• TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Edit. I understand now, thanks.


    What is a second cousin? Your cousins cousin? The person your aunt/uncle marrieds niece/nephew? That can’t be right, that’s not blood. Help! Lol

    • proudblond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 days ago

      My aunt’s kid is my cousin. My cousin’s kid and my kid are second cousins.

      It’s essentially finding the most recent common ancestor. My cousins and I share grandparents. Second cousins share great-grandparents, and so on.

      “Once removed” and such refers to generational differences. So, my first cousin’s kid is my first cousin once removed, and my kid’s second cousin.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      What is a second cousin?

      Someone with whom your most recent common ancestor is a great grandparent to both of you.

      Like how a first cousin is someone with whom your most recent common ancestor is a grandparent to both of you (aka you both have a same grandparent but not a same parent - meaning one of each of your parents are siblings with each other).

      If the most recent common ancestor isn’t the same relation for both of you, then there’s probably a “times removed” or one of you is some variety of aunt/uncle to the other.

  • HollowNaught@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
      3 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
        ·
        3 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”

  • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    3 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.

  • 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.

  • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 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.

  • 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
      102
      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
      32
      ·
      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
      3 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.