Scarlett Johanson To Playboy: "I Don’t Think It’s Natural To Be A Monogamous Person"

Submitted by: fancylad 1 month ago Lifestyle

Playboy interviews are a guilty pleasure of mine. As mundane as the rest of the magazine usually is, the profile Q & A's have always been interesting because the interviewer always gets at least one interesting kernel out of the celebrity in any said issue. Case in point, Scarlett Johanson's take on monogamy.

"I think the idea of marriage is very romantic; it’s a beautiful idea, and the practice of it can be a very beautiful thing," she told Playboy in this month's celeb Q&A. "I don’t think it’s natural to be a monogamous person. I might be skewered for that, but I think it’s work. It’s a lot of work. And the fact that it is such work for so many people—for everyone—the fact of that proves that it is not a natural thing. It’s something I have a lot of respect for and have participated in, but I think it definitely goes against some instinct to look beyond.

Sounds like we know why ScarJo's marriage to Ryan Reynolds ended and why she's currently separated to Romain Dauriac after two years of marriage. ScarJo's gotta get hers.

But when you break down the biology and evolution of it all, she's not 100 percent wrong.
There are 35 comments:
Female 3,270
if its  a lot of work, then 1) you're with the wrong person  2)you're the wrong person 3) you blame 'nature' for your own lack of morals.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
melcervini See, "morals". That's just religion putting rules on you. There's nothing amoral about sex except in terms of religious dogma.
1
Reply
Female 3,270
holygod morals have nothing to do with religion. :B  You can be a good person and not believe in a magic man in the sky.  Its amoral/wrong/cheating/horrible to have sex outside a relationship UNLESS the TWO parties agree that its okay..... right?  Was it just the word "moral"  that was bothering you?
0
Reply
Male 7,960
melcervini Whoa, whoa, whoa. We're having a miscommunication here. I'm saying not being monogamous is not amoral. That assumes that is understood in your relationship.

You're talking about cheating which is of course amoral. I completely agree. Breaking someone's trust or lying is of course amoral.

I think we are in agreement here actually. 
0
Reply
Female 3,270
holygod agreeing to agree just not sure why religion was brought into it, that's all.  My point is, if you're having to "try hard to remain monogamous", that implies the one you're currently committed to does NOT believe in an open relationship that you want, so you're making an effort not to cheat, which is pathetic and weak.  playing the field is playing the field, but if you want to keep fucking around, make sure you're with someone that thinks  that's the coolest idea ever too.  If you're the type of person that can't keep their pants on, then own it.  Dont blame "nature".  Some species eat the heads off their mating partners.
0
Reply
Male 419
melcervini but WHY is it morally wrong?  Because the bible says so?  There is nothing inherently wrong with it morally, other than society tells us it is because religion says it is.  It's become accepted that it's morally wrong and that's the only reason why it's morally wrong.  
-1
Reply
Female 3,270
waldo863 Morals are only a standard of behavior and ask anyone cheated on if its inherently wrong LOL.  If *you* dont think it is, that's cool, just make sure the people you have relationships with know that you intend to keep fucking around while you're seeing them.  Honesty goes a long way and you might find someone that can also screw others and still bring it home to you, booyah.
0
Reply
Male 419
melcervini Oh, my wife and I are honest with each other.  When we sleep with other people, we do it together. :)

See in our opinion, there is a big difference in "making love" and "having sex."  Sex is just that, a primal urge with no emotion attached.  Love is love.  We love each other, we also enjoy having sex with others.  Saying that you can't enjoy sex with others because you are in love with someone else is akin to saying you can't like Star Wars because you like Star Trek.  It's just plain silly.

Rest assured though, if my wife and I ever split and I started dating again, I would be open and honest about this as soon as a relationship started to turn serious.  Being honest is moral, so I am.
-1
Reply
Male 1,540
wheres the internet guy that says shes ugly...like the flaccid tards who said jennifer lopez was ugly a few weeks ago
0
Reply
Male 1,797
Yeah.. 
 but I think it’s work. It’s a lot of work. And the fact that it is such work for so many people—for everyone—the fact of that proves that it is not a natural thing. 

It's the hard that makes it great.  Throwing the towel in when it gets tough means you're just not cut out for it.  So if she doesn't think it's natural, naturally it means that she's not cut out for it.  But being a movie star in the ways of this world, it's no surprise she would say that.
0
Reply
Male 19,981
monkwarrior Yup, easy cop out. I read that this is why Ryan Reynolds divorced her. "Unfaithfulness should probably be discussed in the "getting to know you" stage of the relationship for the good of everyone.
2
Reply
Male 138
Nice find Fancylad. Thanks for keeping up your Playboy subscription for the good of the community. 
2
Reply
Male 7,960
It isn't natural its religion and control. It creates complacency and stability.


0
Reply
Male 1,797
holygod i'm sorry could you be more biased and misguided with your statements?  Or is it you are trying to impress a movie star who you likely won't ever meet? 

Wolves are monogamous, swans are monogamous, eagles are monogamous, penguins are monogamous, owls are monogamous, and that is just a part of the 'natural' world, without the mention of so many humans that are monogamous.  Those animals are not part of any religion, nor are they out for control. So do you see how biased and misguided of a statement it was now, and how ridiculous it makes you look?
-1
Reply
Male 7,960
monkwarrior Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals only 3%-5% are monogamous. It is extremely rare in primates, which we evolved from (I know, evolution, sorry).

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume you don't believe homosexuality is natural for people right? However I can use your exact same argument against you because homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy. So therefore it must be natural for humans right?
0
Reply
Male 1,797
holygod What i believe is not the topic of discussion.  The point you seem to want to ignore, with your little diversion run there after being shot squarely in the engine yet again, is that  those animals are not part of any religion, nor are they out for control. This shows your statement to be biased and misguided.  But if you want to think it's rational and sensible, by all means keep thinking that ridiculous thing, and letting it make you appear more ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
monkwarrior Sorry. Didn't mean to fuck up your argument so badly.
-2
Reply
Male 1,797
holygod you didn't, because you failed to show homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy, and continued to act ridiculous, like you've previously done with your engine shot out, just before you crash and burn.
0
Reply
Male 419
monkwarrior Well, it's pretty easy to look up that he is right.  It's the truth, homosexuality is more common in nature than monogamy.  Very few species are monogamous, just because you named a few and left out thousands of others does not mean it's the majority in nature.  On the flip side, homosexuality has been observed in nearly every species.  I know that's tough to swallow and does not line up with what you have thought or been taught your whole life, but it is the truth.  Homosexuality is natural and common and monogamy is rare and nearly unheard of for most species.  Whether or not you believe in evolution, the species that we have the most in common with biologically, is not really monogamous  at all.  Sure it works for some people, but not everyone.
0
Reply
Male 1,797
waldo863 great assumption, now prove your assertion.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
monkwarrior My bad. Didn't realize your google was broken. Let me help you out.

"Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals, only 3 to 5 percent are known to form lifelong pair bonds"

http://www.livescience.com/1135-wild-sex-monogamy-rare.html

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
-1
Reply
Male 1,797
holygod Apparently research isn't your strong point, since you said ..
 homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy 
.. but none of your links showed that point.  It's either that or you're clutching at straws to save your pride in face of your ridiculous statement.  See how ridiculous it is to defend?
0
Reply
Male 7,960
monkwarrior Ummmm. One link says monogamy is only present in 3 to 5 percent of mammals and virtually no birds or reptiles. The other said homosexuality is observed in nearly all species. 

"nearly all" > "3-5%" Are you that brain dead?
-1
Reply
Male 1,797
holygod i'm just going to repost what i posed to waldo to you, but ask you  again could you be more biased and misguided with your statements?  and can't you see how ridiculous it's made you look and how desperate you are to make your original ridiculous statement work? anyway here's what i posted to waldo:

:  Just because some research says 'all species show homosexuality', and another research that says '3-5% of species are monogamous' does not mean 'homosexuality is more common than monogamy in nature'. 

It's simply saying that they have found homosexuality happening in all species (i doubt that btw, as the links indicate showing 'affection 'is considered homosexual, when people/animals can be affectionate and not homosexual).  If they've found a few animal pairs per species being homosexual, it's going to be far less than all animals of all the species that are monogamous. 

Now, i get it that you've invested too much pride at this point over your false equivalence or ancedocial argument to back off without looking foolish or ridiculous, calling sound reasoning 'alt facts' (lol you're really grasping there aren't you? :D). 

But you can still come out on top by showing the research that shows homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy is in nature.

Go!

0
Reply
Male 419
monkwarrior The links showed that all observed species show homosexuality and only 3-5% of species show monogamy.  Unless you just ignore real facts and make up your own based on your personal biases, I don't see what other conclusion you could arrive at.
-1
Reply
Male 1,797
waldo863  You can try to defend HG if you want, by also assuming whatever you want from separate posts, but please show the research that shows homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy in nature.
0
Reply
Male 419
monkwarrior 3-5% of species are monogamous, all species show homosexuality.  What more to it is there than that?  Monogamy is exceedingly rare, very few species exhibit monogamy.  3-5%.  That's all.  Just about ANYTHING is more common that that.  I see that you are blind to that though.  Go on pretending your alternative facts are real.  Nothing to see here.
-1
Reply
Male 1,797
waldo863 Just because some research says 'all species show homosexuality', and another research that says '3-5% of species are monogamous' does not mean 'homosexuality is more common than monogamy in nature'. 

It's simply saying that they have found homosexuality happening in all species (i doubt that btw, as the links indicate showing 'affection 'is considered homosexual, when people/animals can be affectionate and not homosexual).  If they've found a few animal pairs per species being homosexual, it's going to be far less than all animals of all the species that are monogamous. 

Now, i get it that you've invested too much pride at this point over your false equivalence or ancedocial argument to back off without looking foolish or ridiculous, calling sound reasoning 'alt facts' (lol you're really grasping there aren't you? :D).  But you can still come out on top by showing the research that shows homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy in nature.
0
Reply
Male 419
monkwarrior Who is calling sound reasoning alt facts?  We have made sound reasoning in this thread.  We have shown how common homosexuality is.  It is present in all species.  No species, other than species that do not have sex like sea urchins, does not exhibit homosexuality.  Sometimes in lifelong partnerships, sometimes just for fun.  It is very very very common.

Monogamy on the other hand, is only seen in 3-5% of species.  It is very very very rare.  

Not sure how combining those 2 pieces of information is not sound reasoning.  That's called science right there.  You take facts from multiple sources and put them together to form conclusions.  You then test the conclusions.  In this case, there is nothing to test, just facts and an observation.  However, in whatever world you live in, something that is very very rare is apparently more common than something that is very very common.  
0
Reply
Male 1,797
waldo863 so still no research that shows homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy ?
0
Reply
Male 903
She can come visit me when she's feeling un- monogamous.
2
Reply
Male 1,744
scheckydamon LOL! For that comment, I can almost overlook your penchant for fried squirrel.
1
Reply
Male 255
"Where there is life, there's hope."

Can't remember where I heard that, but it fits.
1
Reply
Male 1,744
I LOL'ed at the subhead on this article. That alone is worth an upvote. She is beautiful, isn't she?
1
Reply
Male 19,981
squrlz4ever I think she's great in everything -- especially Ghost World and Lost in Translation. I think she's wasted in these superhero movies -- she's way better in subtle roles. And yeah, smoking.
0
Reply