Science: Health: Sexually Transmitted Disease
Money for no sex   (+2, -20)  [vote for, against]
Slightly change the Bush's "abstinence-only programme"

According to the latest studies (see link), those marvelously thought out abstinence-only programmes paid with a third of the HIV budget don't do squat for lowering the HIV or teen pregnancy numbers. Let's not linger on why this doesn't work. What I would like to propose was a slight change to this programme. So, instead of spending money on gathering all those youngsters in a room and trying to convince them that they should maintain abstinence, spend the same amount of money paying them not to have sex. Well, not the same amount of money. Some of it would have to be used to test them to check that they actually didn't have sex. Teenagers have been known to lie now and then.

As for the tests, I am imagining that there is probably no such test. No problem there. The health authorities would just have to lie to the teenagers and tell them that this was a bleeding-edge-state-of-the- art-absolutely-100-percent- full-proof test. And then they would just randomly select some teenagers to be tested positive.

Be as it may, paying them would be much more effective than trying to sweet talk them into not having sex.
-- PauloSargaco, Aug 03 2007

BBC NEWS | Health | No-sex programmes 'not working'
[PauloSargaco, Aug 03 2007]

He abstained http://en.wikipedia...i/Victor_of_Aveyron
free of charge. [pertinax, Aug 05 2007]

I spy a retrospective illusion
in [wagster] and [po]'s position. [pertinax, Aug 05 2007]

Found http://www.foundmag...seaction=finds.home
[normzone, Aug 09 2007]

"No, Jimmy, I need that $50.00 Gap gift card!"

"Well, Ive got $60.00 cash right here ..."

It's not a very big jump from being paid not to do something to being paid to do it.

//The health authorities would just have to lie to the teenagers and tell them that this was a bleeding-edge- state-of-the- art-absolutely-100- percent- full-proof test.//

Most teenagers are not mentally retarded. They know when they're being lied to, and they generally resent it about as much as you. And they will know you're lying as soon as they look it up on the internet. Then they're all going to fuck and take your money anyway.
-- nomocrow, Aug 03 2007

Disappointed, I thought this was going to be about wives paying their husbands ...
-- nuclear hobo, Aug 03 2007

sp foolproof.

I'm not entirely clear why it is so important for teenagers not to have sex.
-- DrCurry, Aug 03 2007

Wow. Is this a new civic job? It sounds like you're going to be putting a bunch of kids on the government payroll.
-- Noexit, Aug 03 2007

[Dr. Curry] Because $DIETY really hates it when we rub our naughty bits together.
-- Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 03 2007

Or...we could spend the money working on an antiviral drug that targets the specific strains of HIV that cause AIDS. [-]
-- ed, Aug 03 2007

//I'm not entirely clear why it is so important for teenagers not to have sex.//

Because it can ruin their lives. If there were no chance of pregnancy or cataching one of a few dozen stds that can kill you now or later, there would really be no reason to try to control it.

You have to educate them honestly about what it out there, and make what protections that are out there are available.
-- nomocrow, Aug 03 2007

[Normcrow] is there a greater danger inherent in sex than there is in sport? How many teen athletes give themselves permanent injuries as a result of school sponsored sporting events?

What about teen driving? How many teen drivers are injured every year?

And is there a cheaper, easier to use piece of safety equipment on the planet than a condom?

I suspect that on an actuarial basis teen sexual activity is less dangerous than teen showering.
-- Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 03 2007

A horny teenager would probably turn down the money for a shot at the sex. bone. no pun intended.

I have to agree with [Fuzzy]. Many young girls who engage in teen sex do so because they want to be special, cherished, loved etc, not because they up and decide one day that they "need a good shagging." It's actually rather unkind to say, 'everybody oughta go fuck whomever, whenever.' That kind of liberality has landed many a middle-aged perv in jail, [DrC].
-- k_sra, Aug 03 2007

I thought this was going to be a really fat and ugly prostitute that jumps onto the hood of cars at intersections and then presses a sign up against their windows that says "Money for no sex" on it. Of course people could just cheat and run the bleegggh over first though, so it wouldn't work anyway, but it would be funny to see though!
-- quantum_flux, Aug 03 2007

nomocrow: the only teenagers I know whose lives were "ruined" by sex were ones whose parents refused to give them sex ed, espousing abstinence. And even then, "ruination" only amounted to having babies decidedly early. They were still happy individuals with happy children when I last saw them.

And while I knew a number of teenagers whose lives were ruined or, in some cases, curtailed, by disease and illness, none of it came from sex. Sheesh, in my case, I wish it had!
-- DrCurry, Aug 03 2007

Maybe I wasn't clear when I said that they have protection made available to them because they're gonna do it anyway. I believe strongly in sexual education and rubbers.

I'm glad all of the unwanted pregnancies you've been aware of had happy endings. It's not always the case. I don't think it's usually the case.

[GC] //is there a greater danger inherent in sex than there is in sport?//

That depends upon the sport, and who you're having sex with.

I didn't mean to imply that sex is the only way you get hurt as a kid. I see a lot of kids with disabilities in my job, and most of the disabilities were not caused by having sex.

I think high school football should be made illegal.

//What about teen driving?//

I don't think they should be allowed to drive until they are given a lot of driving education. And sex education. And condoms.
-- nomocrow, Aug 03 2007

This couldn't have gone into effect yet, because I'd be a millionaire by now. But then, perhaps most married people would be.
-- Ander, Aug 04 2007

Back before animals had rights there were experiments on chimpanzees to see what sort of sexual behaviour they would exhibit if raised in isolation from other chimpanzees (and then introduced to them in adulthood). The answer, perhaps surprisingly, was 'none at all'. This finding matches the observations made of the famous 'wild boy of Aveyron' (who spent the early years of his life without human contact).

(I've made a link to the Aveyron case - the chimp study was quoted in Desmond Morris' "Naked Ape", but I can't find a link to it).

The relevance of this is that it suggests that sexual behaviour is much more socially constructed and much less 'natural' or 'instinctive' than we might expect.

If that's the case, then it's not crazy for a society to try to make choices about the sort of sexual behaviour it wants to construct. I'm fairly sure that teenage status-competition is not the best driving principle for it.

However, crude rewards and punishments in this context are about as clever as trying to 'cure' homosexuals through electric shocks. The missing element is meaning. If you're serious about changing a culture, then you need a convincing story to tell, into which your audience are willing to imagine themselves.

If you've got that, then rewards and punishments may be effective at the margin. If you haven't, then rewards and punishments are just crude manipulations, which will only work as long as an enforcer is standing over.

That kind of story is what's missing both from the original Bush line and from this idea.
-- pertinax, Aug 05 2007

"Excuse me, horny sixteen year old boy, but do you see that blonde girl over there in the shorts and too-small top?"

"The one with the cute face and nice ass?"

"Yes, that's the one. I'll give you $50 not to score with her."

"Say I go over and chat her up... if she's up for it then I get to have sex with this really beautiful girl and if I get nowhere with her then you'll give me $50, right?"

"That's about it."

"Great! I'm off to try and get into her knickers."
-- wagster, Aug 05 2007

//I'm fairly sure that teenage status-competition is not the best driving principle for it.// - I suspect that this is probably the only principle for it and that's not going to change anytime soon.

Mating is closely related to status in animal societies and though human society is vastly more complex (status involves not just who you fuck and how often, but also what brand of car you did it in) we're still doing much the same thing.
-- wagster, Aug 05 2007

we *think* its about the status, actually its just our genes driving us to replicate.
-- po, Aug 05 2007

Wheels within wheels.
-- wagster, Aug 05 2007

//probably the only principle for it//

Actually, it's not; in many societies, if not most, it has more to do with status competition between families than between the individual teenagers. In others, the first use of sexuality is to enforce intra-gender power relationships, and then if you're lucky you might get a bit of the other when you're older. I'm not saying I recommend these models - just that there are other ways. History didn't start with the baby boom generation, nor does geography end with the West.

Anyway, call me a hopeless romantic, but isn't it nice when there's an element of intimacy involved, rather than just the resolution of who's a winner and who's a loser?

//what brand of car you did it in//
//actually its just our genes driving us //

So what do your genes drive you to drive? I think it's more memes than genes; that's the point of my original reference to those poor chimps.
-- pertinax, Aug 05 2007

rusty old ford escort at the mo.
-- po, Aug 05 2007

Aha! - but we all love you anyway, which proves... something.
-- pertinax, Aug 05 2007

You've lost me there [pertinax]. I agree about the intimacy bit though, on a personal level.
-- wagster, Aug 05 2007

"Take the money and ..."

[from an old Steve Miller tune]
-- nuclear hobo, Aug 05 2007

Basically, [wagster], I'm making three points.
1. The status quo is not genetically determined, and therefore not unchallengeable.
2. The status quo is driven too much by teen status competition, at the expense of nicer things (like intimacy), and therefore should be challenged.
3. Unfortunately existing challenges to it, including this idea, are too crude to gain traction in the mind (which is where sex mostly happens).
-- pertinax, Aug 06 2007

Dear halfbakers, I must admit this was an idea I was hoping it would get a lot of fishbones. Thank you for rebuilding my hopes on humanity...
-- PauloSargaco, Aug 06 2007

The Quo are very determined indeed. They've been gigging 45 years now and show no signs of stopping.
-- wagster, Aug 06 2007

//The Quo are very determined indeed. They've been gigging 45 years now and show no signs of stopping//

Perhaps the government should pay them to stop.

The problem with the official 'abstinence' programme is that it flies in the face of all the other cultural images that are being projected at people by the same businessmen who support the government (of whatever country). Until the media stop glorifying the antics of idiots like, for example, Paris Hilton, then the abstinence programme is just whistling in the wind.

I'll throw in my support with those who are calling for a proper sex eduction programme but I'm willing to support this idea, Paulo, if you throw in a sliding scale of payments dependant upon which sexual acts you don't commit.
-- DrBob, Aug 08 2007

Here's my invoice: £700 for not buggering a goat.
-- wagster, Aug 08 2007

A very similar premise to your Get-rich-quick diet [wags]...
-- theleopard, Aug 08 2007

Yup, I'm going to become a millionaire by sitting on my arse.
-- wagster, Aug 08 2007

Everything in the american society now tells people of all ages to have plenty of sex. Movies, music, advertisements and television shows all do it. Why should we expect teens NOT to have sex when we think of what their influences are nowadays?

I'll take the free money though.
-- twitch, Aug 08 2007

I'm skint.

WOOOO Count it!
-- theleopard, Aug 08 2007

//it has to emanate from within 'the tribe'//

This is a modern myth, that each generation is necessarily a tribe unto itself. If generations were really that important, they'd have better names than 'X' and 'Y'.
-- pertinax, Aug 09 2007

Can you get money for not having sex with other things, like washing machines ? I was tempted, but the thought of collecting that money prevailed. Now where is it ? - or else I bugger the microwave.
-- xenzag, Aug 09 2007

//Now where is it ? - or else I bugger the microwave.//

-- Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 09 2007

That's an interesting proposition, [DrBob]. However, what you are asking me requires deep study. First I would need to know the total budget from the programme. Then there would have to be a long study on how many kids would have to be bribed not to have sex, the probability that each of the sexual acts would be performed, and other terribly important stuff like that. I'm willing to start the study right away if I can get to an understanding with Mr. Bush (or anyone from his staff, I'm not picky) on some federal funding. I would say that a couple of million would be enough.

(although to be honest, the way I initially thought of this was that they would receive a flat rate. No sexual acts whatsoever ... except for masturbation, that is. Teenagers should be allowed to at least have some intimate moments with themselves)

P.S.: Did I mention that I do not support my own idea in any possible way?

P.P.S.: Holy cow!!! Someone actually voted for the idea. That's worrying...
-- PauloSargaco, Aug 09 2007

[PauloSargaco] What about teens masturbating each other? Or masturbating in each other's presence? What about webcams? Where exactly do you draw the line.

I kind of doubt it is possible.

"Oh! Romeo! Romeo! Where for art...ooooo... thou Romeooooooo!"
-- Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 09 2007

Wow, [xenzag], that's too weird. I've just come from the FOUND website (link), where amongst other trolling nonsense there is a conversation about sex with washing machines going on.

I think the world is getting weirder - and I like it.
-- normzone, Aug 09 2007

sorry everyone, including Paulo, I had to bun this idea

based on the desire to be paid for the sex

I'm not having,,,,,
-- evilpenguin, Aug 09 2007

[Galbinus_Caeli] - Re cross-masturbation there is no doubt in my mind that it is a form of sex between two people. Let's not get confused by arguments such as those of Mr. Clinton. As in oral not being sex.

Now, for the matter of webcam sex I would say that even though it might be considered shady, I would just consider it to be a form of simple masturbation. There is no exchange of bodily fluids, not even sweat, there is no physical contact between the participants. Therefore it is not much different from masturbation inspired by a porn movie. Perhaps just a bit more interactive.
-- PauloSargaco, Aug 10 2007

[normzone], that is completely unacceptable!!! I urge people to denounce to the police every act of sex with household appliances that they become aware of. Household appliances cannot defend themselves against such abuses. Unless it is proven that the washing machine consented to the sexual act or *at least* didn't suffer, I would say that that form of sex is a crime against defenseless howsehold appliances.
-- PauloSargaco, Aug 10 2007

random, halfbakery