SCSU scholars links to an article indicating that over 108,000 "disposable latex contraceptives" were distributed to 7000 athletes and officials during the recent Winter Olympics. Up to 30 "uses" among people who, by and large, came to the Village without knowing one another--and only spent two weeks there.
It's something to think about when people ask for money for athletic events or venues, or for that matter when our children desire to take their sport to the next level. What risks are we willing to take in a world gone mad for sport?
Know Your Lifts: The Romanian Deadlift (RDL)
-
In the Know Your Lifts series, we’ve covered the high-bar back squat, the
low-bar squat, the power jerk and split jerk, and the overhead press. It’s
been...
15 hours ago
12 comments:
that comes out to about 15 jimmies per person, or one jimmy per day.
i just hope the men's figure skaters used their share.
Gino; since it takes two to tango, 2 per day, among people who by and large don't even know each other when they get there.
More or less, we're subsidizing the moral destruction of many of our best and brightest. We really ought to think about what we're doing here.
But you do have to ask who the IOC was actually "protecting" here. Did they actually expect levels of use anywhere NEAR that high, or did they they just want to protect themselves according to 21st century conventional wisdom?
They said they were running out--who knows how many were actually used, but the reality is that the IOC is obviously expecting the Games to be a giant frat party, at least in the Village.
And here I thought gymnastics was a Summer Olympics sport. :)
Obviously, though, you missed the story when the IOC offcially replaced the old Olympic motto - Swifter, Higher, Stronger - with the Nike slogan: Just Do It.
bubba: you are assuming these athletes are all virgins and will have ther cherries removed just by going to the olympics.
top tier athletes generally can get all their action when they want it. (curlers not included).
any destruction of moral fiber occured before that flame was lit.
i just question why it is assumed they wouldnt be bringing their own protections.
Gino, I would have hoped that at least some of them would be in the middle zone between nuns and whores--among people who realize that it's a bad thing if you're using two weeks away from most family and friends to do the marital with up to 30 people to whom you're not married.
Quite right about the temptations athletes face; I would guess, though, that if some of that money taken from the taxpayer dried up, some of the temptations would as well.
juts had a thought.
back in 84, when i was an olympic worker, nearly everything touched by the olympics had the olympiad logo. everything.
i wouldnt be surprised if those were in some special packaging identifying them as part of the olympic hospitality.
in that case, the 'running out' may have had to do with souvenir taking.
One can only hope, but I tend to take your words about top athletes fornicating very seriously. It's time to cut off the money spigot, at least as far as tax money is concerned.
I'm still not quite sure why it's more detrimental for them all to be doing it in an X square mile certain area, rather than back home. The only thing the "tax money" does is bring them together in a geographic space. You'd have to first establish that each individual's behavior is significantly different in the Village than back home. (I don't mean every single individual, of course, but that individual behavior is actually affected, not merely aggregated so it looks more shocking.)
Not that it's at all unlikely that aggregating them worsens the situation, but I'm not sure it's safe to assume it.
If we need to get tax money out of it, I can think of many other, more obviously established reasons.
Let's put it this way; I would assume that part of the "high availability" of fornication to the Olympic athlete in his hometown has to do with the fame they get at the Olympics.
I'd also guess that things are, um, wilder at the Games because the athlete knows he doesn't need to face those he bedded at the grocery store for the rest of his life. Anonymity is a great enabler for sin.
You're right that there are a lot of other reasons to slow down on funding games, of course, but this draws a picture of what we're really doing to the people involved.
You seem to be assuming 1) that non-athletes aren't just as wild as athletes "back home" and 2) athletes are "wilder" at the games. In the "hookup" culture, there's little significance given to whether you have to "face the other person for the rest of your life." It's just something you do for fun. That attitude will have ugly consequences down the road, but it doesn't make it less real.
You may be right about both things, but are you?
Post a Comment