Is faggot a derogatory term or are gay men able to reclaim it?

[manseeker]

13 hours ago, shinelover said:

For once in my life I'm actually in the majority. I do believe that it depends on the circumstances. If some guys out on the street (whether gay or straight) calls me a faggot, well, he might find himself on the receiving end of a throat punch. 

Kidding.

Maybe.

But when I'm getting fucked, if a guy is calling me faggot, that just sends me into overdrive. I'm not sure exactly why that is. It's just one of those things.

Agreed , not kidding 

[ErosWired]

8 hours ago, steve-tmq said:

A "Faggot" is the proper term for the lowest form of life 

Harsh...

Not to distract from the OP’s original question, but it does seem like some definition of the term is in order. Strictly speaking, the lowest form of life are single-celled prokaryotes, and the lowest form of animal life are considered to be (ironically, and in context perhaps appropriately) the sponges.

Would it be correct to assume that you mean that a “faggot” is the type of man lowest in the human sexual hierarchy? Or do you actually mean that such a person is at the bottom of all human hierarchies because of his licentious submissive same-sex behavior? Even among cumdumps there may be stratification - some, for instance, might do anything another man wants, but draw the line at sex where they are penetrated by a female, and find that this is not held against them in the gay world. I, however, have been pegged (vigorously) by a woman, and though I would not seek to do it again, neither would I reject it were I asked for the service. Similarly, those cumdumps who occasionally fuck other bottoms may be seen to rise to a higher level than me, who does not fuck anyone, but can be fucked even by other cumdumps at will.

So could you elaborate on your statement, as to whether you think “faggot” is acceptable in sexual hierarchical terms, or do you actually believe our behavior devolves us to the lowest form of human life, all other traits notwithstanding?

[drscorpio]

When the work first began to reclaim "queer," I never thought that would work, but I feel perfectly comfortable saying that word today. If we want to take "faggot" back from the homophobes, we can do it. It's just a matter of will and persistence. 

Whether or not it is a good thing to do is another question. But my feeling is the more weapons we take away the better off all of us and all the little LGBTQ+ boys to come will be. 

[Phallarchist]

I endorse the universal usage of the word "faggot", because it's derogatory. While I welcome society's general move toward practical tolerance or indifference, most people correctly understand exclusive homosexuality as a regrettable aberration and I want clear distinctions between preferred and marginal forms of male sexual expression to be clearly maintained in common parlance. Children should learn that male and female are naturally complementary to an extent that almost justifies the labeling of same-sex penetration as "unnatural". In fact, it's just barely natural, driven by psychology, with little real physiological compatibility involved. Exclusively homosexual behavior should be regarded as the wrong choice, except for those few of us who are actually incapable of normal male-female sexuality.

Further, I have no truck with the nonsensical politics of "queer" or the empty ugliness of most of what passes for "gay". I would much rather be known as a disgusting sexually-deviant faggot who is nevertheless allowed to go on defiling himself and others like him as long as he doesn't interfere with the sexually-normal population.

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, FaceLoad said:

Exclusively homosexual behavior should be regarded as the wrong choice

For goodness’ sake. Really? How many times have we had to scream it from the rooftops to make the rest of humanity understand? Being gay is. not. a. choice. If it were optional, “conversion therapy” might work, instead of being a cruel, counterproductive and ethically indefensible form of psychological torture.

6 hours ago, FaceLoad said:

I would much rather be known as a disgusting sexually-deviant faggot who is nevertheless allowed to go on defiling himself and others like him as long as he doesn't interfere with the sexually-normal population.

 In this, at least, you are in accord with the actress Mrs. Patrick Campbell, who famously quipped, “Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!“

[Phallarchist]

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

For goodness’ sake. Really? How many times have we had to scream it from the rooftops to make the rest of humanity understand? Being gay is. not. a. choice. If it were optional, “conversion therapy” might work, instead of being a cruel, counterproductive and ethically indefensible form of psychological torture.

Being "gay" is a cultural choice that just demonstrates poor taste. Homosexuality per se is generally not a choice, but a mental defect that seems to be largely congenital. Bisexuals are not entirely hopeless and sometimes do have a degree of choice. That choice should generally be the other sex for primary pair-bonding, while perhaps entertaining the same sex as an occasional amusement.

If I knew of an effective conversion therapy, I would insist it be provided to every child at risk. Most "conversion" is useless, warmed-over Christian babble or Freudian fantasy. Nevertheless, I absolutely support the right of patients to try to escape exclusive homosexuality as well as the right of therapists to offer services to this end.

[raunchycumslut]

I am into a lot of raunch and kink ([banned word] even), and enjoy servicing men and submitting to things most other bottoms won’t consider. When talking to guys, I tell them I’m not interested in being a slave, but happy to be their nasty faggot. I get turned on when a top (even a straight guy) calls me that during sex. It’s how I see myself.

So don’t mind men calling me that during or after nasty sex. Anyone else calling me that is unacceptable.

[Piggyybttmm]

I really think it depends who uses it. It's like the N word. Personally I refer to myself as a proud fag.  I don't mind if other GAY MEN refer to me as such. If you aren't gay you have no business using it. 

[drscorpio]

6 hours ago, FaceLoad said:

Being "gay" is a cultural choice that just demonstrates poor taste. Homosexuality per se is generally not a choice, but a mental defect that seems to be largely congenital. Bisexuals are not entirely hopeless and sometimes do have a degree of choice. That choice should generally be the other sex for primary pair-bonding, while perhaps entertaining the same sex as an occasional amusement.

If I knew of an effective conversion therapy, I would insist it be provided to every child at risk. Most "conversion" is useless, warmed-over Christian babble or Freudian fantasy. Nevertheless, I absolutely support the right of patients to try to escape exclusive homosexuality as well as the right of therapists to offer services to this end.

Everything you are saying is contrary to every bit of research on human sexuality in the last few decades.  For example, this study ([think before following links] https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/2/13/study-gay-people-have-happier-marriages-straight-people) showed same-sex couples have happier marriages and are more attentive parents than opposite-sex couple. 

Yes, I understand if everyone were 100% homosexual for their entire lives that the species would die out. That's really not the point because as everyone is aware the vast majority of people are straight. 

I don't expect to talk you out of being a homophobic, self-hating faggot though, but please give the rest of us a break. 

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, FaceLoad said:

Homosexuality per se is generally not a choice, but a mental defect that seems to be largely congenital.

I believe the professional associations for both psychiatry and psychology would beg to differ with your assessment, as homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of psychiatric conditions in 1973. The World Health Organization followed in 1990 by removing homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases.

The result of these decisions by the medical/psychiatric community that there is nothing wrong, medically or mentally, with being gay has been a gradual societal shift toward acceptance - including, perhaps, a general recognition that it isn’t okay to call a gay man a “faggot”.

Unless he wants you to...

[tallslenderguy]

i don't think the general meaning of the word changes with the user, but the intent or response does?  

To me, the general meaning of the word "faggot" is a bottom guy who adores, craves, needs, wants, etc. ad infinitum, a Man.  

 i think there are some people who do not accept that there are faggots for all sorts of reasons, and they try to hurt faggots thinking they are 'bad.'  i believe there are some who have some faggot in them, who haven't come to a place of self acceptance and maybe hate their self vicariously by hating other faggots.  Then i think there are the faggot opposite: "Top, Dom, Man, breeder, penetrator, etc. ad infinitum" who recognizes and is attracted to a faggot as the natural connecting place for Who They are.  There seems to be infinite variations on those?

"Faggot," for me, is just an extreme label for who and how i am.  When i connect with an 'extreme' Top, being a "faggot" just means i am completely receptive of who He is and wanting/needing to be the compliment, receiver (lover) of Who and how He is.  To me, faggot is a term used to try and express a complete giving over, and the Tops use of faggot can be a recognition and affirmation of that facilitating the bond between Man and faggot.

[ErosWired]

21 minutes ago, drscorpio said:

Yes, I understand if everyone were 100% homosexual for their entire lives that the species would die out.

The corollary to this is that if all homosexuals practiced 100% homosexuality for their entire lives, the world would eventually have no homosexuals at all. Yet this is untrue - I am the product of two unquestionably heterosexual parents, therefore, evidently,

(hetero) x 2 = homo. Sometimes. Whether he ends up being a faggot is up to him.

[drscorpio]

12 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

The corollary to this is that if all homosexuals practiced 100% homosexuality for their entire lives, the world would eventually have no homosexuals at all. Yet this is untrue - I am the product of two unquestionably heterosexual parents, therefore, evidently,

(hetero) x 2 = homo. Sometimes. Whether he ends up being a faggot is up to him.

What?
In any case, that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. 

I just meant that it still requires a man and a woman to have a human baby or at least harvesting their sperm and egg for a lab. 

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, drscorpio said:

What?
In any case, that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. 

Apologies - I was extrapolating on your comment to further address FaceLoad’s assertions regarding same-sex coitus as being biologically “wrong” and thus meriting the use of “faggot” as a derogatory. I was expanding upon your point that a man and a woman are required for reproduction by adding that homosexuals are produced naturally by the same “preferred” heterosexual sex FaceLoad seems to endorse. I’m sorry for any confusion.

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, drscorpio said:

I don't expect to talk you out of being a homophobic, self-hating faggot though, but please give the rest of us a break. 

It goes to demonstrate that "Covidiot" isn't the only kind of idiot out there.