?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 

House Rules - The highs and lows of KuteLuvr

About House Rules

Previous Entry House Rules Jan. 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 pm Next Entry
Over the period that I've lived at my current place (both times, technically), we've refined most issues down to a simple set of rules to eliminate drama. For a long while, it was only two rules... but we've found reason (premptively) to add new rules as situations arise. Amazingly, I find this list to be a little funny, a little pathetic, yet amazingly effective. Let the world be the judge... ;)

The Rules @ Casa del Pecado:
Rule #1: No sex between roommates.
Rule #2: No sex with a roommate's boyfriend/fuckbuddy/partner/etc.
Rule #3: No sex with a roommate's family members.
     Later added: ...without the roommate's permission. ;)
Rule #4: No sex with a potential roommate in an attempt to prempt rule #1.
(as we're looking for a roommate, and a potential has a cute name, Rule #4 was just created a few minutes ago ;))

It's amazing how much drama these rules eliminate when living in gay-slanted household. :)
Current Mood: chipperchipper
Leave a comment
[User Picture Icon]
From:lorenzosf
Date:January 12th, 2006 01:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
so what about if someone is not considered as potential quite yet...? Do rule 1 and 4 effectively disqualify all past sex partners of current occupants from being considered for tenancy?

(Why am I even asking, anyway... ? bah... I guess I'm bored at work...)
[User Picture Icon]
From:kuteluvr
Date:January 12th, 2006 06:20 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I think the definition of "potential roommate" is someone that is being met for the first time under the context of potentially moving into the house. For example, if we have a room for rent, and someone responds to a craigslist ad, from that moment they are a potential roommate. The idea of rule #4 is, if they're the hottest thing ever, a roommate cannot have sex with them under the pretense that, because they haven't yet moved in, they're not yet a roommate, and therefore exempt from Rule #1. In effect, we're closing a loophole. :)

In other news, it's good to hear from you... be bored more often... :)
[User Picture Icon]
From:kuteluvr
Date:January 12th, 2006 06:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
...and to more specifically answer your direct question, no. Past sexual partners isn't necessarily a disqualification. We'd end up eliminating half of the bay area :P
From:seelbs
Date:January 14th, 2006 04:54 pm (UTC)

new rule

(Link)
I think #2 is a new rule, no? At least my bf does not remember it.
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com