Is news here since 2 days ago, weird nobody said anything about it here.
The movie (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml) we see shows naked marines 'forced' to fight against each other.
When we watched the video, my girfried asked what's wrong with it, apparently, is a initiation ceremony, and that's usually happens everywhere, so, she thought that is nothing 'wrong' or 'weird' about it, but then the complete video shows an 'officer' dressed in green beating one marine in the head until he drops down. So that seems to be wrong.
Is this kind of behaviour normal? Is acceptable?
Initiation rituals are almost 'normal' even in new works or schools, but I think that the kind of violence that the video shows is not acceptable.

[ November 30, 2005, 16:31: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I personaly don't see the reason for initiation ceremonies that includes violence, sick stuff or too embarrassing acts, and I don't tolerate being personaly exposed to it.

I don't think this kind of behaviour is acceptable, often times things get far worse than previusly intended, and there has been cases of death and mutilations in these situations.

At first, it just seems funny. Not to mention extremely homo-erotic. A bunch of naked Army guys wrestling... you can see the doing the rounds of a certain kind of internet site, everyone having a laugh at their expense and moving on. However, the beating then puts another slant on things. That's just assault, and adds the implication that the men there were bullied to be there, rather than by some kind of choice. Then you have to think about the implications for inclusivity in the Army. Many cultures (Islam in particular) would find this sort of thing highly offensive. How can the armed forces expect to be able to draw a representative cross-section of recruits from society if it indulges these practices? Of course, several top brass have appeared on TV already to say that this sort of thing isn't tolerated, etc. but that's :bs: . More accurately, it's not officially tolerated but everyone just turns a blind eye to it to avoid stirring up trouble. This kind of thing doesn't just give a poor impression of the Armed Forces' professionalism; it actively distances them from modern Britain.

Frankly, I have never been as relieved that National Service was done away with so long ago.

I heard an ex Royal Marine say in an interview that this is pretty common and that it usually ends without any serious violence, this particular case however shows an officer kicking a man in the face when he refused to hit his opponent with his fists. Seems to me they have reason enough now to sack this perverted officer. Traditions are one thing, but kicking a man in the head because ge refuses to carry out an insane order is a whole different story.

It is indoctrination of violent behavior in a semi-controlled environment so that they can deal with a violent and uncontrollable world. Mankind has been doing it since before we became Man.

By the way, anyone think the Philadelphia Eagles will finish over .500?

A incident along these lines happened a number of years ago in the US Marines -- it was referred to as the 'blood-wings' video.

Still, many Marines and former Marines who have gone through similar rituals to get their "blood wings" say it looks worse than it is. It's bonding not barbarism, they argue.

"I'm a little shocked that someone would take something like that and let people get the wrong impression. It doesn't happen everywhere, and I'm sure it's going to continue," said retired Marine Cpl. Ed Manuel.

That kind of talk has top Marines spitting bullets. "If they [junior leadership in the Marine Corps] think that the leadership of the Marine Corps believes that beating up on their fellow Marines makes for a better warrior they better find themselves a new occupation," Marine Commandant Gen. Charles Krulak said.
There are always those that abuse tradition to fulfill their own demented quest to hurt others. Fortunately, those people are usually found and removed from the service.

I personaly don't see the reason for initiation ceremonies that includes violence, sick stuff or too embarrassing acts, and I don't tolerate being personaly exposed to it.I totally agree with Bahir. I believe that initiation ceremonies put people under such a degree of pressure from both peers and superiors, as well as local customs, that it hardly counts as fully consensual. In short, we can speak of coercion whenever violent or embarrassing things happen.

A little mud hasn't killed anybody. Or getting tired. However, what I believe doesn't go in school or army or any other initiation ceremonies:

Beating with normal strength (i.e. more than sparring) Stripping to underwear or beyond Being touched by members of the opposite sex on exposed skin or on the midsection or chest (if female) or by members of the same sex on private parts (chest may count for women depending on the situation) Basically anything charged sexually, such as anything to do with underwear, sex-related shouting or comments (especially from the opposite gender), making people dance around a pipe, anything sexually suggestive or flirtacious Making people eat expired food, drink alcohol or take drugs (from unprescribed medicine to hard drugs), whatever they are allergic to, basically whatever could cause vomiting or worse reaction Making people perform any kind of self-humiliation (such as crawl under the table and bark like a dog when they order you -- an ancient punishment for spreading false rumours ;) ) or inflict any harm on their own bodies Anything which goes against the subject's religious, national or family feelings (such as forcing people to deface their religious symbols, insult relatives/ancestors etc)
Whenever any of these happens, I believe the police should be called and the public prosecutor contacted. In the army, it's pretty obvious they aren't going to be light on you, but they still have to respect your modesty, religious feelings etc and give you at least some measure of dignity and privacy. In schools, there is no such thing as army discipline in place, so my criteria are even stricter. If a male student touches a female student's underwear or what underwear would cover or even makes a comment like "nice butt" during a situation when he has some power over the rookie (i.e. being the master of the ceremony or a helper and the one that comes up with the bad things), it's already the crime of sexual harassment. Same for female students who have any degree of power over male students in the ceremony, as well. At my university, the ceremony involved first year girls kissing some strangers and dancing around the pipe, but they had the option to refuse (the pipe) and were told that they will be graded and rewarded for performance (kissing -- basically, they got more cheers for kissing a guy on the butt than on the cheek :rolleyes: ), so the degree of coercion was minimal (but still too high in my book and I really wonder why the freaking law department authorities who were present allowed that atrocity to go on). In fact, even if they force you to behave in a sexy way as a part of the ceremony, it's not like you are being violated (done harm to against your will) so much, but what they do is awful and deserves some attention from the law enforcement. Okay, perhaps reading the Commercial Code in an affectionate way doesn't count, but still... Well, and whatever involves underwear or body parts that are covered by it, is wrong and out of place.

In the army, it may be necessary to strip to underwear or even naked in the presence of people of your own gender in field circumstances. Shared showers in barracks aren't abomination, but those who care should be enabled to use cabins (for example, if they are gay and are bothered by males looking at them naked). Superiors or anyone should be legally obligated to turn heads away when you are forced to change clothes if you ask them. No naked training, for decency's sake. It's never necessary. Perhaps some martial arts are better train unencumberred, but briefs or boxers for males or a swimsuit for females don't restrict too much. :rolleyes:

Beating is absolutely out of place. I suppose certain special units may be expected to use real strength in training, but corporal punishment is illegal in the civilised world and beating someone up is a crime. Humiliation as a punishment is unnecessary and probably illegal pretty much everywhere in pretty much all circumstances in the civilised world, except maybe such a relatively light form as public remonstration or making your offence known to the other people.

Whatever includes any degree of sexuality needs to be banned in situations where they have power over you and army life is one of such situations. Especially when it's training or similar where discipline and obedience is crucial.

Of course, any degree of sexual coercion or abuse of rank (position, commission, jurisdiction) in sex-related ways needs to lead to discharge and loss of rank (being banned from command/jurisdiction/administration in lighter cases, demoted to 2nd class private soldier in other cases). Violence should result in strict punishment and obligatory sensitivity training with an exam, additional supervision and discharge (dishonourable if needed) on second offence. Even excessive shouting should lead to some kind of sensitivity training. Excessive violence can be tamed and unlearnt to some extent, but there's no place in the army on freaks who get off on violence or abuse their position to get laid (or be otherwise satisfied sexually to any extent). And no, boasting your medals before girls doesn't count. :p I'm talking about abuse of subordinates, civilians in special zones, people who are in need of supplies you're in charge of or papers that need your signature etc. Same treatment for civilians hired by the army, of course.

However, outside the army, it's way easier to refuse to submit to offensive parts of a ceremony. If there is no threat of violence, a normal person should have enough willpower to resist peer pressure if he or she is really bothered by what's going on. This doesn't apply to unexpected situations (e.g. if you're a female student and get patted on the rear side by a male student by surprise) but it does apply when you know what's going to happen (like when there's a queue and you're in the middle, so there's no surprise or shock factor and you have the time to realise what's going in). In those cases, "masters of ceremony" should be punished for the criminal offence (molestation or assault), but damages awarded in civil lawsuits shouldn't be too high (victim's cooperation proportionally reducing the offender's duty to compensate). Steps should be taken to limit their opportunity to reoffend.

[ November 30, 2005, 18:50: Message edited by: chevalier ]

They're having a bit of a laugh, but this one got a bit out of hand. The officer will probably be reprimanded (rightfully) but outside of that, there's no big deal. They've got to get some amusement out there!

as a member of the RAF reg i work closely with the royal marines, and i have never seen anything like this before

Initiations have been around for ages. Pretty well every group has something. Religions have baptisms, clubs have dues, teams have hazing of rookies, fraternities have hazing of pledges, Gangs have "beating in", etc. This sort of thing has a long history.

Which isn't to say that I think it's OK -- one of the many reasons I never have been much for organized sports -- or any organized activity, for that matter -- is this element of humiliation or test to prove worthiness to associate. Many people, though, will do anything to fit in or gain status. One theory about why the military does is is that they want to "toughen up" the new recruits. Thank God I'm too old to be conscripted (if there were to be one, that is.)

@LKD: Catholics used to have a face slap (symbolic) during Confirmation. Footballers would walk on rookies in their special playing shoes. Children's holiday camps include "baptisms" with lots of crawling in mud, throwing expired food around etc, same in schools and universities. It's different from beating and/or nudity/sex-related stuff.

Of course, you're right about people doing much to fit in. If I were the parent of a child not refusing to undergo sexual humiliation in an initiation ceremony I would seriously worry. People should have more spine than just agreeing to everything to fit in and whining later. Not being cool in peers' eyes, what a disastrous consequence. :rolleyes:

Even excessive shouting should lead to some kind of sensitivity training. Good luck with that. I've never heard of a good-natured drill sergeant.

Actually, good luck with all of this, as well-intentioned and common sensical as your reforms seem to be. There is a totally different mindset in the armed forces sub-culture, and reports like this just serve to strengthen my belief that there are people like this all over the world. The only reason the U.S. military gets more press is because we're a super-power. While I don't support hazings, maltreatment of prisoners, etc., I'm pretty sure this happens a lot more than any of us know.

Eh, drill sergeant is different from lieutenant or quartermaster or a military medic dealing with a military nurse (or pilot with steward(ess)), right?

As long as it's consensual, they should be allowed to beat on each other as much as they want. These things should be addressed up front though, and not hidden from new recruits or the public. If it happens, people should know about it so they can avoid it if they want to.

chev's list pretty much sums up my thoughts except for the first two. If you've agreed to beat on each other full-force, then that's what you get. And stripping to underwear (briefs and possibly bra) in same-sex company is done all the time in locker rooms, and can leaves less for an opponent to grab onto. Inappropriate touching is another matter, though, and that underwear shouldn't come off unless all gathered are completely comfortable with it. :nono:

I'm not condoning it, and yes, I do see a distinct difference with drill sergeants compared to the other examples you gave. Moreover, I agree with you completely. I just don't think there's anything anyone can do to change the indoctrination into the sub-culture that almost everyone undergoes once they've spent a significant amount of time in the military.

I don't know how you say it in English but we call it 'vicious circle'. In my first year in high school (secondary?) I remember that guys from the 4th or 5th year asked us money, cigarrettes, food, etc., in a no so friendly way, and if they were smoking in the bathrooms, we could never go there; when we were on 4th or 5th, we did the same that we suffered before. So a soldier that is abused in his own army is more prone to abuse his captured enemies.

Hmm, I just don't see how people can trust each other in the army if they have to go through these initiations. When a soldier is on the battlefield, they need to be able to trust their fellow soldiers, because it could save lives.

I think you people are taking it just a little bit too seriously... lads have a laugh and a joke and sort things out when one of them ****s up or takes something too far.

Nearly killing someone isn't laughable.

I don't think anyone nearly died... proportion and blown out come to mind... As I say, this one appears to have gone too far, but nobody knows the full story, only sensationalist press coverage.
Anyway, lads can sort things out, you know what I mean.

im not so sure this is british to be honest, and i wouldnt put it past the news of the world to use a vid non related to britain and put this bull article behind it.

my evidence?:

you see an officer in a green uniform at the end... royal marines dont have green dress uniforms.

... they need to be able to trust their fellow soldiers, because it could save lives. Nearly killing someone isn't laughable. Actually, that's a rather bizarre phenomenon. The most visible example is a way of getting dogs to trust you:

First you have to get the dog to lie down on its side (paws away from you so you don't get clawed), and then you hold your arms over its neck and hindquarters for a while. It's helpless in this position and you could kill it if you wanted to, but you don't and that somehow gains the dog's trust. :nuts:

The same thing applies here; getting beat almost to death can create a low level of subconscious trust because they didn't beat you all the way to death when they could have. Further (nice) actions are needed to cement it, but the seed is planted and trust grows. There is also something to a fair fight that tends to get a testosterone bond going.

Fear doesn't necessarily lead to trust, it more than likely leads to obedience. A dog obeys you because it fears you (if, of course, you hit it constantly). Getting beaten nearly to death would make me fearful, and thus obedient, because I would be scared to be beaten again. Trust (in the army) is being able to know that if you were dying, they wouldn't leave you behind; or if you needed someone to come rescue you, etc, they would.

Fear doesn't necessarily lead to trust, it more than likely leads to obedience. Right, that's why the nice stuff afterwards is needed; to foster a sense of comradery rather than mastery. That's also why it needs to be a fair fight (rules agreed to) rather than unwanted abuse.

You don't even know what went on! The pictures could even be doctored for all you know! Jesus, anything for a good natter and debate :lol: .

you see an officer in a green uniform at the end... royal marines dont have green dress uniforms. That's explained in the article; it was a blue surgeon's outfit. And he wasn't an officer.

Summary:
The fighting is fine, the kicker has been disciplined, and the other stuff is hearsay for the moment.

@Felinoid:

And stripping to underwear (briefs and possibly bra) in same-sex company is done all the time in locker rooms, and can leaves less for an opponent to grab onto. Inappropriate touching is another matter, though, and that underwear shouldn't come off unless all gathered are completely comfortable with it.I agree with the concept to an extent, but I suppose it doesn't look so black and white in practice. I mean, just how consensual initiation rites are. One thing when it's for a totally optional leisure club, another when it's a school and you need some education or the army. The element of pressure is too high. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough: being forced to strip to underwear when it isn't necessary and when the person isn't comfortable with it is bad. And you can't really have a good baptism kind of ceremony if you keep adding safeguards like "of course, you don't have to do this". It will lose charm if you previously say, "you can withdraw without shame at any moment you choose". Stripping to underwear in mixed company when the pressure borders on coercion is a definite no-no and so is stripping out of underwear even in same gender company. I would make an exception for requiring medical examinations which are necessary for the job and require the subject to show his privates to same gender personnel. Many men don't really care if there's any female personnel in the room but some do and most women do. In essence: pressure towards nudity or anything sexually significant needs to be outlawed and prosecuted, even if the intent isn't immediately sexual (e.g. sticking something in a person's underwear doesn't have to be sexually intended, but it may well be a bad sexual experience for the target, depending on individual sensitivity; sexually charged comments may not be intended as an assault but still taken as such; prolonged and/or close and/or wide-area body contact with the opposite gender may well not be intended sexually but still have sexual significance for some people involved; especially females may feel violated, even sexually, if forced into a submissive position by someone of the opposite gender; etc etc). Even nagging is way too much in such circumstances highly charged with peer pressure (potentially also pressure from immediate superiors, especially in the army). Behaviour that matches the definition of assault or harassment should be prosecuted as assault or harassment. This means that soldiers and other people in service should be free to sue their superiors in normal courts (even military courts, but courts and not some ephemeric commission) and even if they lose, they should be transferred to a different unit to avoid revenge.

This may sound strict to you, but I just believe that it's better to have a hundred ceremonies banned altogether than just one person violated, even subjectively.

It seems like this is going to two different directions (even if those involved do not think so). One is the abuse during an initiation ceremony. The other is abuse in general in the military.

Initiation ceremonies are done to build comraderie. They may involve putting the individual at risk or in a compromising situation -- but only to build trust (that those in the unit would not allow any harm to come to any that belong). This example was clearly over the line and criminal. A point was made that in units like this the ceremony actually has the opposite effect and makes people not trust each other. An excellent point actually and one that most in the military recognize. I have been involved in many initiation ceremonies and none were abusive (some were very borderline though). Anyone could choose not to participate -- but at the cost of not being a welcome member of the group.

Abuse in the military in general is a more difficult thing. Some abuse is required (not sexual, not racial). One of the primary goals of boot camp is to weed out those that cannot take the stress -- being verbally abused is far less stressful than being shot at. Recruits also must learn to obey orders immediately, which can be quite a reprogramming process for the average teenager. Fear is an excellent motivator in the short term and drill sergents use it regularly. However, when successfully completed there is a bonding for those that 'survived' that lasts for years. The Navy tried a 'kinder and gentler' approach to boot camp which was a dismal failure. Individuals who should have been weeded out in boot camp were being discharged for psychiatric reasons in the fleet -- after the Navy spent tens of thousands of dollars in training on each person.

Some training requires full contact. There is no substitute. People get injured in hand-to-hand combat training. Any instructor that does not go full out is not preparing their students properly (this is literally life and death here). There are also courses which teach how to survive enemy capture -- these are quite brutal courses where violation of rules nets severe punishment.

I guess that the real crux of the issue is whether or not the initiation achieves its goal without damaging the victim too terribly. I used a religious baptism as an example of a socially acceptable initiation that does not place the person in any danger.

As for the military, while some initiations and training practices are necessary to encourage survival in combat situations, it is my opinion that many of them are not official practices but rather practices that have evolved to enable people to victimize others for their own pleasure.

First off I would like to apologise for bringing an old post back to life. I know its frowned upon but I have some insight into this topic that may prove interesting. [It's only frowned upon if you have nothing to contribute to the topic - BTA]

My best friend is a Marine. He is stationed not far from Bristol (where I now reside), in Plymouth (where I grew up).
His father was an officer in the Marines for 25 years, having fought in both the Falkland and Gulf wars during his career.
The father speaks very little of the combat he has seen (as is the way with many Royal Marines), but has assured me that he never saw any behaviour of this kind while he was with the force.
My best friend however, has a different story to tell. He has not experienced the same treatment as was documented on the video, but he has experienced severe bullying and physical abuse.
"Marines are verbally abused beyond reason and are put through physical hell".

I was surprised and shocked by this at first. However, he explained it to me this way.

The Royal Marines are the hisghest quality regular troop on the planet. Royal Marine does NOT translate into American Marine. Royal Marines are the British equivilent of Navy Seals. (which one is better is a long running debate that I will not enter).
The fact is that British Marines are expected to produce results in the harshest of conditions with the odds stacked against them. They are expected to deal with the most insane physical punishement.
If a Marine is not capable of coping with the physical and verbal abuse that he recieves through training then he will be risking his, and his friend's, lives in a combat situation.
It is as simple as that.
the fact is that many rules and standards regarding the treatment of soldiers are influenced by people who have never experienced combat.
My friend made it clear to me that he places more faith in his commanding officer than he does in anyone else on the planet.

Personally I like to sit on the fence.

[ January 12, 2006, 21:50: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I can agree with that, but only if it doesn't include sexual abuse or beating, kicking etc.

The chap in question is from my area. There was an interview in the local paper where he stated that the exercise/event was purely a bit of fun and he was good mates with the man who knocked him out. There was no bullying and he couldn't believe it had gone as far as it had.