. he wuld have been more than content, satisfied, if he could have stayed home and raised the kids, and took care of the household

[Arkansas Granny]

55. The trade wouldn't have to be for cleaning and cooking. I once

had a male friend who stayed with me for a few months and did yard work and other chores for room and board.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Oh my dear lord!

Fitz, did you read that?! Just say that word! :-)

[Caoimhe]

11. GROWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL

YUMMY PIC!

[Missy Vixen]

41. Cat, I'm sure the members of the PFEB

would be more than happy to help out, too! ;-) :hi:

He'd have more lasagna than he could eat, freshly baked cookies daily, clean clothes, no more dead socks in his desk drawers, and a harem of adoring women hanging on his every word...

:loveya:
Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[Catherine Vincent]

59. I agree!

I could always use the extra help! :hi:

[foreverdem]

49. Cat, you are too funny....

then again, the possibilities are endless....

Mmmmm...love that picture of Fitzy!

[Catherine Vincent]

61. Captivating isn't it?

:hi:

[myrna minx]

56. Hahaha! Oh Cat. LOL. n/t

[Kailassa]

65. Mmmmmm ... the male version of Mona Lisa.

Try looking at just one side of his face at a time.

(Any smileys I would like to add would be censored.}

[mike_c]

5. hmmm..., on the face of it, this seems like one of those...

..."consenting adults" situations. As long as everyone is happy with the arrangement, I don't see the problem. I mean, I wouldn't do it, but that's just me.

[Boojatta]

7. Has it occurred to you that if they are both unattached then this kind of

arrangement could lead to monogamy? :hi:

[mike_c]

16. LOL-- oops....

:rofl:

[SlipperySlope]

6. Why is this controversial?

If this arrangement works for all parties involved, what is the controversy?

[NaturalHigh]

10. Agreed.

I see lots of ads wanting someone to take care of an elderly person in exchange for rent. This seems no different to me. Everyone gets something out of the deal.

[AngryAmish]

13. Exactly

However if I was a woman I would screen very much.

[baby_mouse]

22. I don't really see the problem either, but it would be more clear cut...

...if high-earning professional women extended the same to guys who were in financial dire straits and gave them room and board in exchange for housework and DIY stuff. Maybe we should be looking at why that ISN'T happening, after all, it would help out a lot of guys...

[lukasahero]

26. Speaking as a former single high-earning professional woman

I was pretty capable of handling things without a man. Sorry. Maybe that's part of the answer.

[ecstatic]

39. lol nt

[baby_mouse]

43. No apologies necessary, love.

It's just a question of independence. My GUESS would be that a lot of guys would turn the offer down based on some weird self-image thing, but it's really just a matter for individuals and how they want to run their lives, from either direction. If you don't WANT a man in the house, there's certainly no reason to have one, broadly speaking we do make rather more mess than we clean up ;-).

[lukasahero]

51. Actually, there is now a man in the house

the distinction being he, as a person, is wanted, not needed. Of course, he is probably wanted because he wants, not needs, me. Just something to think about.

FTR, part of what makes him wanted is because, prior to my arrival in his life, he was perfectly capable of cleaning and cooking for himself. If I wanted "children", I'd have them.

[calico1]

8. I really don't have a problem with it as long as both

sides agree to the arrangement. I saw a segment on the news a while back that in Russia, men are hired as "husbands" by single or widowed or divorced women. Not for sex but to do "husband" work like fixing a roof or something like that. As long as both sides agree, I don't have an issue. Hey, I recently got laid off. I told my SO he should pay me for cooking and keeing the house looking nice. :-)

[tanyev]

9. How is this new?

[Boojatta]

14. It's not new. Hence it "perpetuates gender stereotypes."

Hence it needs to be replaced with something new and improved, such as paying a maid who only does two things: help mess up the bed and then neaten the bed. Or is that also not new?

[rpgamerd00d]

12. "weed out the men who are just looking for sex or a topless housekeeper."

DAMN!




:D

[mark11727]

17. I think it's OK, myself, BUT...

No rent means no money...

No money means no taxes...

Somebody in government's gonna get pissed.

[Cleita]

18. Wow, we sure have come a long way baby!

I guess I won't be finding my ideal roomate soon, a guy who does the housework and cooking.

[lukasahero]

29. They're out there

It took 40 years but I finally found one. ;)

[noonwitch]

19. Can I get a male housemate who cleans and fixes things?

I'll still do the cooking, if he gives the dog a bath, mows the lawn, and fixes everything that breaks.

[baby_mouse]

21. Why not? I'd do it.

I'd do the cooking as well, if I didn't have to pay rent. It's a SWEET deal!

[seabeyond]

32. i think... i do it. but then i am married

and female. so the norm. but..... my hubby brings home the buck and then he gets to play. i clean and cook and then i get to play. we both get plenty of free time which is optimal i think. works for us

when i was single and owned a house was murder trying to work 50-60 hour week and keep house up and run errands. i didnt get it done. would have loved to have hired a "wife" i would say. probably sexist on my part and being a wife.

[baby_mouse]

38. I think it's only sexist if ...

...you, uh, genuinely don't want it that way and can't change it. If you feel that you and he could swap roles, or that you are sufficiently comfortable with the arrangement even though you can't really swap roles because of some factor OTHER than your respective genders, I don't really see any sexism.

:beer:

[seabeyond]

54. it is perfectly as it should be, as we want it

i was talking sexist in that when i was single i would say i wanted a "wife". i didnt get married until old. more than anything i NEVER wanted to be a housewife. i saw the disrespect of it, unappreciation. now, after having kids and having created what we did, i wouldnt want it any other way. good for all of us.

[MADem]

30. See post 4, above

The scenario there was that the guy was a friend of a friend, in the process of changing jobs, had a shitload of bills, and wanted to save money. She had the extra room, and worked out the arrangement. It wasn't like they were strangers, but they didn't really socialize with the same set. But it worked out OK--he got himself a nest egg, and she got repairs and maintenance and pet care handled.

[Kailassa]

28. It's just the reverse of charging board and lodging.

Anytime you invite someone to be under your roof, there can be trouble if one is not honest and the other is not perceptive, but life's like that.

- As many a married person can attest.

[leftofthedial]

33. why is this controversial?

:shrug:

[Iris]

74. I know! I was ready to find out that there was sex exchanged!

Which, even that wouldn't be all that controversial as long as the folks in question are able-minded adults.

[Yavin4]

34. Oh DAMMIT!!! Yet Another Plot Line for A Crappy Romantic Movie

Starring Jennifer Anniston/Lindsay Lohan/Sandra Bullock/Kate Hudson and Matthew McCaunehey/Hugh Grant/Owen Wilson/Ben Stiller. He's a wealthy/busy/widowed/divorced/bachelor/engaged and she's a free-spirited/artsy/cooky/fun chick looking to pay the rent. She agrees to do the chores to pay the rent, but winds up stealing his heart.

[stanwyck]

37. Here's your $200,000.00

for the screenplay. Could you work in the bitchy girlfriend who is either really rich or "too career oriented" -- or both? That's a staple.
Sorry about only $200,000.00 But we gotta save on the budget so we can get the stars.
And we want to go with Jennifer Lopez -- we're looking for the Hispanic vote and she's younger than Anniston and Bullock.
But, hey, go as old as you want with the male lead.
Harrison Ford?

[Yavin4]

42. Forget J-Lo, How About Eva Longoria from "Desperate Housewives"

Although we have to be careful about racial stereotyping if we cast Eva in the lead. We'll have to have her working her way through college. Also, I like the love triangle with the bitchy, golddigging girlfriend/fiance. How about Sarah Jessica Parker for that role or Anne Hathaway?

[Bridget Burke]

50. Sounds like you've got a winner....

Boffo Box Office!

[stanwyck]

60. OK. Just one concern

after seeing Hathaway in "Brokeback Mountain", I'm concerned that she'd steal the movie from the "sweet" actress. She gave a very good performance in "Brokeback"....she might just generate too much goodwill -- even playing the bad girl. Which I'm sure she could do.
Or....just have the "Brokeback" women take the two leads. With the Dawson's Creek sweetie playing the good girl.
Probably wouldn't be box office, but would make for a more interesting movie.

[Yavin4]

68. What About the Male Lead?

Topher Grace?

[stanwyck]

69. Interesting

I think he's a good actor. I liked his performance in "Traffic". I think you've got something here. Really. type it up and send it off. People will love it. Make sure you include the scenes when the bitchy girlfriend comes over for an intimate dinner and the sweet (and superior) housekeeper, accidentally of course, screws up the entire evening through hilarious mishaps. And then we'll need to have the obligatory scenes when our intrepid housekeeper is threatened by her unworthy boyfriend and must be saved from either psychic or physical harm - or both - from our fearless hero.

[Clark2008]

73. The Dawson's Creek sweetie would be the Kat part of TomKat

:puke:

[ecstatic]

44. lmao--I wouldn't be surprised if some women went into arrangement expectin

a fairytale ending.

[stanwyck]

63. as reported in TIME

that's already happened. Sometimes the women start to see themselves as a wife and become territorial and jealous.
And sometimes the men have expectations beyond housekeeping - sexual and emotional.
But I believe these arrangements can work. It's like getting the perfect roommate. Your best friend doesn't always make the best roommmate. It's a special synergy that involves some distance.

[Book Lover]

45. "[F]eminists are horrified..."

Well, since no one brought this up at the weekly "We-Hate-Men-and-Razors" meeting, I call bullshit.

[bleedingheart]

46. shit I missed my "We-Hate-Men-and-Razors" meeting

:evilgrin:

[lukasahero]

52. BWAHAA

Thank you. I haven't had a laugh that good in days. :rofl:

[myrna minx]

57. LOL. Hey didn't we meet by the bra burning pyre? n/t

[stanwyck]

62. Yikes. I'm a feminist. And not horrified

so these women have found an arrangement that works for them. And I'm supposed to be horrified?
Sounds like another strawman argument. The old Fox News "some people say"...
Make that strawwoman.

[Gormy Cuss]

67. ROTFL.

You are in trouble now. You have exposed the Feminist Agenda.

[geniph]

77. Sorry I was late to the meeting this week!

I was gonna bring it up there, but I was late because I was busy studying witchcraft and how to be a lesbian! I get a free toaster soon!

[wryter2000]

48. I don't have a problem with it

Contrast it to what can (and often does) happen. The man has his girlfriend move in, share rent, and he assumes she's going to do all the housework.

[Mountainman]

53. This is not new, I use to see adds for this in the L A Weekly all the

time back in the 80's when I live in Los Angeles. The guy is wealthy and single with a nice house. He places an add usually for a young female to live there rent free to do the things his ex-wife use to do. I never knew if it involved sex but my guess is that it did some times.

[Cleita]

64. That's known as a housekeeper and there are many women and

men out there who will do it for pay and benefits. It sounds to me like those guys are looking for free labor. It doesn't sound like a good job to me.

[Xithras]

58. Controversy? My grandfather had this kind of arrangement for years.

He owned a large piece of property that had a primary and guest home. After he and my grandmother split up, he hired the guest house out to a woman and her children. The agreement was simple: Rent=$x a month, and he would pay her $x a month to cook, clean his home, and do the laundry...basically act as a maid. Whenever she didn't want to do the maid work, she simply had to pay him the cash difference in rent.

It wasn't exploitive, and he wasn't overly demanding about it. She had a job that she worked for the rest of her living expenses, and on top of that she spent about an hour to 90 minutes a day in his house cooking breakfast and cleaning up after him. If you think about it, that works out to 30-40 hours of work a month, and in exchange she received a two bedroom 1500 SF home at no cost. Not a bad deal.

It's called BARTERING LABOR, and it's been around since before money was even invented.

[retread]

66. My dad had this arrangement for many years. She was

our mother!

[treestar]

71. For that matter, why can't men do this job for a woman or

even for the same sex?

What's the sex of the person have to do with the job.

Though I expect the IRS to pitch a fit.

[undeterred]

72. I like the free room, but I hate to cook and clean.

And I wouldn't pick up a strange guys underwear without a commitment.

[geniph]

78. It's a time-honored arrangement, whatever the genders

People with large houses and money have always bartered room and board for services, whether it's a yuppie man exchanging his spare bedroom for housecleaning, an older woman exchanging her unused second story for handyman and yard care services, or a family exchanging use of their guest house for childcare.

It's worked for centuries. I only see a problem with it if the person becomes a serf, without the ability to leave if the arrangement no longer suits them. I'd highly recommend written agreements, myself, and locks on the bedroom door if sexual favors aren't part of the arrangement, but that's because I'm not a particularly trusting person.