Firstly it's not hormone suppressors it's other hormones Secondly it is proven that the characteristics of a trans brain are more like the gender they are and less that the gender they were born as. Thirdly why does it bother you what other people decide to do with their bodies. Nobody is pressuring you to do it. It's not affecting you in any way.
Olivia, dear, pushing forth widespread delusion is going to effect society, maybe not me personally, but I as a part of said society would like to see it not go ham.
It's not what other people are doing to their bodies, it's what other people are doing to their CHILDREN'S bodies. Your kids aren't your property or guinea pigs for your questionable experiments.
Natural is natural. It isn't good nor bad - it doesn't think, it doesn't have motive, it simply is. It is we humans that attribute characteristics such as good and bad to natural phenomena.
Cancer is natural, of course. Everything that exists is natural, there is no supernatural. An no, it not means everyone will have cancer. Blue eyes are natural, and...
@Yohen Sevtstein The question is , would it still occur without human influence? The answer is 'yes'. So it is natural. In all honesty, our intelligence is a product of natural selection and so anything we do could be considered 'natural'. Natural is more a philosophical view point and is very subjective.
Dodge236 it would honestly depend on how the polygamous relationship is set up, and who the dominant head is, also another factor to consider is the male to female ratio and if there are multiple of both men and women or one man multiple women/one woman multiple men
Word Bearer most people new to polygamy think that the relationship will be between all people involved but usually 1 partner has multiple partners but they are not all partners with each other. Those are the successful polygamous relationships so what you've said is speculation.
Its not like youd have free control to go around hurting people in some natural environment , if anything you'd just get killed quick by the bigger and stronger.
If you're gonna correct someone you might as well actually correct their statement instead of just saying "you're wrong". You're right though, it was 60+ years ago, not 30, got my decades mixed up.
Eric... I hear of a muslim woman telling an audience of western feminists that Polygamy is good, because it stops the husband being unfaithful (!). I think they were left speechless.
The two things are linked only because they've become tenets of the liberal agenda. Should Muslims be oppressed? No. Should Muslims be oppressing women in their society? No. Many (not all) feminists have embraced the liberal agenda so much so that they will support everything Muslim without really giving any thought to how feminism's biggest opponent should be the cultural treatment of Muslim women in certain countries. Many Muslim women will defend these oppressive ideas for the same reason that many women supported the restriction of women in western culture 300+ years ago. In both cases there are/were also many women who have/had decided that just because they've been instilled with these ideas, it doesn't make them acceptable. The feminist movement in Muslim countries will eventually grow and fight these ideas but it will take time because: 1. It's built into their religion and society and 2. It's extremely dangerous for most of them to actively speak out against it. It was similar in the west except that oppression of women was less strongly built into the foundation of western religions.
I have only loved one woman, married one woman, slept with one woman, and it will be like this till the day I die. Love is worked on and perfected, it isn't JUST an emotion or feeling. The world (and children) would be much better off if people would do this, and stand by marriage vows that are made before God. He really is pretty smart after all 😉
Nathan Deere What is the plural of cactus? Cacti. What is the plural of hippopotamus? Hippopotami. What is the plural of octopus? Octopi and finally what is the plural of applepus? ... Apple pie. Mmmmm apple pie.
It's retarded though, like... if a man sleep with as many women as possible... those womens genes also contribute to making said doofi. Also, just because one man sleeps with a lot of women, what is preventing the other men sleeping with the women too?
Grace the Great Mosquitoes were created by God and serve a useful purpose in that they help flowers reproduce. Yes they also help spread disease, but that is the result of Man eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and bringing death into the world. But God showed His love for us by becoming one of us and dying for us and rising from the dead so that we by sharing in His death and resurrection should share in His Divine Nature.
I suspect having mosquitoes draw some blood now and again probably benefits are immune system. The problem is humans tend to have allergic reactions to the debris that gets left behind when the mosquito injects their anesthetic under the skin. True some can carry disease, but the viruses or bacteria that cause those diseases enter the mosquito from something else they bite, so technically they are just a carrier, and are not the main culprit. It's like blaming a syringe for getting HIV, when the real problem was the person who used it before that already had HIV.
Rowgue51 If monogamy wasn't natural then nobody would get jealous or pissed when somebody else flirted with their partner. When that happens it isn't people reflecting on societal norms and deciding it's wrong. They're reacting to base primal instincts, NATURAL instincts. *BEST COMMENT*
WontB Quiet yes but just like other males in the animal kingdom, they fight to win over female approval for the chance to mate. If a guy hits on your girl or has sex with them you are going to get mad because you know you are not good enough for them and she chose someone else. You won't get mad if she got raped now would you?
Uh... what? Jealously is completely natural, and not confined to polyamorous relationships; or even the romantic domain in general. As you've pointed out monogamous couples can still be jealous. People can be jealous of someone else's material possessions as well.
Monogamy is the most natural think mankind has. As men we fall in love with ONE woman and she is the center of our world. Its the ungratefulness that drives us away
@@alices8660 Animals often engage in mindless acts of depraved homosexuality in the wild. What isn't observed is exclusive homosexuality - as that is unique to humans.
These people have no idea how rewarding a life-long relationship with a lover is. The deep emotional connection that two people can share with each other is so beautiful. These are the same people who treat sex as a physical act and not an emotional connection.
@@callum8147 I think You've become dumb Now ,.. You were Smarter Earlier or should I say Simpler when you wrote the 1st comment 3yrs. Sometimes Simple is GOOD 😊. Not everything needs to be born out of the "Modern Mindset".
No.. No it's not. If you look into the psychology of polygamy or open relationships, people are just using each other for their own short-comings, not making connections. Ive heard the bull shit excuse of, "oh us humans, we're just animals, giving into our instincts" its bull shit. We are humans, we are conscious of our actions and for whatever reason its en-grained into us then when we care about someone we absolutely do not want to hurt them. We can be completely savage and instinctual monogamously with someone we can actually trust and care about. And speaking completely in STATISTICS. Open relationships, and polygamist relations ( outside of a polygamist community ) nearly always fail. How AT ALL, would you call that natural?
imsoemoyayaya have you seen the divorce rate my dear boy? It's 60% in some areas of the US and that DOESN'T even count couples GOING to get divorced or couples that are unhappy in the relationship. That probably leaves about 5% of marriages either happier than previously getting married or the same
ENZOxDV9 thats because of dumb people rushing things and getting knocked up and marrying short after . Don't call polygamy more natural than monogamy when it's not.
Because "natural" doesn't meant "optimal" and even then "circumstantial" doesn't mean "universal", Nathan you made a claim and threw a bunch of claims unrelated to the original claim around. That is no proof of the unnaturality of polygamy.
how is monogamy not natural? there are plenty of animals that only have one partner there entire lives. take bald eagles for example if one dies earlier then life expectancy then the other won't find another mate and will also die months after. this happens because they pick partners for life and even if one dies then they won't pair again. I'm not saying that this will insure there species survival, I'm just saying monogamy has natural occurrences
robinsss so are women. DNA studies show babies with a different father between 2% and 10% of the time depending on the culture. Whether it's the gardener or another Hasidic Jew or the next door neighbor.
Does anyone else find it ironic that's she talking about something not being "natural" as being bad, yet her job is literally to be "unnatural." She's an actress.
So are you claiming that evolution is just intelligent design now??? Dinosaurs existed because the mighty hand of God willed. Rather than a million random incidents of the universe that caused a molten mudball to form an atmosphere. Then followed by a billion other random incidents of pure chaos that led to dinosaurs, apes, humans and a plethora of all forms of biological madness?
Dranicar Just because you don't understand something does mean it is not true. I don't understand quantum dynamics, but that does not make it not true.
"I think (monogamy) is a lot of work." ...That's your principal argument? That it's a lot of work? I would've thought that maintaining multiple polygamous relationships would be even MORE work.
That’s the argument men in the polygamist cult I grew up in made. And they aren’t necessarily wrong. Juggling multiple women is harder than just one. So hard it’s actually impossible for the most part. I have seen some successful polygamist marriages but only with two wives tops. Over all it’s very bad for women, children, and society as a whole.
The more relationships you have in your life, the less each one of them means to you. You can have many shallow relationships that don't mean shit or you can just have that one person to count on and be there for. You honestly only have so much to give as far as love and attention. This lady is saying we should only accept people at their best and when people go thru tough times we should bail on them and find someone else. To me, monogamy is very natural. I know it's not for everyone and it's very hard to find but for me, both my heart and my head are in the same place, I want just one person to be with. Hook ups when you're single are no big deal but nobody should TRY to live that way.
love is not finite or limited, romantically or otherwize. she's not saying that ethier, only that it isn't "natural" thus it is in efficient and problematic as one is going against millenia of evolved instinct.
I don't agree with your first sentence that "the more relationships you have in life the less each one means to you" You can have lots of meaningless relationships that doesn't mean that when you have a meaningful relationship it means more.
It is what it is, romantic relationships are the most conditional kind that exist. Romance is a construct and a concept used to sell products and services. Other kinds or relationships are more genuine (friendships and familial). I find many times love for a pet is more unconditional than any romantic relationship. Marriage is a business arrangement that allows a third party in your relationship. I don’t see what she said as a problem. How about monogamy works for some people and polyamory works for others. This does not have to be an either one or the other situation.
@@thedarkmaster4747 many people are naturally inclined to jealousy and therefore could not partake in anything other than monogamy, so regardless of what evolution says, jealousy speaks for itself.
Evolution rewarded those that slept around by giving them venereal disease and death. The idea of monogamy (or certain kinds of polygamy) helped certain civilizations develop without this threat.
Ah yes, evolution. The idea that whatever unfathomably complex genetic coding is necessary to solve a survival problem conveniently presents itself at the exact moment that it could be used, instead of just being a mutation that causes cancer or something. DNA ex machina, right? The same school of thought brought us the idea that getting bit by a radioactive spider can give you super powers.
Stephen, except that in majority of cases it causes cancer indeed, which people die from all the time. It also causes a bunch of other diseases and problems that affect the world. It is not presented "conveniently", the problem was not solved by a genetic alteration, rather a genetic alteration happened to improve something (solve a problem). All mutations leading to negative consequences -> weakness / death / out of the gene pool. All mutations leading to a positive outcome -> increased survival / greater genetic spread.
If evolution is about a physical change to preserve and continue, then perhaps it also encouraged mental changes. Society developed around the idea of marriage and family, the need for guidance and healthy mental growth through belonging. What she said was "is not natural", but she should have said "was not natural." We have changed and grown as a species beyond our baser instincts. I certainly have no desire to mate with multiple men. In fact overpopulation is something we need to start addressing. Polymamy is actually useless to society now.
Clara Morgan Thank you. You understand the actual dynamics of evolution. Its mechanisms. You hit the nail on the head here. Some people live in a bubble. Unfit if you ask me
What people mean by what is "natural" always confuses me. As far as I know, nothing is unnatural. We humans are just as much part as nature as everything else and so is everything we do.
Clara Morgan Evolution doesn't work like that. just because for a few hundred years we've practiced monogamy doesn't change our core biology. It does change, I'd think, but it's so minimal it barely makes a dent.
Kangaroos, which many claim have one of the most loving mother/child relationships because of the pouch, will actually sacrifice their own children to escape a predator. It is a species wide behavior. #natural
Honestly though, I don't get why there's so much investment into what's "natural" for humans. We weren't born in a vacuum, we are animals like all the other ones out there. Our reproductive systems are a reflection of what suits us best as individuals and societies. Monogamy is often the most suited reproductive system for humans since raising babies is really hard, so having both parents is often necessary to take care of the child. Raising fledglings is almost as hard in many species of birds, and so, monogamy is the most common reproductive system in birds. In fact, many species are surprisingly similar to us, as they may have social monogamy (that is, having an "official" partner with which to raise your offspring, but sometimes mating with other individuals outside your couple) and sequential monogamy (having a partner at a time, but having the ability to break up later on). In other cultures where there are huge differences in resources between men, polygamy is more common. And that's also natural, because no matter how hard it is to raise a child, if your husband has enough money (or food, or whatever) to keep you and all of his other wives safe and sound, he's probably a better option than a nobody that can barely get by. It's also common in nature (mostly in mammals): if the males of a species are capable of monopolizing resources, then polygamy will be the most likely reproductive system. Individual humans can be very stupid or very smart, but as a collective we tend to act on our best interests most of the time. There are no "artificial" ways of behaving, only different adaptations for a changing landscape.
+Frikiman I would say that we are animals insofar as we yield to our bodily urges. The thing is, there is something transcendent about the human soul that is more than just neurons firing in the brain. There is something that sets us apart from animals (i.e. our potential and 'spirit') as well as something that we share in common with them (namely, imperfect instinctual bodies)
Valthirian Sunstrider Ijustvassumed we are smarter and our frontal lobes is what gives us the free will without always acting instinctively. Correct me if I'm wrong cus again I'm just assuming and didn't do much homework. The smarter animals have a good sized frontal lobe too like us.
''''''''Monogamy is often the most suited reproductive system for humans since raising babies is really hard, so having both parents is often necessary to take care of the child''''''''''''''''''...…………………………..actually a polygamous marriage would make raising children easier because the children would have several mothers to help take care of them
+jackka82 If the word actually had a root in Latin (or even Greek) it would be a long E. Like the other examples you gave :) I know they make it a long I sound in American English, so.. just being pedantic
Call me a wuss but I just want a wife. Someone who I love and who loves me. I just want to spend my entire natural life with someone I love. I want the American Dream! A house, a car, a dog, some kids and soul crushing debt! But nooo, women just want to be selfish assholes and use you.
Gendo Ikari you do have a wife, but her soul is attached to a giant alien that is piloted by your emotionally disturbed son. So your half way there I guess.
Gendo Ikari if you stopped trying to resurrect your dead wife as spend time with your son, you just might find happiness in this world regardless if you have a mate or not.
no she said poly is more "natural" because it is more efficient energy wize and that is enough to trigger a traditionalist to shout down the edicts of fell heathen wisdom. its intresting to observe the opinions of annother as they rally against something that you equally both despise.
Stop, stop, stop... In the beginning, God made one man and one woman, instituting the first marriage which would serve as a model for mankind's romantic relationships, and it was without any doubt MONOGAMOUS. So yes, monogamy IS "natural" in that it's what God initially and generally intended (and merely "unnatural" in that it may not be the more common behavior), whereas polygamy was certainly not intended nor necessary and is hardly recommended (since it often proves problematic and harmful) and would essentially be merely a type of adultery, and so this would only be "natural" in the sense that it's a common sinful behavior and would rather be unnatural in the sense that this behavior was not intended. Also, on a further note, it greatly saddens me to see Shapiro make the mistake of adhering to belief in evolutionism (which is undeniably an imaginary concept which stands in contradiction to reality), which poses all kinds of problems.
Just realized ben talked like the dad with the big eyebrows from American Pie, darn whats his name! especially the first reaction. You rock bro keep it up great different take on perspective
Companionship's value is determined by the individual. It's relative. Even in your own relationships, you may value your companions more than they value you or vice versa.
*Why would you advocate for that?* Most effective gene-selection and biological nature of men's sex drive. It's hard to establish honest polygamy, but it doesn't mean no one 'd try. I don't see any benefit that I can trade-off my polygamous nature for. Children're not a priority for me
So it's not natural bc it requires work? OK take it from someone who did the poly thing. It is a disaster waiting to happen and merely a bandaid for some sort of dis satisfaction in your relationship. Why even be in a relationship if you're basically going to sleep around or date other people
Why is he even talking about this? Why does he care what Scarlett Johanson thinks? Why do we care about what he thinks about something Scarlett Johanson said? Why are you reading my comment?
Anything worth having is a lot of work does that mean it's not natural? no. Things that take work end up meeting more in the end something you're just given or takes no work usually means nothing to you.
A key that can open many locks is considered to be a key of great value. A lock that can be opened by many keys is considered to be a lock which is worthless.
Did Scarlett ever even say the "therefore it's not a good thing" at the end? Seems to me that all she said was that it's not natural, which Ben agreed with...
The implication is that it's not a good thing. Generally speaking, people say only that something is not natural when they mean it should be avoided. It's widely understood to mean that.
She never said Monogamy is bad, she just said it's not natural, it looks as if he's just looking for an unnecessary beef, he didn't wreck anything, misleading clickbait title.
The Dark master Do you have a source for your claim that bees do not learn how to make hives? Making shelter is an instinct for humans as well. We'd die pretty quickly without and would not have spread across he globe without. If you can disentangle the nature/nurture web on that one I'll listen. It's hard to say what's purely instinctual with humans (other than a rooting reflex) since we are social animals with big brains that depend on rearing (forming behavioral experiences since before we can even form memories). And, Are you saying that if it is not instinctual it's not natural? Then nothing humans do is natural.
bees make hives, bees of the same species make the same hives. humans sneaze when their nasal passage way is agitated. a bee hive is not a result of creativity, there is no art, no culture, no deviation, it is instinct. just like the female human sex drive, instinctive. bee's are born knowing how to make hives, dogs are born knowing how to dig, you were born knowing how to sneaze. you were not born knowing how to build a house, or a mud hut, or even how to start a fire. you could argue that creativity & cultivation is natural to humans, but its like trying to make a case point out of the diet of a cockroach. it is random and pragmatic and environmental, not a specific behaviour an organism will try to repeat when given the correct stimuli. yes like reflex. you as a human do instintual things everyday. you also do uninstinctual things everyday as a trained member of civilized society. and its much easier to find evidence of that than of a culture of bees, where younger bees are ejucated by older bees. *re reads* communities of whales and herds of elephants would be a good place to build the argument your attempting to make, where there is "ejucation" and in some sence culture, even language amoung specific sperm whale pods. and you might be able to find afew studies of what happens when these origional large brained societies are sufficiently disrupted. but not to many studies and not to many sufficient disruptions. but it is possible in more socially complex organism to deviate from originality, for example: live stock, work animals and pets, almost none of them live entirely "natural" existances, yet they are still repoductively viable. infact dogs shouldn't even exist, humanity has created a subspecies of wolf, or is a dogs contract existence natural from that persective to you, as they do repoduce? i could go on along these lines but i wont, as i feel that i have already made my point... no actually i will go on, slave making ants are a good example of both points, "slave making" is instinctive for slave making ants, they co-opt the agency of other species of ants in order to exploit them for their own repoductive geas, even though their slaves become inevitable genetic dead ends.(this form of hijacking is possible with insects.) when it comes to social engineering as a form of human cultivation and creativity i.e. civilization added to that the hijacking of agency for exploitive perpouses and the instinctive vunerabilities of humanbeings as a type of earth based animal life form. unless you think the existence of a nutured domestic dog is perfectly "natural" then i belive i have sufficiently made my point, as those "animals" are most definately controlled.
He actually agrees with her if anyone bothered to listen. She said she thinks marriage is romantic and a beautiful thing when it works, just not natural and a lot of work. He "wrecks her" by saying yea she's right it's not natural but he thinks we should stick with it because it's worth it. The only thing they might disagree on a little is if marriage is ultimately worth the effort, which ScarJo doesn't even come out and say that she doesn't think it ever is. Dumb video with a clickbait title with no point. People just like to argue with statements even if they fundamentally agree with that statement....
Stupid title for this video. Ben did not WRECK anything. This was the weakest comment I've seen him make, and I've watch pretty much all of his videos. Scarlett Johanson is stating something most sane people would accept. She bright. She's not against marriage, just saying it is challenging. In fact Ben Shapiro agrees with most of her points; and in the end he is really just splitting hairs.
Yeah she was just stating a fact…but we all know just because something is hard or doesn’t come naturally, doesn’t make it bad. In fact, most of the most meaningful, worthwhile things in this world are hard and fell unnatural.
Hey, I'm a beautiful, A-list, genetic specimen surrounded by other A-list, genetic specimens and monogamy isn't normal. Farmer Joe in the middle of nowhere Iowa better ditch his wife of 20 years cuz he'll be able to swap her out with 20+ supermodels!
Again the assumption is that "People don't fall in love." Both men and women will stray but people tend through out history to pair off. In general men want sex while women want control, women will still cheat on their husbands.
She didn't say monogamy was bad... She just said it wasn't natural.. He even said that monogamy wasn't how we evolved. I love Ben, but it sounds like he is reaching for a story on this one
your comment is ridiculous. ben isnt advocating imprisonment or legal repercussions for polygamy. he is advocating for social consequences and for it not to be considered normal or okay. social and legal punishments are very different things. you have freedom from legal action, not societal disapproval.
Shapiro talks a lot of sense, but here he is definitely twisting Johanson's words. She never said monogamy is wrong, she just said it's not natural and it probably isn't for her. What's wrong with that? You can be married, love someone and spend your life with them, while having other sexual partners form time to time. It is pure insecurity that makes people freak out about the idea of their significant other having a sexual encounter with another person. Just my 2 cents.
Ben has a good point, but he is usually sharper than he was here. He's right, natural tendencies are not necessarily "good" for us. The point he was steering to, but on which he needed to be clearer and sharper, is that monogamy and marriage are requirements based on both moral and practical values, and a life lived according to these requirements is, overall, much better, much more satisfactory, then one lived at the mercy of animal instinct.
Males actually tend to be more monogamous, especially among humans. Why? He's investing loads of time into her and her offspring, and wants to ensure that the maximum number of offspring survive. Women, on the other hand, tend to "sleep around behind his back to give her offspring both varied genes, and care from a devoted father (lionesses do this, and if you have ever met a human woman, well, no surprises there).
That is indeed true. A real world example of this biological fact is this: men do commit suicide over losing their love. A simple google search will show you. The opposite is not true, it is incredibly rare to find the opposite case and I have personally never heard of an example of this. Women have to choose the best sexual partner they can for reproduction. Men just do the act and protect and provide for the offsprings.
I see absolutely see how you and The Helpful Pug come to the conclusion that "Males are more monogamous" given the data on suicide rates linked to breakups, which sex has more sexual partners, etc. But correct me if i'm wrong; you guys are attributing that to biology and saying "Men are NATURALLY more monogamous than females, and females are more Polygamous". This I couldn't disagree with more. Firstly, males cheat on their spouse more than women, so that's something to keep in mind when the helpful pig says "Women tend to sleep around behind his back", The same could be said about men. Now, they cheat only a LITTLE more than females do, but consider this: Commited females are tempted to break their commitment more than men are. Men makes the first move, plus we're more horny anyway. Married men will not have females instigating subtle sexual cues the way married women will. Yet, women STILL cheat LESS than men. This is clear evidence that women are less polygamous than men. Now, I want to address the statistic on suicide rates linked to romantic breakups and how males commit suicide for that reason more than females do. This is not because men care more about their lovers than females, or that females are more polygamous; it's actually totally socioeconomic. Look at the things that typically come with men and women having a breakup 1)Women almost always get custody over the children 2)Women can find financial support from both the government and society much easier than males can (partly due to our desire to take care of females which ironically is the opposite of female independence). 3)It's far easier for females to find a new romantic interest than men, primarily because again males make the first move typically+ It's easier for women to be attractive 4)Males literally have to pay "child support" which basically just goes in their exes bank account. Now, imagine a world where that was reversed. If as many females as males after a break up ended up living with their parents while their boyfriend lives with a new girl, doesn't even see her children, and on top of that has to pay her ex boyfriend money. HOLY SHIT females would fucking be so crazy they'd probably all be dead from suicide and then it'd be the end of the human species.
Women are incapable of the same love men have, in an opposite world where men would get custody and financial support women would simply not marry, we also can't use a made up world like that as an example, at the end of the day, in the real world, it's women who throughout history always ended up being more beneffitted with BS laws men made for them, never the opposite, there is a reason for this. If women truly loved men as much as men love women, we would have never had a war between the sexes to begin with, we wouldn't have feminism to which there isn't a male counterpart (MRA and MGTOW are reactions to feminism so not the same), can you or anyone really imagine the world (this world, not another one) in which men as a general matter took the kids and financial aid from women as an unfair manner tossing them into a methaphorical abyss? No, becasue as a general rule, men usually suck up to women and white knight them, in such a world men would coup the whole thing in a hearbeat, putting on armors and "slaying the dragon" (sexist laws towards women) in order to save "the damsel in distress". This always makes me think about the bible which commands men to love women, and women to respect men, why doesn't it say for women to love men as well? even then they knew.
The Helpful Pug every women I've met has used me or cheated. So I switched to 2D. At least they won't use me emotionally and then abandon me like these selfish bitches
Ben... Stick to politics. You are covering stuff outside your competences for the sake of more exposure. You are getting old fast and have less and less things of value to express
How's that working out? Don't mind the high rate of interpersonal conflict, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, a statistical correlation between single-parent homes and poverty/violence/other problems, etc.
Развлечения
Monogamy isn't natural, yet feeding kids with hormone suppressors because they don't like their gender is perfectly acceptable. Mkay
Wiltracy Wjorn I loved your analogy.
Bruhh, you went hard
Firstly it's not hormone suppressors it's other hormones
Secondly it is proven that the characteristics of a trans brain are more like the gender they are and less that the gender they were born as.
Thirdly why does it bother you what other people decide to do with their bodies. Nobody is pressuring you to do it. It's not affecting you in any way.
Olivia, dear, pushing forth widespread delusion is going to effect society, maybe not me personally, but I as a part of said society would like to see it not go ham.
It's not what other people are doing to their bodies, it's what other people are doing to their CHILDREN'S bodies. Your kids aren't your property or guinea pigs for your questionable experiments.
He had me at "doofi"!
why wont you teach me your spells, the serious stuff you keep in the back of the tower.
Well... I suppose that could work. I'm running pretty low on subjects as it is, so I appreciate you volunteering!
no, no eye tenticled thaumaturgy, never again! i helped you fix your tower, you owe me! (He is wrong though, monogamy isn't best for our society.)
There are two i's in doofii.
There aren't two i's in "fungi", "octopi" or "cacti", why would there be two i's in "doofi"?
Wigs aren't natural. Doesn't stop you Scarlett
HI A, "Abortion isn't natural"
And yet, miscarriages.
+Hl A they kinda are, it's just a deliberate miscarriage. Killing is also natural. People have done both since the beginning of time.
Yep. Let's all take a lesson from everyone's hero Scarlett and kill people because that's what we are naturally equipped to do
HI A, what the fuck are you talking about? Wait...nevermind...don't care.
Whoa whoa... did she have an abortion? Or is she ok with abortions?
Natural is good, cancer is natural, cancer=good
Rafa Vargas cancer isn't natural. It's an abnormality. Saying it's natural would mean every human can and will have cancer.
everyone has cancer it's laying dormant in all humans only that it is triggered in some based on genetics or environment or both.
Natural is natural. It isn't good nor bad - it doesn't think, it doesn't have motive, it simply is. It is we humans that attribute characteristics such as good and bad to natural phenomena.
Cancer is natural, of course. Everything that exists is natural, there is no supernatural. An no, it not means everyone will have cancer. Blue eyes are natural, and...
@Yohen Sevtstein The question is , would it still occur without human influence? The answer is 'yes'. So it is natural.
In all honesty, our intelligence is a product of natural selection and so anything we do could be considered 'natural'.
Natural is more a philosophical view point and is very subjective.
Monogamy is hard... How much harder would polygamy be? You don't have to get along with one person, you have to get along with several people.
Dodge236 it would honestly depend on how the polygamous relationship is set up, and who the dominant head is, also another factor to consider is the male to female ratio and if there are multiple of both men and women or one man multiple women/one woman multiple men
Its not hard, just ignore most of your partners until something serious arises
Word Bearer most people new to polygamy think that the relationship will be between all people involved but usually 1 partner has multiple partners but they are not all partners with each other. Those are the successful polygamous relationships so what you've said is speculation.
Word Bearer In polygyny it is not hard to figure out who the dominant head should be.
Polygamy doesn't mean you get into 5 relationships and marry 5 women. You would just sleep with as many people as possible
I have urges to hurt people that piss me off. I ignore them as I am not a beast and I can exercise self control.
this is true though allowing your imagination run wild with the ideas can be theraputic
Its not like youd have free control to go around hurting people in some natural environment , if anything you'd just get killed quick by the bigger and stronger.
You'd never make it as a leftist
Billy, she isn't going to make it as a republican either.
sherrie Moon jim carrey doe a bit about this. Its pretty common to want to hurt people because they are annoying or dumb. The trick is to not do it ;)
In Liberia a man is allowed to have four wives. I'm sure the feminists there are really happy
What does Liberia have to do with this lol
Eric Peters
Ironically feminists love Islam and call it liberating. Proper double think as coined by a genius writer 30 years ago.
If you're gonna correct someone you might as well actually correct their statement instead of just saying "you're wrong". You're right though, it was 60+ years ago, not 30, got my decades mixed up.
Eric... I hear of a muslim woman telling an audience of western feminists that Polygamy is good, because it stops the husband being unfaithful (!). I think they were left speechless.
The two things are linked only because they've become tenets of the liberal agenda. Should Muslims be oppressed? No. Should Muslims be oppressing women in their society? No. Many (not all) feminists have embraced the liberal agenda so much so that they will support everything Muslim without really giving any thought to how feminism's biggest opponent should be the cultural treatment of Muslim women in certain countries. Many Muslim women will defend these oppressive ideas for the same reason that many women supported the restriction of women in western culture 300+ years ago. In both cases there are/were also many women who have/had decided that just because they've been instilled with these ideas, it doesn't make them acceptable. The feminist movement in Muslim countries will eventually grow and fight these ideas but it will take time because: 1. It's built into their religion and society and 2. It's extremely dangerous for most of them to actively speak out against it. It was similar in the west except that oppression of women was less strongly built into the foundation of western religions.
"If you have kids with some doofus, then your kids are also going to be doofi" - Ben Shapiro 2017
Most Democrats won't get this because they never had Latin
@@celeboria "...had Latin."
As if anyone live today really has.
I have only loved one woman, married one woman, slept with one woman, and it will be like this till the day I die. Love is worked on and perfected, it isn't JUST an emotion or feeling. The world (and children) would be much better off if people would do this, and stand by marriage vows that are made before God. He really is pretty smart after all 😉
bill buttlicker....
Your wife is lucky
I'm happy for you two. May you live happily for the rest of your days.
Apple Ton agreed
Well said 😊
"Because if you have sex with some doofus, then your kids are also going to be doofi."
My new favorite Ben quote. :)
Nathan Deere
What is the plural of cactus? Cacti. What is the plural of hippopotamus? Hippopotami. What is the plural of octopus? Octopi
and finally what is the plural of applepus? ... Apple pie.
Mmmmm apple pie.
Eugenics FTW 👌🏻
Not for sure but the chances of that happening sure go up.
Nathan Deere that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a bit. Ben's a dumbass
It's retarded though, like... if a man sleep with as many women as possible... those womens genes also contribute to making said doofi. Also, just because one man sleeps with a lot of women, what is preventing the other men sleeping with the women too?
Mosquitoes are natural. Are they good?
Grace the Great Mosquitoes were created by God and serve a useful purpose in that they help flowers reproduce. Yes they also help spread disease, but that is the result of Man eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and bringing death into the world. But God showed His love for us by becoming one of us and dying for us and rising from the dead so that we by sharing in His death and resurrection should share in His Divine Nature.
Timothy Lim being conservative does not mean you have to be racist
GracetheGreat that is the same with rape and pedopholic fetishes
GracetheGreat I
I suspect having mosquitoes draw some blood now and again probably benefits are immune system. The problem is humans tend to have allergic reactions to the debris that gets left behind when the mosquito injects their anesthetic under the skin. True some can carry disease, but the viruses or bacteria that cause those diseases enter the mosquito from something else they bite, so technically they are just a carrier, and are not the main culprit. It's like blaming a syringe for getting HIV, when the real problem was the person who used it before that already had HIV.
Rowgue51
If monogamy wasn't natural then nobody would get jealous or pissed when somebody else flirted with their partner. When that happens it isn't people reflecting on societal norms and deciding it's wrong. They're reacting to base primal instincts, NATURAL instincts.
*BEST COMMENT*
WontB Quiet yes but just like other males in the animal kingdom, they fight to win over female approval for the chance to mate. If a guy hits on your girl or has sex with them you are going to get mad because you know you are not good enough for them and she chose someone else. You won't get mad if she got raped now would you?
Uh... what? Jealously is completely natural, and not confined to polyamorous relationships; or even the romantic domain in general. As you've pointed out monogamous couples can still be jealous. People can be jealous of someone else's material possessions as well.
+ENZOxDV9 Why the fuck would someone not get mad over their partner getting raped? Dumbass argument.
No. You are taught to be jealous, but it is taught very subtly.
+Daniel DeLuca You have no evidence for that.
Monogamy is the most natural think mankind has. As men we fall in love with ONE woman and she is the center of our world. Its the ungratefulness that drives us away
The centre of our world. Hahahaha ok 😅 . The recipe for disaster.
Hahahaha history is against what your saying
Lmao no, Islamic cultures traditionally allowed polyamory.
@@jefrreyjeffery2192 the prophet practiced polygamy and his campions practiced and generations after it also practiced it so wrong
@@ismailmounsif1109 and???? I agree?
"What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular."
Polygamy isn't popular
@@ceejayhaughton7360 right...put polyamory open relationships are getting popular
@@sandipansadhu872 true
Monogamy is not natural but polygamy is not moral. I’m with being moral. Humans are not just animals.
Half the people in this comment section suddenly forgot how many times they used the "being gay isn't natural!" argument.
True
How do you know, o mighty seer?
Dark matter ily❤️😭
But being gay is natural is it not?
@@alices8660 Animals often engage in mindless acts of depraved homosexuality in the wild. What isn't observed is exclusive homosexuality - as that is unique to humans.
Nothing peeves me more than when people say monogamy isn't natural.
legalize polygamy
Monogamy isn't natural
Monogamy isn't natural for some people. Why do you think there's a division in the first place?
It's true. Does it peeve you because it's obvious or ... ?
Same here it would lead many being alone forever
These people have no idea how rewarding a life-long relationship with a lover is. The deep emotional connection that two people can share with each other is so beautiful. These are the same people who treat sex as a physical act and not an emotional connection.
I don't think you know what polyamory means
@@goxcpre Yeah I didn't. I had some dumb beliefs a few years ago, this is kind of embarassing to be honest haha.
@@callum8147 I think You've become dumb Now ,..
You were Smarter Earlier or should I say Simpler when you wrote the 1st comment 3yrs.
Sometimes Simple is GOOD 😊.
Not everything needs to be born out of the "Modern Mindset".
Polygamy aint natrual.
imsoemoyayaya it's more natural than monogamy
No.. No it's not. If you look into the psychology of polygamy or open relationships, people are just using each other for their own short-comings, not making connections. Ive heard the bull shit excuse of, "oh us humans, we're just animals, giving into our instincts" its bull shit. We are humans, we are conscious of our actions and for whatever reason its en-grained into us then when we care about someone we absolutely do not want to hurt them. We can be completely savage and instinctual monogamously with someone we can actually trust and care about. And speaking completely in STATISTICS. Open relationships, and polygamist relations ( outside of a polygamist community ) nearly always fail. How AT ALL, would you call that natural?
imsoemoyayaya have you seen the divorce rate my dear boy? It's 60% in some areas of the US and that DOESN'T even count couples GOING to get divorced or couples that are unhappy in the relationship. That probably leaves about 5% of marriages either happier than previously getting married or the same
ENZOxDV9 thats because of dumb people rushing things and getting knocked up and marrying short after . Don't call polygamy more natural than monogamy when it's not.
Because "natural" doesn't meant "optimal" and even then "circumstantial" doesn't mean "universal", Nathan you made a claim and threw a bunch of claims unrelated to the original claim around. That is no proof of the unnaturality of polygamy.
how is monogamy not natural? there are plenty of animals that only have one partner there entire lives. take bald eagles for example if one dies earlier then life expectancy then the other won't find another mate and will also die months after. this happens because they pick partners for life and even if one dies then they won't pair again. I'm not saying that this will insure there species survival, I'm just saying monogamy has natural occurrences
not for humans
men want variety and we are wired and developed to distribute our genes to many women
By the same token, there are countless species that exhibit homosexual mating and/or pairbonding. Is that equally natural in your argument?
robinsss so are women. DNA studies show babies with a different father between 2% and 10% of the time depending on the culture. Whether it's the gardener or another Hasidic Jew or the next door neighbor.
mosaicmatt of course homosexuality and bisexuality are natural among many species.
Does anyone else find it ironic that's she talking about something not being "natural" as being bad, yet her job is literally to be "unnatural." She's an actress.
🏆
How dare you bring logic into this
You're mixing up your words. That's 2 different meanings
@@mopoii399 umm no. Gerrarahere
@Havla Fitta lol. It's still not natural
Nature is what we were put on this earth to rise above.
+ian hockYes, "put on this earth", mankind did not randomly emerge from the amoebic slime.
Random? There is nothing random about evolution, and if you don't understand that, then you understand nothing.
Eli, oh how cute. Another delusional that beliefs they know the answer to how life began.
So are you claiming that evolution is just intelligent design now??? Dinosaurs existed because the mighty hand of God willed. Rather than a million random incidents of the universe that caused a molten mudball to form an atmosphere. Then followed by a billion other random incidents of pure chaos that led to dinosaurs, apes, humans and a plethora of all forms of biological madness?
Dranicar
Just because you don't understand something does mean it is not true. I don't understand quantum dynamics, but that does not make it not true.
Her nose job is not natural either
"I think (monogamy) is a lot of work."
...That's your principal argument? That it's a lot of work? I would've thought that maintaining multiple polygamous relationships would be even MORE work.
That’s the argument men in the polygamist cult I grew up in made. And they aren’t necessarily wrong. Juggling multiple women is harder than just one. So hard it’s actually impossible for the most part. I have seen some successful polygamist marriages but only with two wives tops. Over all it’s very bad for women, children, and society as a whole.
The more relationships you have in your life, the less each one of them means to you. You can have many shallow relationships that don't mean shit or you can just have that one person to count on and be there for. You honestly only have so much to give as far as love and attention. This lady is saying we should only accept people at their best and when people go thru tough times we should bail on them and find someone else. To me, monogamy is very natural. I know it's not for everyone and it's very hard to find but for me, both my heart and my head are in the same place, I want just one person to be with. Hook ups when you're single are no big deal but nobody should TRY to live that way.
love is not finite or limited, romantically or otherwize. she's not saying that ethier, only that it isn't "natural" thus it is in efficient and problematic as one is going against millenia of evolved instinct.
I don't agree with your first sentence that "the more relationships you have in life the less each one means to you"
You can have lots of meaningless relationships that doesn't mean that when you have a meaningful relationship it means more.
It is what it is, romantic relationships are the most conditional kind that exist. Romance is a construct and a concept used to sell products and services. Other kinds or relationships are more genuine (friendships and familial). I find many times love for a pet is more unconditional than any romantic relationship. Marriage is a business arrangement that allows a third party in your relationship.
I don’t see what she said as a problem. How about monogamy works for some people and polyamory works for others. This does not have to be an either one or the other situation.
Yep
@@thedarkmaster4747 many people are naturally inclined to jealousy and therefore could not partake in anything other than monogamy, so regardless of what evolution says, jealousy speaks for itself.
Evolution rewarded those that slept around by giving them venereal disease and death. The idea of monogamy (or certain kinds of polygamy) helped certain civilizations develop without this threat.
Ah yes, evolution. The idea that whatever unfathomably complex genetic coding is necessary to solve a survival problem conveniently presents itself at the exact moment that it could be used, instead of just being a mutation that causes cancer or something. DNA ex machina, right? The same school of thought brought us the idea that getting bit by a radioactive spider can give you super powers.
Stephen, except that in majority of cases it causes cancer indeed, which people die from all the time. It also causes a bunch of other diseases and problems that affect the world.
It is not presented "conveniently", the problem was not solved by a genetic alteration, rather a genetic alteration happened to improve something (solve a problem).
All mutations leading to negative consequences -> weakness / death / out of the gene pool.
All mutations leading to a positive outcome -> increased survival / greater genetic spread.
The Cosmonaut Spot on!
If evolution is about a physical change to preserve and continue, then perhaps it also encouraged mental changes. Society developed around the idea of marriage and family, the need for guidance and healthy mental growth through belonging. What she said was "is not natural", but she should have said "was not natural." We have changed and grown as a species beyond our baser instincts. I certainly have no desire to mate with multiple men. In fact overpopulation is something we need to start addressing. Polymamy is actually useless to society now.
Clara Morgan
Thank you. You understand the actual dynamics of evolution. Its mechanisms. You hit the nail on the head here. Some people live in a bubble. Unfit if you ask me
What people mean by what is "natural" always confuses me. As far as I know, nothing is unnatural. We humans are just as much part as nature as everything else and so is everything we do.
Clara Morgan
If you want to talk about overpopulation, go to Africa and China. Not the west.
We aren't overpopulated in the US
Clara Morgan Evolution doesn't work like that. just because for a few hundred years we've practiced monogamy doesn't change our core biology. It does change, I'd think, but it's so minimal it barely makes a dent.
Mental illness is "natural", that doesn't mean we let people indulge in their disorder. Ben makes a very good point
Kangaroos, which many claim have one of the most loving mother/child relationships because of the pouch, will actually sacrifice their own children to escape a predator. It is a species wide behavior. #natural
Confirmed: Plural of Doofus is Doofi
My PE teacher will love that info
Honestly though, I don't get why there's so much investment into what's "natural" for humans. We weren't born in a vacuum, we are animals like all the other ones out there. Our reproductive systems are a reflection of what suits us best as individuals and societies.
Monogamy is often the most suited reproductive system for humans since raising babies is really hard, so having both parents is often necessary to take care of the child. Raising fledglings is almost as hard in many species of birds, and so, monogamy is the most common reproductive system in birds. In fact, many species are surprisingly similar to us, as they may have social monogamy (that is, having an "official" partner with which to raise your offspring, but sometimes mating with other individuals outside your couple) and sequential monogamy (having a partner at a time, but having the ability to break up later on).
In other cultures where there are huge differences in resources between men, polygamy is more common. And that's also natural, because no matter how hard it is to raise a child, if your husband has enough money (or food, or whatever) to keep you and all of his other wives safe and sound, he's probably a better option than a nobody that can barely get by. It's also common in nature (mostly in mammals): if the males of a species are capable of monopolizing resources, then polygamy will be the most likely reproductive system.
Individual humans can be very stupid or very smart, but as a collective we tend to act on our best interests most of the time. There are no "artificial" ways of behaving, only different adaptations for a changing landscape.
and if you don't want kids?
+Frikiman I would say that we are animals insofar as we yield to our bodily urges. The thing is, there is something transcendent about the human soul that is more than just neurons firing in the brain. There is something that sets us apart from animals (i.e. our potential and 'spirit') as well as something that we share in common with them (namely, imperfect instinctual bodies)
Valthirian Sunstrider Ijustvassumed we are smarter and our frontal lobes is what gives us the free will without always acting instinctively. Correct me if I'm wrong cus again I'm just assuming and didn't do much homework. The smarter animals have a good sized frontal lobe too like us.
Love this. I have nothing to add, I just thought I'd acknowledge that your explanation was great and I appreciate it.
''''''''Monogamy is often the most suited reproductive system for humans since raising babies is really hard, so having both parents is often necessary to take care of the child''''''''''''''''''...…………………………..actually a polygamous marriage would make raising children easier because the children would have several mothers to help take care of them
Doofi?? lol
The plural of radius is radii. The plural of genius is genii. Ben, in his infinite wisdom, enunciates the plural of dufus as dufii.
lol cracked me up
Too bad he pronounces it wrong :P
+FO cast
How do you pronounce it correctly?
+jackka82 If the word actually had a root in Latin (or even Greek) it would be a long E. Like the other examples you gave :) I know they make it a long I sound in American English, so.. just being pedantic
Call me a wuss but I just want a wife. Someone who I love and who loves me. I just want to spend my entire natural life with someone I love. I want the American Dream! A house, a car, a dog, some kids and soul crushing debt! But nooo, women just want to be selfish assholes and use you.
Good luck to you. I hope you live out your dream. Just realize the reality of relationships and marriage.
Gendo Ikari: I'm sure if you eventually make enough money, you'll get a wife. CHIN UP WUSS
Gendo Ikari you do have a wife, but her soul is attached to a giant alien that is piloted by your emotionally disturbed son. So your half way there I guess.
I wish all men were like you the problem is that they get bored and they cheat.
Gendo Ikari if you stopped trying to resurrect your dead wife as spend time with your son, you just might find happiness in this world regardless if you have a mate or not.
Where did she say monogamy is bad? She said it was hard if I heard correctly?
no she said poly is more "natural" because it is more efficient energy wize and that is enough to trigger a traditionalist to shout down the edicts of fell heathen wisdom. its intresting to observe the opinions of annother as they rally against something that you equally both despise.
Great video, but I'm still stuck on "doofi". XD
Polygamy is illegal in practically every state. It should stay that way.
Stop, stop, stop... In the beginning, God made one man and one woman, instituting the first marriage which would serve as a model for mankind's romantic relationships, and it was without any doubt MONOGAMOUS. So yes, monogamy IS "natural" in that it's what God initially and generally intended (and merely "unnatural" in that it may not be the more common behavior), whereas polygamy was certainly not intended nor necessary and is hardly recommended (since it often proves problematic and harmful) and would essentially be merely a type of adultery, and so this would only be "natural" in the sense that it's a common sinful behavior and would rather be unnatural in the sense that this behavior was not intended. Also, on a further note, it greatly saddens me to see Shapiro make the mistake of adhering to belief in evolutionism (which is undeniably an imaginary concept which stands in contradiction to reality), which poses all kinds of problems.
"Doofi" hahahahahahahahahah omg hahahaha hahaha
It's not natural for men not to dominate women by brute force
It's natural for all species to attempt to dominate each other. what exactly are you getting at here?
that's actually a good point to make when feminists do the "polygamy is natural".
What
Its true but Ben still raises a good point. Natural isnt good for life
Exactly
Just realized ben talked like the dad with the big eyebrows from American Pie, darn whats his name! especially the first reaction. You rock bro keep it up great different take on perspective
Wouldn't say he wrecked her for it. He just disagreed.
Love to hear that Ben is knowledgeable about basic human evolution/biology.
Polygamy is disgusting. Why would you advocate for that? It makes companionship less valuable, and that's the problem with that.
Ray Zaffarese but he didn't argue polygamy *Facepalm*
Judah Davis I think you missed the point of the original comment, he was referring to Scarlet Johansson's avocation for polygamy.
Companionship's value is determined by the individual. It's relative. Even in your own relationships, you may value your companions more than they value you or vice versa.
*Why would you advocate for that?*
Most effective gene-selection and biological nature of men's sex drive. It's hard to establish honest polygamy, but it doesn't mean no one 'd try. I don't see any benefit that I can trade-off my polygamous nature for. Children're not a priority for me
Pneumaticslap But she never advocated polygamy? She simply said that Monogamy isn't natural and it isn't, Shapiro even agrees with her in this video.
I've always wanted to find that one woman whom I find attractive and will tolerate me.
"If you have sex with some doofus, you're kids are gonna be doofi." Anyone else crack up at that?
I literally spat my coffee on my screen and burst into laughter when he said ""If you have sex with some doofus, your kids are gonna be doofy""
lmao.
Doof-i. Apparently the plural of doofus 😂
So it's not natural bc it requires work? OK take it from someone who did the poly thing. It is a disaster waiting to happen and merely a bandaid for some sort of dis satisfaction in your relationship. Why even be in a relationship if you're basically going to sleep around or date other people
She’s not bashing monogamy because it’s unnatural. She’s saying that bashing polygamy because marriage is sacred is a stupid idea
I don't think we all HAVE TO stick to the institutions of civilization. It shouldn't have to be mandatory, but a free choice.
And this, children.. Is part of the reason why ancient Rome and Egypt got destroyed. History is just repeating itself, funny and sad at the same time.
1:04 "If you have sex with some dufus, then your kids are also going to be dufi."
Holy shit this has me dying!!
Why is he even talking about this? Why does he care what Scarlett Johanson thinks? Why do we care about what he thinks about something Scarlett Johanson said? Why are you reading my comment?
Adrian Goetz why did I even respond to it?
Why are you alive?
"I think, therefore, I am." *hysterics continue* ben is a traditionalist, scarlett is not, the conversation begins... i liked your comment. XD
Adrian Goetz existentialism... i love it
Because he's a petty piece of shit that tries to cause outrage.That's how he makes his living.
New word: "Dufii". You made me LOL. ;o)
Did not know the plural of doofus was doofi....
Ben agrees with every word she says and then goes on a rant against her. Pretty interesting.
David Foley he is rationalizing first....that’s thinking before speaking....
Anything worth having is a lot of work does that mean it's not natural? no. Things that take work end up meeting more in the end something you're just given or takes no work usually means nothing to you.
A key that can open many locks is considered to be a key of great value.
A lock that can be opened by many keys is considered to be a lock which is worthless.
Feeding a kid with hormones to change his sexuality is SO DAMN NATURAL.
Monogamy is what God planned for us since the biggining, we are not animals we are hancrafted by God in His image.
Well this sounded really weak
"I don't think monogamy is natural"
This is why people, even within the same culture, are very very different.
For some people, it comes very natural.
As a Middle Eastern Christian I have a question for the West: where are you going with all of this?
''Dufus'' = ''Dufie'' LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Very funny!!!!
Did Scarlett ever even say the "therefore it's not a good thing" at the end? Seems to me that all she said was that it's not natural, which Ben agreed with...
The implication is that it's not a good thing. Generally speaking, people say only that something is not natural when they mean it should be avoided. It's widely understood to mean that.
+Stephen Walker so this whole video is just refuting something she didn't even say, just what you guys assume she may have meant?
She never said Monogamy is bad, she just said it's not natural, it looks as if he's just looking for an unnecessary beef, he didn't wreck anything, misleading clickbait title.
By natural instinct, I’ve wanted to break a friend’s nose. So I guess I know have to do it.
To each their own. Monogamy has some horrible effects on many people
Why aren't the things we make natural?
Aren't bee hives natural?
you don't have to teach a bee to make a hive, its instinctive.
The Dark master
Do you have a source for your claim that bees do not learn how to make hives?
Making shelter is an instinct for humans as well. We'd die pretty quickly without and would not have spread across he globe without.
If you can disentangle the nature/nurture web on that one I'll listen. It's hard to say what's purely instinctual with humans (other than a rooting reflex) since we are social animals with big brains that depend on rearing (forming behavioral experiences since before we can even form memories).
And, Are you saying that if it is not instinctual it's not natural? Then nothing humans do is natural.
bees make hives, bees of the same species make the same hives. humans sneaze when their nasal passage way is agitated. a bee hive is not a result of creativity, there is no art, no culture, no deviation, it is instinct. just like the female human sex drive, instinctive. bee's are born knowing how to make hives, dogs are born knowing how to dig, you were born knowing how to sneaze. you were not born knowing how to build a house, or a mud hut, or even how to start a fire. you could argue that creativity & cultivation is natural to humans, but its like trying to make a case point out of the diet of a cockroach. it is random and pragmatic and environmental, not a specific behaviour an organism will try to repeat when given the correct stimuli. yes like reflex. you as a human do instintual things everyday. you also do uninstinctual things everyday as a trained member of civilized society. and its much easier to find evidence of that than of a culture of bees, where younger bees are ejucated by older bees. *re reads* communities of whales and herds of elephants would be a good place to build the argument your attempting to make, where there is "ejucation" and in some sence culture, even language amoung specific sperm whale pods. and you might be able to find afew studies of what happens when these origional large brained societies are sufficiently disrupted. but not to many studies and not to many sufficient disruptions. but it is possible in more socially complex organism to deviate from originality, for example: live stock, work animals and pets, almost none of them live entirely "natural" existances, yet they are still repoductively viable. infact dogs shouldn't even exist, humanity has created a subspecies of wolf, or is a dogs contract existence natural from that persective to you, as they do repoduce? i could go on along these lines but i wont, as i feel that i have already made my point... no actually i will go on, slave making ants are a good example of both points, "slave making" is instinctive for slave making ants, they co-opt the agency of other species of ants in order to exploit them for their own repoductive geas, even though their slaves become inevitable genetic dead ends.(this form of hijacking is possible with insects.) when it comes to social engineering as a form of human cultivation and creativity i.e. civilization added to that the hijacking of agency for exploitive perpouses and the instinctive vunerabilities of humanbeings as a type of earth based animal life form. unless you think the existence of a nutured domestic dog is perfectly "natural" then i belive i have sufficiently made my point, as those "animals" are most definately controlled.
NATURAL?!! Let me tell ya folks, a rattlesnake bite is "natural" but you'll find few people who'll line up to get one!
Tell wolves and beavers that monogamy isn't natural.
He actually agrees with her if anyone bothered to listen. She said she thinks marriage is romantic and a beautiful thing when it works, just not natural and a lot of work. He "wrecks her" by saying yea she's right it's not natural but he thinks we should stick with it because it's worth it. The only thing they might disagree on a little is if marriage is ultimately worth the effort, which ScarJo doesn't even come out and say that she doesn't think it ever is. Dumb video with a clickbait title with no point. People just like to argue with statements even if they fundamentally agree with that statement....
Stupid title for this video. Ben did not WRECK anything. This was the weakest comment I've seen him make, and I've watch pretty much all of his videos. Scarlett Johanson is stating something most sane people would accept. She bright. She's not against marriage, just saying it is challenging. In fact Ben Shapiro agrees with most of her points; and in the end he is really just splitting hairs.
Anyone else notice that she said “monogamy is not natural” and Ben agreed. She didn’t praise polygamy and he didn’t wreck her praises.
Yeah she was just stating a fact…but we all know just because something is hard or doesn’t come naturally, doesn’t make it bad. In fact, most of the most meaningful, worthwhile things in this world are hard and fell unnatural.
I love that "doofi" is now the official plural of 'doofus'.
Hey, I'm a beautiful, A-list, genetic specimen surrounded by other A-list, genetic specimens and monogamy isn't normal. Farmer Joe in the middle of nowhere Iowa better ditch his wife of 20 years cuz he'll be able to swap her out with 20+ supermodels!
doofus...doofi...😆😆😆😆
Again the assumption is that "People don't fall in love." Both men and women will stray but people tend through out history to pair off.
In general men want sex while women want control, women will still cheat on their husbands.
Doofi: Ben just added a new word to my lexicon :D
She didn't say monogamy was bad... She just said it wasn't natural.. He even said that monogamy wasn't how we evolved. I love Ben, but it sounds like he is reaching for a story on this one
How did wreck her?
I think sharing your life with one person is hard, but if it works you have something magical.
Polygamy is alright nothing wrong with it as long as your wife or wives are okay with it
Ben has every right to make choices for his own life. Scarlett has the same rights. That's freedom. Ben should understand that.
Then Scarlett should move to Utah where polygamy is legal.
your comment is ridiculous. ben isnt advocating imprisonment or legal repercussions for polygamy. he is advocating for social consequences and for it not to be considered normal or okay. social and legal punishments are very different things. you have freedom from legal action, not societal disapproval.
A white knight detected.
Shapiro talks a lot of sense, but here he is definitely twisting Johanson's words. She never said monogamy is wrong, she just said it's not natural and it probably isn't for her. What's wrong with that? You can be married, love someone and spend your life with them, while having other sexual partners form time to time. It is pure insecurity that makes people freak out about the idea of their significant other having a sexual encounter with another person. Just my 2 cents.
Ben has a good point, but he is usually sharper than he was here. He's right, natural tendencies are not necessarily "good" for us. The point he was steering to, but on which he needed to be clearer and sharper, is that monogamy and marriage are requirements based on both moral and practical values, and a life lived according to these requirements is, overall, much better, much more satisfactory, then one lived at the mercy of animal instinct.
The idea of marriage is outdated
It's just tough for me to take Ben seriously when I know at the root of all his opinions is religious lunacy.
yet you cant dispute anything he says
Deep South Oh yes I absolutely can.
sure little one, please...hes destroyed bigger people than your dumb ass...
Where is the lunacy?
Males actually tend to be more monogamous, especially among humans. Why? He's investing loads of time into her and her offspring, and wants to ensure that the maximum number of offspring survive. Women, on the other hand, tend to "sleep around
behind his back to give her offspring both varied genes, and care from a devoted father (lionesses do this, and if you have ever met a human woman, well, no surprises there).
That is indeed true. A real world example of this biological fact is this: men do commit suicide over losing their love. A simple google search will show you. The opposite is not true, it is incredibly rare to find the opposite case and I have personally never heard of an example of this.
Women have to choose the best sexual partner they can for reproduction. Men just do the act and protect and provide for the offsprings.
I see absolutely see how you and The Helpful Pug come to the conclusion that "Males are more monogamous" given the data on suicide rates linked to breakups, which sex has more sexual partners, etc. But correct me if i'm wrong; you guys are attributing that to biology and saying "Men are NATURALLY more monogamous than females, and females are more Polygamous". This I couldn't disagree with more.
Firstly, males cheat on their spouse more than women, so that's something to keep in mind when the helpful pig says "Women tend to sleep around behind his back", The same could be said about men. Now, they cheat only a LITTLE more than females do, but consider this: Commited females are tempted to break their commitment more than men are. Men makes the first move, plus we're more horny anyway. Married men will not have females instigating subtle sexual cues the way married women will. Yet, women STILL cheat LESS than men. This is clear evidence that women are less polygamous than men.
Now, I want to address the statistic on suicide rates linked to romantic breakups and how males commit suicide for that reason more than females do. This is not because men care more about their lovers than females, or that females are more polygamous; it's actually totally socioeconomic. Look at the things that typically come with men and women having a breakup 1)Women almost always get custody over the children 2)Women can find financial support from both the government and society much easier than males can (partly due to our desire to take care of females which ironically is the opposite of female independence). 3)It's far easier for females to find a new romantic interest than men, primarily because again males make the first move typically+ It's easier for women to be attractive 4)Males literally have to pay "child support" which basically just goes in their exes bank account.
Now, imagine a world where that was reversed. If as many females as males after a break up ended up living with their parents while their boyfriend lives with a new girl, doesn't even see her children, and on top of that has to pay her ex boyfriend money. HOLY SHIT females would fucking be so crazy they'd probably all be dead from suicide and then it'd be the end of the human species.
Women are incapable of the same love men have, in an opposite world where men would get custody and financial support women would simply not marry, we also can't use a made up world like that as an example, at the end of the day, in the real world, it's women who throughout history always ended up being more beneffitted with BS laws men made for them, never the opposite, there is a reason for this.
If women truly loved men as much as men love women, we would have never had a war between the sexes to begin with, we wouldn't have feminism to which there isn't a male counterpart (MRA and MGTOW are reactions to feminism so not the same), can you or anyone really imagine the world (this world, not another one) in which men as a general matter took the kids and financial aid from women as an unfair manner tossing them into a methaphorical abyss? No, becasue as a general rule, men usually suck up to women and white knight them, in such a world men would coup the whole thing in a hearbeat, putting on armors and "slaying the dragon" (sexist laws towards women) in order to save "the damsel in distress".
This always makes me think about the bible which commands men to love women, and women to respect men, why doesn't it say for women to love men as well?
even then they knew.
The Helpful Pug every women I've met has used me or cheated. So I switched to 2D. At least they won't use me emotionally and then abandon me like these selfish bitches
Gendo Ikari.
He didnt "Wreck" anybody, he just respectfully disagreed.
0:24 - 0:29 That answer just made my whole week!! lol
Dufi 😭
Ben... Stick to politics. You are covering stuff outside your competences for the sake of more exposure. You are getting old fast and have less and less things of value to express
Ben Shapiro pluralized the word duffus.
"Your kids are going to be duphy" What a golden quote and I just learned the plural of dufus.
He's not "wrecking" anything
Ben Shapiro should probably learn the difference between polygamy and polyamory..
yep...
I think she meant alpha males should have a lot of women, and low-tier males should marry and pay for everything. Everybody wins.
I rofl when he quoted King and I. Also, he says dufii. I like this. XD
Bias makes people stupid and Ben's no exception when it comes to his own bias for religious doctrine.
Duuuuuurrr, muh atheism. *tips fedora*
if he was atheist would you call him biased?
People can be with as many people as they want... Get over it haha
They can. That doesn't mean they should.
Lewberry Productions obviously a subjective opinion. In places like Africa, larger immédiat families are more beneficial.
lol. it's a third world ...
How's that working out? Don't mind the high rate of interpersonal conflict, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, a statistical correlation between single-parent homes and poverty/violence/other problems, etc.
Who's the woman in the thumbnail?