I'm chill

Billy, ya got an ice cube in your shorts or what, Damn, dued, not a big deal!!


Dumbest Q is the one you never ask!

I dont give a damn what people think, I will not do needles or being Branded like a Damn Cow, Sheep, or Pig !!


????? Get the point!

to me, branding is for cattle.

i don't understand why people would want to burn themselves.:( i think it's gross. if you love your letters so much, wear a t-shirt with them on it.

I totally agree cash78mere

I had a couple classes with guys who got branded. Their Sigma was always just below the bottom on the sleeve of a t-shirt.

I can remember thinking in the one class (it was an American History class) that, we villify the slave owners who branded their slaves as horrible people (and rightly so!), yet here's this guy willingly allowing himself to sink to that same level.

I am against branding and tatooing in general, but with history in mind, I find the branding of African Americans especially repugnant.

And I don't care if it's done as a matter of hazing or by peer pressure - there are just some things that are wrong.

I have a lyre (sorority symbol) tattooed on my lower back. I don't think that branding is ugly either. It's a personal statement. Just as clothing, hair, and make-up is. There are a lot of things that i think look ugly but I'm not sitting around bitching about them on the net. This thread has turned from a "is branding hazing" debate into an opinion thread. I say keep it to yourself cause some of us have these "repugnant" things on us and feel that it is a very special way to show our pride in our organization. If you don't then don't get one!

Oh my dayuuuuuuuuuuuum:eek: :eek:

Optimist, I think people are in shock because it is pretty obvious that tattoos show up on black skin. I mean, do you watch TV? Have you ever seen Tupac, Nelly, Allen Iverson, Dennis Rodman, 50 Cent, almost ANY rapper or athelete?

I know. But I was just restating what some one told me. I didn't think that. Well, , I mean, I know that tats show up but thought branding was like a cultural thing, that was just for BGLOs and from my (obviously limited) understanding that that is why branding originated.

Don't mean to hijack, but I just have to say that if your tattoo hasn't faded you must have had one great artist. I have 2, and they are fairly new. While the one on my back is still in great shape, the one one my leg has faded, and it's not even a year old yet.

But back to the question at hand. If fraternity or sorority members choose to get branded of their own volition, then to me that is not hazing. However, if they are foreced or feel in any way pressured (because of tradition) to get branded then I would say it was hazing.

hazing is doing something against your will to be initiated into an organization, branding should be optional, you dont have to get your skinned burned but if you are hazed into it, that sounds like a good crime

holy bump batman

Hey! I have an AWESOME IDEA. Let's go through and bump ALL the threads in Greek Life! Just to add an agreement to what someone else has posted! AWESOME!

Or maintain membership in.

That includes the fear or threat of social ostracization if an initiated member doesn't do something (branding included).

I know this is really, really old but still...

If it's not hazing unless it's forced, then why is it called hazing when fraternities do it, because you're more than welcome to walk out the door?

Yes I realize that had poor syntax. Or at least it looks like it would.