I've been reporting on sports-related hazing incidents for years, and I've written a new column on how homosexuality and homophobia play a role.
Hazing story

What do you all think?

Haze (h z)
tr.v. hazed, haz•ing, haz•es
1. To persecute or harass with meaningless, difficult, or humiliating tasks.
2. To initiate, as into a college fraternity, by exacting humiliating performances from or playing rough practical jokes upon.
[Perhaps from obsolete haze, to frighten, from obsolete French haser, to annoy, from Old French.]
While I am certain that latent sexual issues and homophobia do play a huge part in sexual hazing; I think there is a lot of hazing that goes on that is non sexual in nature. Certainly that was true in my day.

You need to differentiate between the meaningless goofy pranks and stupid jokes that many clubs and groups pull, and the criminal, violent, sexual oriented acts perpetrated by a few

Almost all social groups since the beginning of time require some sort of 'initiation rite' in order for an 'outsider' to join the family, group, etc.

That sort of initiation, during last few thousand years at least, is not usually sexual in nature.

Most of those initiation rites are to bring the individual into the group as an equal member of the group; once done, the group recognizes that the person is a full fledged equal member.

I believe sexual hazing is quite different in that the sexually oriented hazing seeks to place the individual in demeaning and subordinate status to those in 'power'. Like rape it is more about ‘power’ and ‘dominance’ than anything else.

R

I also agree that some initiation is just silly. I had a coworker who for god knows what reason wanted to join a fraternity. He described wearing a silly hat, carrying a pledge master's books, etc.

But as to the actual hazing, not only is there a homophobic component, I also see a strong sexist component. Basically, the pledges are made into women. Sometimes they are called "girls", "ladies" or "bitches". They are sometimes given female names for the duration of the pledge period. And they are expected to submit to sexual taunts and even assault, like women.
These same measures are also sometimes used by men's coaches and in military basic training.
IMO they are trying to separate the "real men", those on the inside, from the "bitches", the "other". The pledges are taught to identify with the "real men" who are tough, have no compassion or empathy with others, to learn that might makes right. To learn that they are part of an elect/elite that necessarily excludes those who don't "measure up", who "can't take it".
It is one reason why I am uncomfortable with the relatively mild annual rookie ritual the A's conduct where veteran players make them dress for a day in outrageous, and virtually always female, clothing. I know that they all just laugh and the pictures are posted and considered amusing. So far as I know, the ritual has never gone beyond dressing. But it makes me uncomfortable the idea that the initiation is making them women for the day.

I belonged to a frat, I was pledge class president and closeted/unsure about my sexuality. I endured an initiation weekend and it wasn't about sexuality or homophobia at all. Men of all cultures seem pretty insecure about their masculinity - I know that's a sweeping generalization...but I think it's true.
Initiation rites reflect the tenuous nature of how men gain trust for one another.
It does appear that the current college culture has sexualized initiation rites far more than in the past. We did some weird things in our initiation but we were challenged far more on our knowledge of the frat's history and contributions.

[ May 26, 2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

My fraternity intiation came a year after a major hazing crack-down by the nationals of my fraternity (Delta Upsilon) and the University (BGSU). I won't say what year but I went to Joe Louis Arena that year to watch Gretz play...for the Oilers.

I was forced to fill out a pledge book with questions from every brother and have them answered before initiation. I was ASKED to chug a tumbler full of 7-UP. (beer would have been easier) and required to learn about the bothers and the fraternity enough to pass a test on initiation night. Oh and to be able to say the Greek alphabet three times with a lit match. (which I got out of when I showed up with a huge fireplace match.) To me it was a little lame and the brothers didn't really seem all that into it.

There was absolutely nothing sexual, homoerotic or otherwise. But that was probably due to the crack-down.

My own fraternity - no fraternity man calls them "frats!" - had a gay Black Brother who was a drama professor for our chapter advisor. We also consistently had the largest social budget and a healthy mixture of jocks and study hawks, as we called them then. Since ours was an all male campus, some might have thought the kind of apocryphal things MdB - predictably - trotted out would have happened there.

But the fact is, they didn't. Instead, like others have said, we were drilled about the Founders of the Fraternity, its traditions and charities, its members of note and the active Brothers in our chapter. Sure, we did a few push-ups, and ran naked around the house during Hell Week. We didn't mind the "hazing" - and didn't label it such then or now - because behind it all was true friendship and genuine caring about each other. In the process, we also became the closest bunch of friends ever, as we remain to this day.

Proud to be a Sigma Chi! - God Bless Our Fraternity!

[ May 26, 2006, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Maybe I should have been more specific.

At no time during HS or College (during the late 70's, early 80's), either in my Fraternity or on my Teams did I ever observe incidents of 'sexual hazing'.

The only thing that even comes close was being asked to streak across campus wearing nothing but the Fraterities baseball cap, stopping to greet prof's and 'tip our hats' to them before resuming (a practice I am told was almost a century old then).

Almost all of the hazing then was 'knowledge based' or 'task based' (completing a task as a group type thing).

I see no problem or difficulty with that kind of thing. I had always thought of those acts as positive bonding.

Perhaps I have assumed that is still the environmental behaviour today on the part of most groups.

I agree with Cyd that the stuff he has referenced and has been reported are way over the line. I frankly can't imagine most of the people I went to school with not putting a stop to that kind of thing immediately.

But the times they are a changin...

R