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.
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
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.
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].
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".
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.
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.
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)
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.
And at this point, with all of the toxins from food processing/preservatives and the plastics getting into our bodies, the added risk is probably negligible.
Second cousin in my country is a cousin from the part not related to any of my parents of one of my cousins. What is weird of that?
For example, my cousin is one of my father's brother son, then my second cousin has to be (otherwise would be a cousin too) the daughter of the cousin's mother's brother.
If I pick a random girl I would be equally related genetically.
Dude second cousin in my country is a cousin from the part not related to any of my parents of one of my cousins. What is weird of that?
For example, my cousin is one of my father's brother son, then my second cousin has to be (otherwise would be a cousin too) the daughter of the cousin's mother's brother.