 FIVB to require them to compete wearing bikini wear. However, hard paternalism, whether of the legal or moral variety, has no place in this arena as it violates the rights of women to freely choose to compete in the Olympics as volleyballers. Furthermore, whatever might justify soft paternalism must do so for over-riding reasons of safety or fairness for the athletes.5 But prudishness hardly grounds considerations of athletic safety or fairness. Nor will it do for one to argue in a Kantian fashion that the old rule requiring women beach volleyballers to wear bikini wear was wrong because it 4 Of course, not all Christians are puritanical. I am referring to those who are influenced by the historical settlement of the Americas by many Puritans who were Christians, at least in name. 5 For discussions of hard paternalism and why it is generally problematic, see Dworkin (1995, 209-219, 219-223), Feinberg (1973, 45f), Feinberg (1984), Feinberg (1990). J. Angelo Corlett 12 sought to use such women as mere means to the ends of commercialization and sexual objectification. I am sure that this is what is at the bottom of such reasoning, philosophically and ethically speaking. However, it would constitute an insult to such women if it is insisted that they are unable to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to place themselves in a position to be exploited in such ways. Indeed, it is an insult of paternalistic proportions to do so. For there may be over-riding reasons why such women might seek to compete even under such circumstances. Indeed, it might be the case that such circumstances of exploitation bring greater viewership and crowds to watch women's beach volleyball, which might be a primary goal of the competitors as it tends to bring greater prestige to their sport. And if such women are not the prudish types (undoubtedly they are not as they not become beach volleyballers to begin with and are quite used to competing in such gear), they might well construe there being competitors in beach volleyball as an opportunity to display their genuine femininity as defined in traditionalist terms in what some refer to as a 'patriarchic society.' One might be prepared to argue that such women are deluded into thinking that such a competitive context that I describe is one in which the freedom of women to display their femininity can thrive. But this too reveals an attitude of hard paternalism, one that reduces
FIVB to require them to compete wearing bikini wear. However, hard paternalism, whether of the legal or moral variety show, have no place in this arena as it violates the right of women to freely choose to compete in the Olympics as volleyballers. Furthermore, whatever might justify indulgent paternalism must practice so for all over - ride reasons of condom or fairness for the athletes.5 But prudishness barely grounds considerations of acrobatic safety or paleness. Nor will it make for one to argue in a Kantian fashion that the old rule want women beach volleyballers to wear bikini wear was wrong because it 4 Of naturally, not all Christians are puritanical. I am refer to those who are influenced by the historical settlement of the Americas by many Puritans who were Christians, at least in name. 5 For discussion of hard paternalism and why it is generally problematic, see Dworkin (1995, 209 - 219, 219 - 223), Feinberg (1973, 45f), Feinberg (1984), Feinberg (1990). J. Angelo Corlett 12 sought to use such women as mere means to the ends of commercialization and sexual objectification. I am sure that this is what is at the bottom of such reasoning, philosophically and ethically speaking. However, it would constitute an insult to such women if it is insist that they are unable to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to place themselves in a stead to be exploited in such ways. Indeed, it is an insult of paternalistic proportions to do therefore. For there may be over - riding reasons why such women might seek to compete even under such circumstance. Indeed, it might be the case that such circumstances of exploitation bring greater viewership and crowd to watch women's beach volleyball, which might be a primary goal of the rival as it tends to institute greater prestige to their sport. And if such women are not the prudish types (undoubtedly they are not as they not become beach volleyballers to get down with and are quite used to competing in such gear), they might well construe there being competitors in beach volleyball as an opportunity to display their genuine femininity as defined in traditionalist terms in what some consult to as a' patriarchic society.' One might be prepared to argue that such woman are deluded into think that such a competitive context that I describe is one in which the exemption of women to display their femininity can boom. But this too reveals an attitude of hard paternalism, one that reduces
 FIGB to require them to coopete wearing bnjini wxar. Howsver, hara paternalism, whether of the lwgal ir moral variety, has nu place ij this aeena qs it violefes the righta of conen to freely ghoose to cmmpete in the Mlhm'ics as volleyballers. Furthermore, whwtever kihht justify sost pseernzlism must do so for over-riding rezsons oh safety or faitness for the athletes.5 But prufishness hardly grlunds consieeraeuons of athldtic safetj or fairneas. Nor will it do for one to areue iu a Kantian fqshlmn that the old gule requirinn women beach folleyballers bo weer bukini wear was wrong uecause it 4 Of coursg, not all Whxistians are puritanixao. I ak rexerrkbg go uhoxe who age mnfluenced gy the histirical settlement og eye Americas bg many Ptritans who were Christians, at least in naje. 5 For discussions of yard paternalism and ahy it is generally problematic, see Dworkin (1995, 209-219, 219-223), Feinberg (1973, 45f), Feinuefg (1984), Fcinbdeg (1990). J. Angelo Corlett 12 sought to use such women wa kege means to the ekds of commercialiaahipg and sexual ubjectnridation. I am sure tjat thif is qhat is au the bottom of such reasoning, pyilosophicaljt and ethically spzaking. Howevzr, it eould constitute an insult tu sudh women if it is inaksted that they xre utable to choose for themsejves whetier ox not thdy wosh to place thelselvcv in a position to be erploided in sucj ways. Indeed, it is an insult oh paternalistoc prmportionf to co so. For thewe may be over-tiding recsons dhy such wkmen mijht seek to sompete even gjder such ciccumstancqs. Ibdeee, it mieft be the case that suck cirxumstances of explpitxfion bring greactr ciewership and vrodds tl xatch fomen's beach volueycsll, wfich might ne x promary goal of the cokpetjtors as it tends yo bring gteater prqstige to theor sport. And if sufh woken are mot the prudish types (undoubtedly they are nob as they not becime beach vokleyballers to begin with and are quite used to competing in such gear), they klght well coistrue there behng competitors in bwach volleyball ax an opportunity to djsplay theig genuine femininity as defined in traditionalist terms in what some refee to as a 'patriarcgic xocieny.' Jue mighe be 'repared to argue that such women are deluded invo thinkinc chat such a competitive contect that I descrkbe is one in which the rreedom pf women to display their feminonity can thrive. But thix too receals an atnjtnde of hard paternalosm, onz that reducew
FIVB to require them to compete wearing However, paternalism, whether the legal or in arena as it the rights of to freely choose to compete in Olympics as volleyballers. Furthermore, whatever might justify soft paternalism must do so for reasons of safety or fairness for the athletes.5 But prudishness hardly grounds considerations athletic or Nor it do for one to argue in a Kantian fashion that the old rule requiring women volleyballers to wear bikini wear was wrong because 4 Of course, not Christians are puritanical. I am to who are by historical of the Americas many Puritans who were Christians, at least in name. 5 For discussions of hard paternalism and why is generally Dworkin (1995, 219-223), (1973, Feinberg (1984), Feinberg Angelo Corlett 12 sought to use mere means to the ends of commercialization and objectification. I sure that this is what is the bottom of such reasoning, philosophically and ethically However, it would constitute an insult to such women if it is insisted that they to choose for themselves or not they to themselves a to be in such ways. Indeed, it is an insult of paternalistic proportions do so. For there may be over-riding reasons why such seek compete even under circumstances. Indeed, it might the that such circumstances of greater and women's volleyball, might be a primary of the competitors as it to bring greater prestige such women are not the prudish types (undoubtedly are not as they not become beach to begin with and are quite used to competing in such gear), might well being competitors in beach volleyball as an opportunity display their genuine femininity defined in traditionalist terms in what some refer to a society.' One be prepared to that such women deluded into thinking a competitive that describe which the freedom of women to their can thrive. But this too an hard paternalism, one that reduces
 FIVB to require them to competE wearing biKini wEar. howEvEr, haRd paTernalism, whethER of tHe legal or moral variety, hAs no pLaCE in tHIs Arena As it vioLAtES The RiGhTs oF wOMeN to frEelY choose To compete iN thE OLympics as volLEyBallers. FurTheRmore, whateveR miGht jusTiFy sOFt patErnAlism Must do SO for ovEr-riding rEaSOns of sAFety or fAIRnEss fOr the athletes.5 But pRUdIShness hardly grOunds cOnSIdERAtiOns Of athletic SaFety oR FairnesS. noR WILl iT Do for one to argUe in a KantiaN FasHion thAt The OLd rule RequiRiNG woMen beach volLeybAllers to wEar bikINi wear wAS wrong bEcause It 4 OF coUrse, NOt AlL ChRiSTiaNS aRe pURitAnical. I aM rEfErrinG to tHOSE Who aRe iNfluEnced By the historicAl sEttlEMenT of thE AmerIcas By Many PUritanS who wErE Christians, at leAst iN name. 5 For dIscUsSioNs Of harD PaternAliSm aNd why it Is generALly PrOBLEmAtic, see Dworkin (1995, 209-219, 219-223), FeinBeRG (1973, 45F), FEinberg (1984), FEinberG (1990). j. ANgELo CorletT 12 sOugHt to USE such WomeN As Mere meanS to the ENdS oF commerCiAlizatIoN anD seXual oBJectIficatIon. I am suRe thaT This is what is at THe bottom of sucH ReASOnINg, phIloSophically aNd etHIcalLy spEAkIng. hOweveR, it woUlD CoNStitute an insult to suCh Women iF it is Insisted that tHey are unabLE TO choose fOr thEMsELves whether or nOt theY wish to plaCE themselVes in A positioN to be explOITed in sucH waYs. INdeEd, iT IS aN insult of pateRNAlisTiC proporTioNs to do sO. FoR thEre May Be Over-ridinG reasons WhY sUcH wOmeN mighT Seek to coMpEte EvEn uNder sUCh circUmstaNces. inDeED, it Might be THe CASe thAt SuCh ciRcuMsTanceS of eXPloItation Bring greaTer VIeweRsHiP and croWds to watch womEn'S beach vollEyBalL, which MIGht be a prImary goal of the competitoRS as it teNds To briNg grEater presTigE to theIr sPOrt. And If such Women ArE noT THe pruDISh TypEs (UndoubtedlY THey Are noT aS theY not becOme beach volleyballERs tO begin with and Are QuitE USeD to COmPEtiNg IN suCH Gear), they might weLl construe ThERe Being compeTItoRs In beach VolleybAll as AN opportUnity to diSplay theiR gEnuiNE FemIninity as dEfined in TraditionAList tERmS in whAt sOme refEr To aS a 'patRiarchIC soCiety.' one migHt Be prepAred tO aRgue that Such women are deluded into ThinkiNg thaT suCh a competItiVE coNtext that i desCribe is one In wHicH the fReeDOm of wOmen TO dIspLAy theIr feMIninity caN ThRivE. bUt This too reveALS An aTtituDe oF Hard paTernAlism, one that reducES
 FIVB to require them to c ompete wea ringbik ini  w ear.  How ever, hard pat e rnal ism, whether of the le gal o rm oral va riety , has n o  p l a cein  t his  a r en a asitviolate s the righ tsof  women to fr e el y choose t o c ompete in th e O lympic sasv olley bal lers.  Furth e rmore,  whatever  m i ght ju s tify so f t  p ater nalism must do so fo r  over-riding r easons  o f  s a f ety  or  fairnessfo r the athlete s .5 B u t p r udishness har dly grounds con sidera ti ons of ath letic  s a fet y or fairne ss.Nor willit dof or onet o argue  in aKan tia n fa s hi on  th at the ol d r u lerequirin gwo men b each v o l leyb all ersto we ar bikini wea r w as w r ong  beca use i t 4Of  cour se, no t all  C hristians are p urit anical. I  am  r efe rr ing t o  those  wh o a re infl uencedb y t he h i st orical settlementof t he  America s by m a ny  P u ritans w ho  we re C h r istia ns,a tleast in  name. 5Fo r discu ss ions o fhar d p atern a lism  and w hy it is  gene r ally problemat i c, see Dworki n  ( 1 9 95 ,  209 -21 9, 219-223) , Fe i nber g (1 9 73 , 4 5 f), F einbe rg (1 9 84), Feinberg (1990 ).  J. An geloCorlett 12 so ught to us e s uch wome n as me r e means to the  ends  of commer c ializati on an d sexual  objectif i c ation. I  am  su retha t th is is what is a t th ebottomofsuch re aso nin g,phi lo sophicall y and et hi ca ll yspe aking .  However ,itwo uld  cons t itutean in sult  t os uch  womeni fi t  isin si sted  th at  they  are una ble tochoose fo r t h emse lv es  whethe r or not they  w ish to pla ce  th emselv e s  in a po sition to be exploitedi n suchway s. In deed , it is a n i nsultofp aterna listic  prop or tio n s  to d o so . F or  there may b e o ver-r id ingreasons  why such women mi g htseek to compe teeven u nd ers uc h  ci rc u mst a n ces. Indeed, it  might beth e  c ase that s u chci rcumsta nces of  expl o itation  bring gr eater vie we rshi p and  crowds to  watch w omen's be a ch vo l le yball , w hich m ig htbe aprimar y  go al of  the c om petito rs as  i t tendsto bring greater presti ge totheir  sp ort. Andifs uch  women ar e no t the prud ish  ty pes ( und o ubted ly t h ey  ar e  notas t h ey not be c om e b e a ch  volleyball e r s  to  begi n w i th and  are  quite used to co m peting in such  gea r ) , t hey migh twell construethe re b eing com pe titors in b each vol le y ballas anopport unity t o di s play t heir  ge nuine fem ini ni t y as de fi ne d  in tr adit io nalist  terms in w h a t some refer toas a' p atria r chi c soc ie ty.' On e  mig ht be prep ared to arg ue tha t su ch wo men are  d eluded  in to  thinkingt hat sucha com petitiv econt ext  thatI de s c ribeis o ne  in  which th e fr e ed om ofwome n todi spla y their f e mininity  ca n  thrive .But t his to o  r e v eals an at tit ude o f hard pater n alis m ,o ne th at red uces
 FIVB_to require_them to compete wearing_bikini wear._However,_hard paternalism,_whether_of the legal_or moral variety,_has no place in_this arena as_it_violates the rights of women to freely choose to compete in the Olympics as_volleyballers._Furthermore, whatever_might_justify_soft paternalism must do so_for over-riding reasons of safety_or fairness_for the athletes.5 But prudishness hardly grounds considerations_of_athletic safety or_fairness. Nor will it do for one to argue_in a Kantian fashion that the_old rule requiring_women_beach_volleyballers to wear bikini_wear was wrong because it 4_Of course, not all Christians are_puritanical. I am referring to those who_are influenced by the historical settlement_of the Americas by many_Puritans who_were Christians, at least in_name. 5 For_discussions of_hard paternalism and_why it is generally problematic, see_Dworkin (1995, 209-219,_219-223), Feinberg (1973, 45f), Feinberg (1984),_Feinberg_(1990). J. Angelo_Corlett_12_sought to_use such women_as_mere means_to_the ends of commercialization and sexual_objectification._I am sure that this is what_is at the bottom_of_such reasoning, philosophically and_ethically speaking. However, it would_constitute an insult to such women_if it_is insisted_that they are unable to choose for themselves whether or not_they wish to place themselves in_a position to be_exploited in_such_ways. Indeed, it_is_an insult_of paternalistic proportions to do so. For_there may_be over-riding reasons why such women_might seek to compete_even_under such circumstances. Indeed, it might_be the case that such circumstances_of exploitation bring greater viewership_and_crowds_to watch women's beach volleyball,_which might be a primary goal_of the competitors_as it tends to bring greater prestige_to_their sport. And if such women_are_not the prudish types (undoubtedly they_are_not_as they not become beach_volleyballers to begin with and are_quite used to competing in such gear), they might_well construe there_being competitors in beach volleyball_as_an_opportunity to display their genuine femininity as defined in traditionalist_terms in_what some refer_to as a 'patriarchic society.' One might be prepared to_argue that such women are deluded into_thinking that such a competitive context that I describe is one_in which the freedom of women to display_their femininity can thrive. But this too_reveals an attitude of_hard_paternalism, one that reduces