When I joined my local rugby team, I was made to do terrible, awful things. Even now, all these years later, I feel distressed and choked up recounting what happened. I had to stand on a chair as a full pint of beer was shoved in my groin, soaking it. I then had to drink a yard of ale (three pints in a yard-long horn-shaped glass) with a bucket in front of me. Later, several of us had to run around the rugby pitch stark naked. In January.
I was traumatized. I may never recover. This wasnt what I had signed up for! I want to complain. Im going to sue! Someones got to pay. You see, it was a terrible, awful, unforgettable, wounding disappointment. It was just all sorestrained. I had been hoping that we would be performing some of the other bonding and initiation rites that Id heard about, such as the one where one naked teammate bends over and a pint is poured over his ass, down his crack, and over his sack while another sits underneath him with head back and mouth open. Or the soggy biscuit game: a circle jerk over a cream cracker where the last one to come has to eat it. Or perhaps the carrot game, where a root vegetable is shoved up the rookies ass and a pink ribbon tied around his erect penis (something to do with the carrot, I suppose), which he has to keep on for two weeks, to be checked at each training session. Frankly, I would have even been happy with the relatively vanilla hazing that all new recruits to a crack U.K. Army regiment have to participate in: According to a straight soldier pal of mine, the old-timers rub their asses and genitals over the faces of the new recruits or crows, as theyre called. Sounds like an excellent icebreaker to me. It is just a shame it has to happen only oncewhy cant you join every day?
But, alas, none of the really juicy stuff for me at my rugby clubjust a wet crotch on my jeans and a frost-shriveled penis. Judging by the excited media reports, things would have been very different if Id been a college freshman in the United States and joined the football team or one of those kinky fraternities with those Greek names. At the University of Vermont the elephant walk is, or was, rather popular: Pledges drink warm beer and walk naked in a line, holding the genitals of the lucky lad in front of them. At Tiffin University in Ohio the soccer team has been known to strip their freshmen players to their underwear, handcuff them together, scrawl vulgarities on their bodies, and make them lick one anothers nipples. Sometimes the fun isnt just reserved for members of the team. At a Utah high school two wrestlers stripped a male cheerleader in the school locker room and attempted to shave his pubic hair with an electric clipper. Attempted? Does that mean they didnt succeed?
The truth be told, even in the United States, hazing isnt what it used to be. This ancient rite is under attack from all sides: the media, feminists, mothers, educational authorities, legislators, policeand also many gays. Hazing is being shamed up and stamped out. The only reason we know about the sordid goings-on in frat houses across the nation is because the authorities were involved, litigation was initiated, criminal charges brought, and the media involveda big stink, in other words. Most respectable people seem to agree hazing is wrong, sexist, and homophobic and must be stopped.
Now, perhaps its because Im not terribly respectable, or maybe because I enjoy championing lost causes, but I think hazing is a valuable, venerable masculine institution that should be defended, particularly by men who are interested in other men. Hazing is the last rite of passage left for boys in a world that doesnt seem to want boys to grow into men anymore, a very physical form of male bonding in a society that wants us to remain as disconnected as possible, an antidote to individualism, which in this atomized day and age tends to just mean alienated consumerism.
Yes, I realize that hazing can be dangerous. It can turn into abuse and bullying or outright sadism, as in those widely reported instances of boys being sodomized with mop handles and pinecones by other boys. Boys, like men, can be plain dumb and dangerous and occasionally fatal. Jocks can be obnoxious, arrogant little shits, especially to male cheerleaders. But my point would be that this is all we ever hear about. Hazing has been tarred with one self-righteous puritanical brush.
Scandalized media reports and a proliferation of antihazing Web sites such as BadJocks.com and StopHazing.org have helped to decisively turn public opinion against hazing (though in some cases with an admixture of voyeurism for the very thing that they are campaigning against). Hazing is now the subject of a full-fledged moral panic about our children. This September sees the First National Conference on High School Hazingand you can be sure theyre not teaching delegates how to conduct a successful elephant walk. Most states now have antihazing laws, and most universities have draconian antihazing policies. Heres the University of Vermonts all-embracing definition of what hazing is and thus what is verboten: any act, whether physical, mental, emotional, or psychological, which subjects another person, voluntarily or involuntarily, to anything that may abuse, mistreat, degrade, humiliate, harass, or intimidate him/her, or which may in any fashion compromise his/her inherent dignity as a person. Which sounds to me like a recipe for a very dull Saturday night indeed. Dont we all want our inherent dignity as a person to be compromised sometimes, especially at university? And why on earth would you join a fraternity, or an ice-hockey team, or in fact any all-male group if you were so concerned about your inherent dignity as a person? Wouldnt it be wiser just to stay at home knitting? Hazing is used by these groups for precisely that purpose: to put off those who arent really serious about putting the group or the team above their own damn preciousness or good sense.
Note how hazing is defined as voluntarily or involuntarily: Consent is irrelevant to the powers that be in their zeal to stamp out hazing (just as it used to be with homosexuality). They know best. Nor is it merely extreme cases such as sodomizing with pinecones that the antihazing zealots are against but any act, whether physical, mental, emotional, or psychological that might be kind of naughty, kind of dirty, kind of fun. In itself a rather convincing argument for hazing, at least for young people. Mom and the cops and the college dean dont like it? Great! Bring on the handcuffs, warm beer, and Jell-O!
Which brings me onto the aspect of hazing that, as you may possibly have guessed, I have a fond fascination for, and is a central part of my desire to defend the practiceand probably why my defense will probably succeed in finally killing it off: the homoerotic dimension, the gayness of what these mostly straight guys like to do to one another and their private parts. Granted, a lot of hazing, especially with the crackdown going on today, has little or nothing to do with being homoerotic. It may be just Jackass-style craziness involving oncoming traffic, gallons of water, and jumping out of trees. Mind, hazing does, like me, keep returning to mens butts and penises and testicles (anyone for tea-bagging?) even when it tries not to. Obviously, I think this is entirely understandable and requires no explanation whatsoever, let alone pathologizing it and criminalizing it. But clearly plenty of people think otherwise.
So why is hazing so homo? In part because all-male groups, according to Freud, are bound together by barely sublimated homoerotic feelings. Its what inspires them to such heartwarming loyalty, such passionate self-sacrifice and heroic endeavorEros can wrestle the instinct for self-preservation to the ground. The hazing rituals with their simulated homo sex could be seen as a symbolic group fuck that gets the sex over with yet turns all the members of the team or fraternity into a band of lovers. Of course, I would prefer that they followed the exemplar of the Theban Band, or the Spartans of ancient Greece, the warrior-lovers who didnt stop at simulated homo sex (and were widely regarded as invincible); but you cant have everything.
There are also putatively Darwinian explanations for the homoerotics of male groups. In our prehistoric past the bonding of hunters and warriors was vital to the survival of the tribe. Those tribes that survived and thrived and passed on their genes were those in which men were willing to sacrifice breeding opportunities and comforts of life with the chicks back at camp for weeks and months of intimacy with men and a willingness to serve and take orders. Prehistoric man, in other words, was a bit of a leather queen. This is probably the reason why hypermasculinity is sometimes difficult to separate from homosexuality, especially during Hell Week.
There is also another explanationone that, like psychological explanations of homosexuality itself, has something to do with Mommy. Boarding school, joining the college football team, or joining the military used to be a sacredly symbolic time for males, an initiation of boys into the world of menaway from the world of Mom into a world where hazing rituals and homoerotic horseplay would be used to masculinize boys into men.
Alas, many gays see hazing as essentially homophobic and appear to buy into the simplistic feminist analysis of power and domination. In an online article Cyd Zeigler Jr. of Outsports.com recognizes that hazing is often deeply homoerotic (and lists some of the same scandals I have), but sees it as essentially homophobic: Whether its sodomizing them or making them wear womens panties, the notion of forcing younger players to submit to team veterans comes right out of the handbook of antigay stereotypes. Clinching the matter, homoerotic hazing apparently emasculates the victim.
Leaving aside that the out-and-proud gay world isnt exactly free of power, domination, and humiliation, or for that matter antigay stereotypes, this doesnt always hold true. While I have some sympathy with this approach, in its attachment to victimhood it seems to be rather more rigidly homophobic than hazing is. The curious paradox of hazing is that while it may well regard fagginess and softness as undesirable, it actually makes the homoerotic central to membership of the group. Besides, rather than emasculating the new members of group, the veterans wish to masculinize them, and they use homoerotics to that end. Hazing itself is not an act of hostility but of affection: tough love. While hazing can be homoerotic and homophobic, this is notand its difficult for us self-centered homos to realize thisits point.
The famous Sambia tribe of New Guinea (famous because anthropologists wont leave them alone) dont simulate homosexuality in their own hazing rituals: they practice it. Adolescent boys are taken from their mothers by the older youths and required to repeatedly give oral sex to themthey are told that the semen will masculinize them. In todays universities, of course, the semen is replaced by warm Budweiser and protein shakes. From a Sambian point of view, the dominance of the antihazing lobby today would probably represent an insufferable victory of the protected domestic world of Mom, who deep down doesnt want her cherished baby boy to ever be exposed to anything extreme or distasteful or dangerous ormale. But then, it sometimes seems that our contemporary culture has less and less use for, or appreciation of, masculinity that isnt merely decorative or good at DIY. Paradoxically, as the toleration and visibility of newfangled gays and gayness in our culture has risen, intolerance of oldfangled homoerotic masculine rituals has also increased. Very often, societys preoccupation with hazing is, like mine, a preoccupation with its gayness. But in reverse.
When a private video of drunken off-duty U.K. Royal Marines running around naked together in some godforsaken place was sold to the tabloids in 2005, it caused an outcry. Officially, it was because one of the marines was shown being kicked in the head by a drunken officer, and this was evidence of bullying. But as the repeated printing of the naked pictures showed, it was mostly about the fact that they were fit young marines, naked together, being gay. The (extremely hot) victim, 23-year-old Ray Simmons, came forward to say he didnt hold the officer (who was now the subject of a military police investigation) responsible, and it was just a bit of fun that got out of hand. However, the host of reader letters that the stories prompted showed the real preoccupation was not the bullying but the gayness. A typically hissy moralistic example from one male reader: I am utterly disgusted by the behavior of our so-called Marines. This kind of thing would be better suited to a gay 1830 holiday on a remote island somewhere. Our enemies across the globe must be laughing at us.
So society apparently still expects marines to go and kill and be killed anywhere in the world at the drop of a daisy-cutter to defend our enervated suburbanand voyeuristiclifestyle but ridicules and condemns them for doing what men have to do and have always done to bond and let off steam. Fortunately, the marines arent taking any notice: People think a load of men getting naked together is a bit gay, said Simmons, but we dont care what others think. Its just marine humor.
Well said. Dont let the square civviesor the envious homos like metry to shame you into being as joyless, lonely, and bereft of real camaraderie and human contact as the rest of us. Its a sign of our isolated times that most people today could never say the words we dont care what people think because (a) they dont belong to a group, or in fact to anything except a supermarket loyalty scheme; and (b) they care about what people will think rather more than they do about their buddies. The homoerotics of hazing are not, in fact, necessarily homophobic or gay. Theyre just guy. And I dont know about you, but Im all in favor of guys.
Mark Simpson is the author of Male Impersonators, Its a Queer World,
and most recently Saint Morrissey. Check out his blog at www.marksimpson.com/blog.