| House Rules |
 House Rules
|
Jan. 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 pm 
|
|---|
|
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:  chipper |
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...) 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... :) ...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. |
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by LiveJournal.com |
