2008
Many people have criticized a new program in Tanzania that gives people economic rewards when they test negatively for STIs (sexually transmitted infections). Congo Girl calls this “derogatory.”
Yet, one of the many purposes of this program would be to give people money so that they don’t have to have sex for money, or engage in other risky sexual behavior associated with economic gain, a fate far more derogatory, in my opinion, that participating in this program.
(The program has other purposes and aims, but here, I’ll mainly be discussing this one.)
So, here’s the thing, sex, in an African context, is NEVER the kind of glamorous-I’m-wiedling-my-all-powerful-feminitiy-to-make-loads-of-money kind of thing. No Eliot Spitzer Number 9 here. More often than not, “risky sexual behavior” isn’t sex work as an employment category but as a means to put a coin in your pocket. The line between a sex worker and someone who has a sugar daddy is practically nonexistent, as is the line between a sex worker and someone who is hungry.
In a western context, the idea of sex work as a woman’s prerogative is controversial, but valid as a hypothesis. In Africa, it is not. The question that needs to be asked here is, why are women having risky sex? And the answer, always (okay, almost always, like 99.9 percent of the time always), is that they need the money.
They need money to buy food. To pay for shelter. To survive.
If they’re only saying yes to risky sex because of extreme poverty, then it is the poverty that is derogatory and the payout that is empowering.
One interesting comment on Congo Girl’s blog is that this will perpetuate economic inequality between postives and negatives. This is a valid point, as is another point by a reader who asks what happens to someone who is raped. These are things that the researchers should consider.
The jury is still out on whether or not this will work. I’ll be curious, along with a lot of other people, to see what happens. One thing that I worry about is the fact that women are paid out every six months: this may not be frequent enough to cover the daily grind. It’s a lot of money, as much as the annual income of most participants, but I fear the long wait in between payouts might cause participants to engage in risky behavior to cover costs in the immediate present.
But this is a concern with the program design, not the program concept. The design will be tweaked over time as the researchers figure out what does and doesn’t work.
The concept, however, is far from derogatory in my opinion. One comment on Congo Girl’s blog says that this program makes her “uncomfortable.”
The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the thought of women having sex for the cost of a plate of beans and posho. If this program can reduce that kind of occurrence, then the commenter should handle her discomfort while the program participant is eating.




I’m 

