好的，准备好了吗？
Right, y'all ready?
丹妮尔：你对OPP无法自拔吗？
You down with OPP?
丹妮尔：完美。
DNL: That was perfect.
感谢大家。
Thank you.
（歌词）“我该怎么解释OPP呢？
"OPP, how can I explain it?
请让我逐字逐词说明。
I'll take it frame by frame it.
直到大家全都一起唱跳。
To have y'all jumping shout and singing it
最后一个P嘛，可没那么单纯。”
The last P, well, that's not that simple."
在这首歌里，饶舌歌手暗示这是一个五个字母的单词，但由于涉及成人内容，作者简单地把它称为资产（property）。
Now, in the song, the MC hints that it's a five-letter word, but to keep it rated PG, he simply refers to it as "property."
这首歌是关于出轨的。
The song is about cheating on your significant other.
在这首歌特别流行的时候，生物学家们深刻讨论了鸟类，特别是夜莺和水禽类是否真的是一夫一妻制。
Now, around the time that this song was in heavy rotation, biologists were in deep discussion about whether bird species, notably songbirds and waterfowl were actually monogamous or not.
几十年来，一代又一代的科学专业学生们学到的观念是：超过90%种类的鸟是一夫一妻制。
See, for decades, generations of science students were taught that well over 90 percent of the bird species were monogamous.
一雌一雄彼此一生忠贞不渝。
A male and female mating faithfully for life.
存在于鸟类之间，尤其是鸣禽之间，而我们以为鸣禽是最践行一夫一妻制的种类了。
among bird species, particularly these songbirds that we thought were the pinnacle of monogamy.
（如果公开结果）这是让莫里·波维奇（美国脱口秀名人）都嫉妒的收视率。
It would have made Maury Povich jealous for the ratings.
这一事实深刻地震撼了生物学和鸟类学界，我们不得不修正和扩大一夫一妻制的整个定义。
It rocked biology and ornithology so hard, we had to modify and expand the entire definition of monogamy.
这件事情的影响如此广泛，使它成为了《纽约时报》1990年8月刊科学板块的头条。
Now, it was so bad that this was the headline of the "New York Times" science section, August, 1990.
“终身厮守？
"Mating for Life?
鸟类和蜜蜂才不适用。”
It's not for the Birds or the Bees."
我们需要想出一个新的定义。
We had to come up with new definitions.
鸟类换掉他们的伴侣，要么是发生在交配的季节，要么仅仅只因为他们不再喜欢各自的伴侣。
The situation where an individual would change partners, either between breeding seasons or just simply because they didn't like their partner anymore?
我们现在把它称作“系列一夫一妻制”。
We now call this "serial monogamy."
我不知道这个发现这么有趣。
I didn't know it was going to be this funny.
随着这次修正，我们意识到在野外观察的大多数事例中，我们看到的雌雄鸟同居，共同捍卫自己的领土，甚至是共同养育后代，这些幼鸟中通常有几个不是雄鸟的后代。
And with this reclassification, we realized that in a lot of those field observations where we saw a male and female sharing a nest, comaintaining a territory, even provisioning offspring together, often included a few baby birds that did not belong to the male partner.