• Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    Second cousins hardly matters. Even 1st cousins only increase the chance of anomaly by 3%. 2nd cousins is background noise. If you make each other happy, go for it and let anyone who complains enjoy their divorces.

  • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    I used to work with this absolute idiot when I was a kid. He was married to his cousin. But apparently he was such a gross dude, that it was too much for her, so she left him. For his brother. She ended up having a couple kids, one with each brother.

    Talk about going out of your way to keep it in the family. Their family tree was tied in a knot.

  • HollowNaught@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    A lot of people here are saying that the more genetically similar you are to somebody, the more attractive they are (so long as you don’t grow up with them). I’m here to tell you that those guys are completely wrong

    Studies have shown that (in other animals unfortunately, not in humans) that the more genetically dissimilar two individuals are, the more attracted they are, so long as they can produce viable offspring (aka they can have kids)

    This study would also be done on humans, but that would be slightly morally questionable

    This is an evolutionary trait in order to incentivise us to increase the gene pool when possible. You can imagine what would happen if we only rucked our cousins (look at the royals)

    Source: am biomed student

    • DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Oh man we did the Hapsburgs in my genetics class and it’s so fucking gross how closely related those incestuous fucks were. First cousins as closely related on a genetic level as siblings.

      Edit: LOOK AT THIS UGLY FUCKER! Even better - these genetic monstrosities still have money.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m not comfortable condemning them for their crippling genetic disabilities (except where they perpetuate it), but they did do the majority of leading countries involved in WWI. And not only do these fucks still have money, they fund modern fascist movements and hateful propaganda as well as still being politically influential. The head of the family is an ambassador for the country his family took from superpower to “I could’ve sworn you were the kangaroo country”

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 days ago

      Second cousin means cousin second order (grandchild of a sibling of one of your grandparents), right?

      • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Another way I like to think of it is it’s your parent’s cousin’s kid. So you can see why from their perspective it would feel more closely related, it would be like you having a kid and your cousin having a kid and then you seeing them together.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, genetically don’t make a habit of it, but you’re probably fine (unless your grandparents are identical twins or has hapsburgs or something), but also I’d be super uncomfortable if it was my kid

      • ReeferPirate@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        A parent’s first cousin. Your first cousin’s child would be a first cousin once removed.

            • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              No, your great aunt/uncle is your second cousin’s grandparent.

              Second cousin is your parent’s cousin’s child.

              Your parent’s cousin’s parent is your parent’s aunt/uncle, which is your great aunt/uncle.

              You’re parent’s cousin is your first cousin once removed.

  • Bob@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    3 days ago

    That happened to a few of my cousins years ago. We were at a family function so I thought they would’ve put two and two together, but alas.

  • schizolol9@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Reminds me of the time I fucked my cousin a few times. She moved I now miss her.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Isn’t there some sort of biological thing where you’re more likely to be sexually attracted to your relatives if you don’t know they’re you’re relatives

    • olosta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      101
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Second degree cousins is not that close though. If every generation has three children, that’s 27 persons. I thinks that for most of human history excluding second degree cousins from the acceptable partners pool would have been impossible. Communities were not that big.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      All I could find on this is something called “genetic sexual attraction” [1], though Wikipedia contains arguments that it’s pseudoscience [1.1]. Here’s a Reddit post asking about this. [3].

      Related to this, I also came across the “Westermarck effect” [2] which appears to suggest that people who grow up together are less likely to be romantically attracted to each other [2.1].

      References
      1. “Genetic sexual attraction”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-10-14T18:46Z. Accessed: 2024-12-09T07:29Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction.
        1. §“Criticism”

          Critics of the hypothesis have called it pseudoscience. In a Salon piece, Amanda Marcotte called the concept “half-baked pseudoscientific nonsense that people dreamed up to justify continuing unhealthy, abusive relationships”.[8] The use of “GSA” as an initialism has also been criticized, since it gives the notion that the phenomenon is an actual diagnosable “condition”.

          Many have noted the lack of research on the subject. While acknowledging the “phenomenon of genetic sexual attraction”, Eric Anderson, a sociologist and sexologist, noted in a 2012 book that “[t]here is only one academic research article” on the subject, and he critiqued the paper for using “Freudian psycho-babble”.

      2. “Westermarck effect”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-09-26T14:09Z. Accessed: 2024-12-09T07:33Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect.
        1. The Westermarck effect […] is a psychological hypothesis that states that people tend not to be attracted to peers with whom they lived like siblings before the age of six.

      3. "How does nature prevent us from feeling sexually attracted to relatives who are objectively sexually attractive? ". Author: “Morgentau7” (u/Morgentau7). “r/TooAfraidToAsk”. Reddit. Published: 2024-09-25T17:50:08.227Z. Accessed: 2024-12-09T07:34Z. https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1fpaold/how_does_nature_prevent_us_from_feeling_sexually/.
    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah, that’s weird: genetically similiar people are more attractive (as long as it isn’t too similiar)(people in stable relationships often look alike) but bigger genetical difference is better.