[DSTCHAOS]

The voluntary versus involuntary isn't a strong argument so the grey area isn't because of that.

99% of the hazing is technically voluntary, ranging from technically allowing someone to paddle you to allowing yourself to be "forced" to drink gallons of water or alcohol.

Even the alleged milder forms of hazing like scavenger hunts are voluntary but we all know that people do these things because they think they should. People who refuse to go through these things will be treated accordingly--and in most chapters that means that their experience will be made into a nightmare.

So voluntarily being hazed, enjoying some of the experiences, and thinking that what you went through is a reasonable rite of passage doesn't change anything. You were still hazed, based on many definitions, and what you experienced can always be taken to an extreme if placed in the wrong hands. That applies to the hazing of 50 years ago and the hazing of today.

The REAL grey area is that we know that some people are responsible and don't take power to the extreme so they aren't hoping to truly physically or mentally damage people (I acknowledge that "truly" is subjective). However, as I said before, the hazing laws exist because "some people" isn't enough insurance and people seeking membership have different physical and mental tolerance levels that aren't always considered. One pledge could do 300 pushups with ease and another not only can't but can end up in cardiac arrest because of it. Harmless or a "fluke" outcome of a hazing incident that justifies why hazing is illegal?