 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 18, 2013 - 4:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Zoragoth
(Member)
|
What the affluent apartment renter got was a young, good looking, live-in girlfriend who "worked" for room and board. She would obviously get paid something by the landlord, meaning your rent would be higher. But even so, for this to be economically practical, they were dramatizing a future in which non-rich people were desperate for a nice place to live. And young, pretty people find a way.
So as far as I can tell, it wasn't primarily about subordinating the female. It was about over-crowding and desperation among the common people.
Thanks, Zap, your're probably correct. Guess I read too much into it.
I don't think so! The "Furniture" was obviously one of the perks of being powerful and uber-wealthy. And really, not far off the mark, when you look at Silvio Berlusconi's antics with underaged prostitutes, and then the trouble David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer got into with hookers, the movie's pretty prophetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so! The "Furniture" was obviously one of the perks of being powerful and uber-wealthy.
If it was legal, then as the Rutles say, all you need is cash. But if it was corruption in plain sight, then yes, it was just for the politicians and their cronies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
