Newspaper coins word: Bopo, the "bourgeous polyamorous"

That would be Canada's The Globe and Mail. Nice article overall! Here's my writeup and (long) excerpt on Polyamory in the News:

http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2014/03/newspaper-coins-word-bopo-bourgeous.html

Alan M.

The family was specifically polygynous more than polyamorous.

Also, living on a 30 acre farm doesn't make them bourgeoisie, just a little bit wealthier than the norm.

We already know that having money makes it easy to keep multiple lovers :)

I've wondered about having a second wife just so we have a full time parent at home with the kids...
 
I've wondered about having a second wife just so we have a full time parent at home with the kids...

Um, that would be a nanny. :p
 
Most academic research into polyamory has found that the community is overwhelmingly white, educated and affluent. The academics have also speculated that people from other demographics likely face more social backlash for deviating from social norms. They fear ostracism from careers, church, and rigid social expectations.

Anyways, it financially makes sense to have more than 2 working adults in a home. The West's nuclear family is a very new trend, and not a very successful one IMHO.
 
If rich people must be at the vanguard of the "poly movement," then so be it, I say. I quite like the good-looking polish it puts on our image for the rest of the world to see. Let "trailer park polys" be showcased later, after poly gains some general acceptance.

My V is far from rich but I admit we don't have kids either so I don't know how easily we'd handle that (financially). It does make sense to say that two adults working with one adult at home would eliminate the need for daycare and whatnot, so that's one cost offset.

Good article Alan; thanks for posting it.
 
Not sure I like the bit that says, "...they are the most conventional members of the “poly” sub-culture, a group that includes everything from orgy-obsessed swingers to S&M enthusiasts...."

Makes us sound like we're all into weird fetishes or something. I mean, sure, some of us are, but it's hardly a defining feature.
 
If rich people must be at the vanguard of the "poly movement," then so be it, I say. I quite like the good-looking polish it puts on our image for the rest of the world to see. Let "trailer park polys" be showcased later, after poly gains some general acceptance.

My V is far from rich but I admit we don't have kids either so I don't know how easily we'd handle that (financially). It does make sense to say that two adults working with one adult at home would eliminate the need for daycare and whatnot, so that's one cost offset.

Good article Alan; thanks for posting it.

There was a case of a "poly" couple losing their temper and murdering their third in NYC I believe. Here it is.

So there are some examples of lower-class people in the lifestyle hitting the news.

I think that one reason you typically see more affluent and educated people in the poly lifestyle is because the lifestyle requires very good emotional intelligence, impulse control, and communication skills. All three of those categories are positively correlated with income and education.

Not sure I like the bit that says, "...they are the most conventional members of the “poly” sub-culture, a group that includes everything from orgy-obsessed swingers to S&M enthusiasts...."

Makes us sound like we're all into weird fetishes or something. I mean, sure, some of us are, but it's hardly a defining feature.

I have thought about that paradox. Here's the thing; people in alternative lifestyles have less inhibitions about being seen in public. Kinksters have group munches and other outtings. After all, BDSM is less new than polyamory in the public zeitgeist. Even with the release of such books as 50 Shades and the intense interest generated, academics and kinksters alike are trying hard to legitimize BDSM.

What I'm saying is that kinky and poly people are probably serving as a good inroad into the poly world. There are far fewer poly meetups and munches and many poly people are very private and/or not advertising. So you average investigative journalist will probably stumble into the BDSM scene before the poly scene, largely because there really isn't a poly scene in most places.
 
It is true that people who self-identify as poly tend to be better well off, white and well-educated. That's been my personal experience to some degree. My local community attempts to be more diverse in both race and class.

However, I suggest that there may be significant numbers of people who are in effect poly but don't use that term. Some of those people are likely to be minorities either in class or race. I think it may be somewhat similar to men who have sex with men but don't identify as gay, in part because gay is seen as a white identity. A similar dynamic may be at work here too.
 
That's a good point about identity. I have read about self-selection - people who refuse to respond to poly surveys out of fear but it hadn't occurred to me that some people may not identify as poly despite certain lifestyle choices.

Although it stands to reason, as polyamory is only one form of non-monogamy.
 
Not sure I like the bit that says, "...they are the most conventional members of the “poly” sub-culture, a group that includes everything from orgy-obsessed swingers to S&M enthusiasts...."

Makes us sound like we're all into weird fetishes or something. I mean, sure, some of us are, but it's hardly a defining feature.

I agree to some extent. I have no urge to "hide" the kinkster portion of the community, but putting them at both ends makes it sound like they cover the whole spectrum, when there are definitely vanilla people as well. It makes poly people seem "weirder", less average, and poly itself seem like a kink. I think the phrasing is not ideal, even including both those group in the sentence it would have been possible to also mention people who are more "average" as well.
 
Could be a sign of non-polys having a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept of "plain old vanilla poly." Perhaps in order to do so, they have to coin a special word for that. (Bopo.)
 
Could be a sign of non-polys having a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept of "plain old vanilla poly." Perhaps in order to do so, they have to coin a special word for that. (Bopo.)

...or it could be an attempt to marginalize the lifestyle...

I've read several things by religious conservative bloggers that are more or less attacking the lifestyle and calling it a 'slippery slope' drawing the same parallels they did about homosexuality (because poly can TOTALLY lead to bestiality!).

But in many cases I sense an undertone of jealousy. That's right! Jealous. In the case of someone saying 'bopo' or making it seem like all polyamorous people are hardcore kinksters - or in the religious right's case to make it seem 'evil' - I think they are simply trying to convince themselves that poly is bad bad bad.

In reality, the idea probably resonates with them and they are jealous that they lack to courage to try it or are frustrated because they lack the social freedom to try it. It's like the parable of the fox and the sour grapes. I can't even taste polyamory so it probably sucks anyways! They're all evil/sinners/freaks/deviants!

Anyways, I tend to think of the detractors of polyamory as allies in disguise. They are spreading the idea further and wider. Some of their readers will nod sagely and agree without a further thought. Yup, polygamy is bad. I'm a good Christian/Muslim/Jew so that's bad, next story. But, inevitably, those negative articles will spurn interest and pique curiosity in some and lead them to look for other poly resources. After all, the internet is a big place!
 
I agree that people have a knee-jerk reaction against poly, and it shows in the article in question. Part of the problem is that a magazine writer has to "speak the readers' language;" that is, talk about things in a way that will please the readers. So if a writer perceives that public opinion is largely opposed to polyamory, that writer will hesitate to say anything good about polyamory.

I just see this particular article as a marker for how far public perception has improved so far. People still have an attitude problem about poly, but they're starting to calm down about it. Enough to admit -- in their own condescending way -- that "some poly families can look normal." It is far from the fair and equal treatment polyamorists and other minorities desire, but it's hopeful to see some popular trends moving in the right direction. I mean, heck, the fact that they're finally talking about us at all is a good sign. Talking can evolve into a dialog, eventually.

I think bad attitudes about polys and homosexuals originate in the Church (and churches). Professionals like psychiatrists answer more to the Church than they'd care to admit. Observe that homosexuality was once officially considered a kind of mental disorder. That is largely how poly is perceived today, but like Darth Vader when he asserted to Luke that "there is no conflict," there is indeed a conflict and some professionals are starting to advocate a new way of looking at polyamory.

I guess it really is a slippery slope. A slope towards acceptance. People are clashing (violently) over whether homosexuals ought to be accepted. I think that each successive generation will see a new level of acceptance. It may take longer for polyamory to gain the same level of acceptance, but it'll happen eventually. I'm content for now to just watch the mile markers go by.

Oh, I guess I'm not as much of an activist as I should be. I'm not even out to the vast majority of my friends and family. But a few people know, more will probably follow, and I can set a quiet example which is what I try to do. And participating in poly groups is helpful because it helps other poly people know that they're not alone.
 
I guess it really is a slippery slope. A slope towards acceptance.

That's why I like saying it's not a slope, but a staircase. Every step is a new stair climbed. They all take effort, but they all bring you closer to the top. A slippery slop makes it sound like once you push the person with the first little thing, they'll just slide forever with no effort required. I don't think it's true. We still need to keep working at it, we're just closer to the top little by little.
 
Yeah, retaining one's prejudices is definitely the lazier way to go.

Luckily, humans in general are inclined to climb the staircase over time (with up/down cycles).
 
That and several other definitions ... oh well, one more added to the mix.
 
Back
Top