Emergency shipment of condoms headed to Olympic athletes

Winter Condompocalypse 2010:
Health officials in Vancouver have already provided 100,000 free condoms to the roughly 7,000 ahtletes and officials at the Games. That's about 14 condoms per person. But as of Wednesday, those supplies started running dangerously low.

"When we heard about the condom shortage in Vancouver, we felt it important to respond immediately," said Kerry Whiteside, the Canadian Foundation for AIDS research's Executive Director. The organization assembled three large boxes of about 8,500 condoms, much to the relief of libidos at the Olympic Village. They're expected to arrive on Thursday.

Previously, previously.

Tags:

29 Responses:

  1. strspn says:

    If it wasn't for this tradition, I probably wouldn't care about sports at all.

  2. chuck_lw says:

    I once talked to a guy who claimed he quietly walked away from his job training Olympic-caliber athletes precisely because most of them were only interested in turning the Olympic Village -- and other places where international competitions take place -- into big orgies. (Maybe his real problem was that the coaches and trainers weren't invited to participate?)

  3. skreidle says:

    Unrelated video for you: RAD OMEN - "Rad Anthem", which would probably best be tagged mpegs, perversions, fast food. :)

    • jwz says:

      Yawn. Smack My Bitch Up without a punchline.

      • skreidle says:

        True, there was no resolution in this fast food debauchery.. mildly disturbing overall, though.

        SMBU did have an excellent-due-to-expectations punchline. And better music.

        Any idea why your journal is requiring CAPTCHAs for logged-in users?

        • jwz says:

          I turned on captchas because I'm sick of playing whack-a-mole with russian link-spammers. And maybe that will help. But probably not.

  4. the thing that weirds me out about this is that i've always thought of olympic athletes as the uber-nerds of sports. like on one hand you have, i don't know, football players, who are rock stars, and on the other you have olympic guys, who are the equivalent of hairy dudes in yes shirts droning on endlessly about the tubes in their amps while practicing for hours each day to get that dragonforce riff just perfect. the latter group isn't really supposed to get the sex.

    you may infer what you will about my role in this idea.

    • elfs says:

      That's the problem. They are the uber-nerds of sports. They have the most fit bodies in the world, seething with power and testosterone, and damned little socialization about what to do with it. Once they've been sidelined out of competition, there's nothing much to do with that body other than watch other people do better than you, or maximize your pleasure some other way. Drugs are impossible and alcohol difficult. Your fellow nerd, however, feels the same way.

      • _candide_ says:

        I guess the requirement from the Ancient Greek Olympics that the competitors abstain from sex went the way of competing in the nude. ^_^

        Hmm… in addition to your other points, Elf, you also forget that most of these atheletes are around 18-24. Plus, there's a mix of cultures present. Some are from enlightened nations that almost treat their women as if they're human, while others are men from nations that treat women as chattel. So I'd rather expect the latter group to go kinda wild.

    • pavel_lishin says:

      > the latter group isn't really supposed to get the sex.

      They're not supposed to get sex outside of their group. All the girls in my university's CS classes were snatched up before the first week of class was over, even the Monets.

      The Olympics are pretty evenly matched, genderwise.

  5. So, it's just like Herogasm.

  6. tiger0range says:

    They expected 14 condoms to last a whole month?

    Honestly?

    You don't need to be having orgies (or even going at it like rabbits) to run out of 14 condoms in a month!

    • strspn says:

      Perhaps we should schedule international gender relations negotiations to coincide with the Olympics so that men and women can work out their differently-wired limbic systems' instructions about how often sex should occur. Watching the whole Tiger Woods apology thing, I wondered what proportion of the population realizes that the same urge-related area of the midbrain is responsible for both the increased male libido and the female jealous desire for monogamy. This is one area where brain scan research and social mores are eventually going to interact.

    • strspn says:

      Wow, after realizing after I posted that your icon and handle were both eerily evocative of the subject, I read some of your posts. Have you read Anne Dagg's 2005 "Love of Shopping" Is Not a Gene? I wholeheartedly recommend it, despite its one bad review on Amazon (which reads to me like one of the researchers Dagg critiques.) It's my favorite at the moment after The Spirit Level.

      • tiger0range says:

        I have not actually even heard of the book. The Amazon review seems to indicate that it is polarized toward the "nurture" camp in the bahavioral sciences. On the other hand, your post above seems to indicate you believe somewhat in the "nature" side. I am intrigued by the book, but I don't know if I will get to read it anytime soon.
        As someone more in the neurology/neurophysiology training, I often find even neuroethology a little soft. When you start getting into "Darwinian Psychology" it's the equivalent softness of jello pudding for me.
        As for the limbic input, remember that the limbic system itself has a lot of input from the higher cortical regions which have a lot of input from regions that process our conscious thoughts. It's not an one way street and the limbic region is more plastic than people seem to think.
        Granted, a lot of people seem to form habitual dogmatic response to situational stimuli and then seem to just milk that programming for as much as it's worth without actually taxing the higher regions of our brains. That's because the higher regions of our brains take a crapload more energy to run than the lower regions. But that doesn't mean that those default pathways cannot be changed. They can be changed (quite literally) with a thought.

        • tiger0range says:

          Err... I mean pathways as in algorithms. I have a bad habit of saying pathways when referring to neurocomputational algorithms. It gets me into a lot of trouble all the time (huge, huge can of worms), but it's a hard habit to break.

          That's another unfortunate part of discussing science, it is very easy to mis-state things, and quite often the arguement is more about the inaccuracy of language and our use of it than an actual difference in interpretation.

        • strspn says:

          If the higher regions of our brains can control the urges at the expense of more energy, exactly how many calories are we talking to, say, be able to not accidentally look in the wrong direction? And is there anything other than calories you mean by 'taxing'?

          • tiger0range says:

            I am not a behavioral psychologist, but there are behavioral modifications that will reduce and nearly extinguish accidental looking in the wrong direction. It's a matter of habituating to a new norm of behavior.
            Although, on the other hand, I'm not one of those who particularly considers looking as anything requiring modification...
            Now things like promiscuity (when not tied to an underlying nymphomania disorder) could be controlled by "reprogramming" of social dogma. That is a moral decision. Moral decisions are made consciously, but are a self reprogramming of the algorithms by which we determine our action when presented with certain stimuli: say for example an attractive and willing potential partner plus a feeling of urgency to mate. If you give in, you get a certain bit of reward in physical pleasure and a certain bit of punishment in sympathy disconnect. If you tell yourself that the physical pleasure is more important than the emotional break (loneliness, fear from negative interaction or abnormal behavior, shame, disgust, confusion, etc.) you reinforce the urge the next time you encounter another attractive and willing partner. If you feel the emotional disconnect more keenly, you will tend to stop being promiscuous because the limbic system will be less active and urge will be less. Which reward is more important to you will be determined by your conscious valuation each time you encounter this stimulus-response algorithm.
            Yeah, if you are trying to keep urges down, that creates anxiety, but unlike what Freud said, there is a level of sexual response you can easily habituate to without adverse effects.

            • strspn says:

              What is a sympathy disconnect? Does it make more sense for men to try to reprogram themselves towards monogamy or for women to try to reprogram themselves to accept non-monogamy in men? Or, as seems to appeal to a sense of justice and fairness, is some sort of a compromise more reasonable? History is filled with attempts at various compromises, but social engineering efforts have not usually (ever?) been successful in either sort of mass behavior modification to the point of eliminating the sort of strife which ends up leaving children worse off than basic tolerance would seem to afford. Given that the genetic predispositions are, like all our urges, towards self preservation and procreation, does it make sense to take a hint from which modification results in greater health benefits obesity kills several times as many people as STDs; tobacco even more. Freud didn't have as good health statistics has we do.

              • tiger0range says:

                Lots of questions... Maybe the best answer would be that there is no one size fits all answer.

                Maybe a one size fits 60% answer. Heck, if we are extremely lucky, we might find a one size fits 80%...

                We have historically found extremely successful modes for the majority population, but then mucked it all up by trying to make *everyone* conform to it.

                Anyway, sympathy disconnect... making and breaking intense emotional bonds can wear on people. I know there are people who do not form such bonds during sexual acts, but I'm not sure how that works. Is it normal not to, or is it some sort of sociopathy, or some defensive mechanism? I don't know. I just know it's something painful to me and many people I know. Enough that promiscuity (not talking about serial monogamy or adultery or such, I'm talking about one night stand type lifestyle) is not attractive in any way except the romantic egotistic way.

                • strspn says:

                  The problem is that genes want things to work out well for the kids, but actually doing the best thing for the kids and the individuals involved is difficult. I know what you are talking about when you say pain, and I think that might be what you meant more than just "energy" and "taxed" -- there are clear midbrain emotional pathways with built-in algorithms (instincts), and when people try to deny, ignore, or work around them in an ineffective way it can cause mental illness.

                  The interesting, and probably revolutionary part, is that the same midbrain pathway regions which make guys want more partners seem to make women want guys to have fewer partners.

                  So, lets start with that as the bug we have to work around. Clearly a compromise just seems right. The only way it's going to work is if we satisfy the desires of the underlying genes anyway and make sure whatever we do the kids and the individuals turn out as good as reasonably can be expected; otherwise cognitive dissonance would result. So it turns out medical professionals have been working on these kinds of things. Here's a review from 5 years ago which seems consistent with all the other recent reviews. However, I'm not at all convinced that is anywhere near the best that can be done. In a secure enough environment (the abundance of the bonobos' trees as opposed to the scarcity of the chimpanzees' grasslands) both genders become more playful and accepting of just generally fun sexual behavior. In a situation like that, it doesn't become a source of shame brought about by the communal compromise level.

                  So, like the solutions to so many other problems, solving the war between the sexes is equivalent to growing the middle class. And all the more reason to!

    • editer says:

      Not sure about the Winter Olympics (which don't last that long), but the athletes at the Summer Olympics tend to arrive and depart in waves, because few sports last from open to close. So it's more like 14 condoms in a week or less per athlete.

      My own brief experience in sex-positive environments populated by sexy people is that if you don't use at least two condoms a day it's because you're not trying.

      • greyface says:

        Not that it changes the results of your math, but a given sexual partnering has 28 condoms available for the week.

        It would be funny (well, to me anyway) if the less *ahem* popular athletes were intentionally sought out as sexual partners because they still had condoms. It would be less funny, but more likely, if they were sought out and asked to hand over the condoms.

  7. phoenixredux says:

    NBC's ratings would be so much higher if they broadcast the Olympic orgies. I think it's really great that they kept the old Greek tradition alive there.

    • _candide_ says:

      The participants in the Ancient Greek games were all required to abstain from sex both before (for some interval I can no longer recall) and during the competitions. Remember, the original Olympics were part athletic competition and part religious ceremony.

  8. korgmeister says:

    You know, this seems to happen with every olympics. Every 2 years, without fail, the organisers are surprised that they didn't get enough condoms.

  9. monikaluchi says:

    Hum, good job. Taking initiative to prevent the most dangerous disease from spreading. This a good news for the competitors and officials who has a bed partner along with her. I am enjoying the whole Olympics in my Dish TV.