The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Olympic athletes too stupid to buy their own condoms?
One would assume that athletes who qualify to participate in the Winter Olympics in Vancouver next year are likely to be very organized and of at least average intelligence too. But the IOC apparently thinks that the men and women who will be competing at Whistler and Vancouver in 2010 are so stupid that they don't know about sexually transmitted diseases and, even if they do, they don't know how to go about purchasing condoms. One is forced to this conclusion on evidence of the news that, as part of a "play safe" program, the IOC will be providing the athletes with 50,000 free condoms in February. Give me a break.
Major sporting gatherings are plagued by massive amounts of random sex. A free condom is far more likely to be around than one you ask someone to purchase.
You've got horny (and slutty) people throwing themselves at these athletes who I dare say are often NOT as intelligent (though some are far more) than the average person, who live lives of great control and restriction and once they get to the Olympics and have run their race or whatever the pressure is off and they cut loose.
Not to mention that BC has stupid high rates of some STDs to start with.
We've invested millions in our promotional machines, we have to protect them!
Posted by: Pete | 2009-06-04 3:35:30 PM
Good analogy Pete. With that in mind I suppose we should probably protect our investment in GM with government funded Ziebart protection for every new Fedillac that rolls off the line.
(You've got to be kidding)
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-04 4:19:18 PM
Anyone who is a willing, subservient, less-than minimum wage earning peon in the service of statist glorification and its infamous crimes, for example, forcing me, under threat of incarceration or property seizure to pay for their silly outrageously overpriced playing fields and games, is not that bright. If a private-sector condom company would provide these condoms as a promotion, I am all in favour of reducing the effect that these troglodyte's offspring would have on the gene pool. Me being forced to pay for them? I ask, would they be willing to pay for my single malt scotch swilling hobby? What is the difference other than I advocate a non-statist society where violence and no-coercion does not exist, and they, use the states monopoly on violence to make everyone pay to promote the international cabal of the nation-state? Those immoral morons make me nauseous.
Posted by: J.M. Skillman | 2009-06-04 5:04:33 PM
People aren't throwing themselves at the athletes, the athletes are throwing each other at themselves. During the Beijing Olympics an athlete who participated (athletically and sexually, I suppose) noted that you had an entire village of extremely fit, attractive and young athletes with a lot of downtime between events. Boys and girls will be boys and girls.
That said, get your own condoms. It's enough you got record amounts of funding and the Olympics at home, I don't need to jealously fund your sex as well!
Posted by: Steve Martinovich | 2009-06-04 6:13:03 PM
As a young fellow in the navy I lived aboard ship. The service made condoms available to us when we went "ashore". Each small box contained three condoms. The grateful govenment figured the cost of the condoms was considerably less than the cost of curing the STDs that we might have contracted.
Posted by: DML | 2009-06-04 11:25:01 PM
Free condoms for athletes and 18 month waiting lists for MRI's. Earth to BC.... hello?
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-06-04 11:38:22 PM
I don't understand the social conservative obsession with sex. Who cares about this condom business? Seriously? What about some of the boondoggle projects that really took taxpayers for a ride or the Olympics themselves?
Epsilon writes, "Free condoms for athletes and 18 month waiting lists for MRI's. Earth to BC.... hello?"
Yes, Epsilon, central planned healthcare's shortages (a.k.a. waiting lists) will magically disappear or reduce in extent if only funding decision reflect conservative common sense...
The actual problem is that no bureaucracy has enough information about people's changing preferences to distribute healthcare resources in a way that accurately meets them. It's beyond the scope of human knowledge. It makes no significant difference if a few dollars are saved from a free condom distribution.
Only two-tiered (and hopefully many, many more tiered), credit card healthcare, which exploits the information-heavy price system, which reflects each individual actor's knowledge of preferences and resources, can operate with any kind of efficiency.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-05 6:11:12 AM
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-06-05 3:18:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.