Not a troll- but go easy on me please

LegacyUser

Okay just out of a relationship and my head is probably a bit all over the place. I was at a family do last weekend and bumped into a second cousin of mine- I have only met this guy about 4 times in my life but we've always got on great and had loads in common. Anyway we ended up drinking together and at the end of the night I ended up in bed with him. We slept together a few times that week, I went to his house, texts and calls every day etc. I am a bit weirded out obviously I know it's not right, but we are both pretty comfortable with it, when it's just the two of us. We both know it could never develop into a relationship as our families would obviously go mad....but we're in touch every day and want to meet again soon...is it really wrong? Sensitive answers please guys, I don't need to hear what a sicko I am I never thought I'd be looking for advice on this!!

Beruthiel

Not a really big deal imo.
Have a read of this.

I used to work with a girl who was married to her cousin.

astra2000

I dont think its wrong know a girl who is married to her first cousin took the family time to come to terms with it but they did. Must admit I dont even think of my second cousins as real relations!!

cafecolour

Uh, I don't think second cousins is really a problem (or against the law) anywhere.

I don't think first cousins is even a huge problem genetically, unless it is repeated a lot throughout the familial line (ie see european royalty).

Drodan

A couple from my mother's town down the country were second cousins and ended up getting married, think they're still together actually (not sure because i can't even remember their names tbh). They just had to get some document signed by the Pope to says it was cool basically.

There's nothing really wrong with it imo, especially if your not blood related then it's completely fine. It's not your fault because a relative of yours married a relative of his (or however it works out).

Nikbik

Hey,

I was at my great aunts funeral a few years back and ended up spotting this fella who i thought was a fine thing, (as you do at a funeral) We got talking and it ended up he was my 2nd cousin, To me I didnt think anything of it until we went out a few times and i got a bit of stick from my sisters and friends and the more i thought about it the more i was a little creeped out by it and i ended it, But... Each to their own and all that craic so if u dont feel weird then go for it, If its meant to be it will be and if your family have to get use to it they will. If in years to come u do have kids i dont think it will come out with 2 heads and 19 fingers, thats only direct blood links and a 2nd cousin is not.... Best of luck

WaltKowalski

It's a bad idea to procreate with your second cousin - can result in some messed up genetics.
There was a lot about it in the papers back in march/april, warning people, especially immigrants, about the dangers.
I know a couple who are second cousins and are married. Along with another factor or two to do with their relationship, I think that they've been very selfish.

Nikbik

WaltKowalski : Explain how they are being selfish?

WaltKowalski

I consider the couple I know to be selfish - not the op.
The fact that they (the people I know) are second cousins and shouldn't have children together is one of the reasons why I think that they are being selfish. There are other reasons too.

If the op is just having fun and no one is getting hurt, then I think there's no problem. But if the relationship develops and gets serious, then I think that it could become complicated.

calibelle

How are you related? Is one of your parents a cousin of one of his? Or is he a cousin of a cousin as in your aunt/uncle married his aunt/uncle?

LegacyUser

op here. Errrr I would like to say that its through marraige, but noooo, he is my dads first cousin...but like i say our family have never really spent any time together, he is around my age and we just sort of clicked. He doesnt live nearby so no mutual friends etc....I think it's just because I am just out of a relationship that has hurt me, and I am not ready to meet anyone and I know this will never go anywhere so it's sort of uncomplicated in one aspect but morally maybe quite complicated?!

Neyite

if he is your dads first cousin then is that not first cousins once removed?

its legal i think, (no expert though) its only if you decide to have children that genetics come into it, and if you get to that stage where you would be planning a family then genetic monitoring might be a good idea. but thats way off yet. as long as its legal, and your family are grand about it where is the harm?

Johnny Favourite

I used to go out with my fathers first cousins daughter. Not sure what that made us. We used to say the we were third cousins.

No big deal really. Didn't work out. had fun, no harm done.

(my mates did give me a bit of stick thou!!)

ztoical

WaltKowalski wrote: »

It's a bad idea to procreate with your second cousin - can result in some messed up genetics.
There was a lot about it in the papers back in march/april, warning people, especially immigrants, about the dangers.
I know a couple who are second cousins and are married. Along with another factor or two to do with their relationship, I think that they've been very selfish.

The vast majority of data regarding genetics and offspring is based on first cousins and double cousins producing kids.

You share 50% of your genes with your siblings and 12.5% with your first cousins, it drops down to under 4% with second cousins.

calibelle

Op he's your 1st cousin once removed, can't see a big deal right now but if it did get serious just get some genetic testing done. The main proplem with cousins having children together is if any of your ancestors had a genetic disease the kids are more likely to have it as it comes through both of you.
You'd be suprised to realise how many people do go out with a cousin or have feelings for them!

At the moment just enjoy the fun and be happy!

Johnny favourite-second cousins!!

Distorted

I don't think its a big deal and I'm sure its very common, or at least it was until the last 40 years or so. If you think about it, theres probably quite a few people who are quite closely related to their spouses but don't know about it, particularly with families who have lost touch. The only danger is that if there is some serious medical family genetic flaw, it has a higher chance of being inherited when both parents are closely related, but second cousins have a lot of unrelated blood and only a small amount of related genes, so its quite a small risk.

In other species, inbreeding is only considered undesireable if it perpetuates unworkable faults and is generation after generation. And even then its still done because some of the bloodlines are so genetically desirable it overrules the risk. Sorry to use the word "inbreeding". I really don't think you're doing anything different to what has happened over the centuries without any problems.

Funky Kingston

I'm sorry OP but this is something I wouldn't condone personally . My Dad has a friend who married a relative and all their kids have some sort disability because of it, even some of their grandkids have serious health problems . It's just not fair on future generations if it goes as far as having kids .

I don't think it's as simple as "oh i don't see a problem with it" .... but i guess if it remains casual and you are fine with it then who are we to judge ?? I would be concerned if the feelings got deeper though , for the reasons i stated above .

I wish you all the best OP x

Mutz

I'd have to agree with funky as stated above.

It would feel wrong and I'd find it very hard to accept it if one of my siblings was sleeping with a second cousin.

But each to their own I guess

ztoical

the risk for any couple of having a child with a serious medical problem is about 2-3%. The risk for first cousins is about 5-6% - that's 2-3% more than the rest of the population (as long as there is no history of a known recessive condition in the family). This additional risk decreases sharply with the distance of the relationship (e.g. much less for second cousins etc.)

Fittle

I'm lost - could someone explain the difference between your first cousin 'once removed' and your second cousin?

I assumed my parents first cousins, were MY second cousins????

calibelle

Fittle wrote: »

I'm lost - could someone explain the difference between your first cousin 'once removed' and your second cousin?

I assumed my parents first cousins, were MY second cousins????

Each added generation is another cousin so your dads first cousin is your cousin once removed but the cousins children are your second cousins etc

read this handy chart if I didn't explain it very well!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Cousin

Terri26

I always considered second cousin and cousin once removed as teh same thing just a different title. It seems I am wronga ccording to the above chart but i consider my mum's cousin's children as my third cousins!

Weridly, I vaguelty remember reading something that said 2nd cousins are more likely to have children with disabilities etc than first cousins but I don't know how that is possible.

Op - I would find it a little weird i have to admit but like yous aid you grew up not knowing him so it's not the same thing really

Fittle

I'm even more confused by that chart:rolleyes:

Could someone please explain what relationship my son is, to my nieces daughter? I assumed they were 2nd cousins, as I'm sure he is my nieces first cousin...

Sorry if this is taking the thread a bit off topic!

OP, I wouldn't worry about what anyone else thinks in this situation - see how things pan out - if you get on really well and can see a future in it, life is too short to let that pass. That's my opinion anyway.

calibelle

Fittle wrote: »

I'm even more confused by that chart:rolleyes:

Could someone please explain what relationship my son is, to my nieces daughter? I assumed they were 2nd cousins, as I'm sure he is my nieces first cousin...

Sorry if this is taking the thread a bit off topic!

OP, I wouldn't worry about what anyone else thinks in this situation - see how things pan out - if you get on really well and can see a future in it, life is too short to let that pass. That's my opinion anyway.

The chart was kinda rubbish actually but if you share ancestors you are related....although I think if it's further than great great grandparents (3rd cousins) the blood link is so diluted it's almost gone.
if you share a set of grandparents = 1st cousins
if you share a set of great grandparents = second cousins.
If the shared set is one persons grandparents and the others great grandparents = 1st cousins once removed.
So your parents are your son and nieces grandparents but your nieces daughters great grand parents so they are first cousins once removed.

I really hope that makes more sense!

Woddle

Fittle wrote: »

I'm even more confused by that chart:rolleyes:

Could someone please explain what relationship my son is, to my nieces daughter? .

1st cousins once removed.

Nevyn

Unhelpful and off-topic posting will get you banned from this forum.
Do take time to read the charter which contains the rules and abide by them.
Have a nice day.
Thaedydal

LegacyUser

op here- guys I really appreciate the responses.... we are not planning on having kids or anything like that, so the whole genetic things is not an issue in my eyes, though the research and anecdotes are much appreciated! It is just a bit of fun, it hasn't stopped as of yet, though with the fact I am still a bit cut up over my last relationship, I should imagine for me that it's the attention more than anything. He is also just out of a relationship and has just moved to a new place where he is pretty isolated, so me visiting has been a novelty. I'd imgine it will run it's course.....never thought I'd be so attraceted to a second cousin or first cousin once removed or whatever he is... but that's life I guess!

LegacyUser

my parents are second cousins, have been married 30+ years

They didn't need permission or anything from the pope (that is just first cousins) and myself and my siblings are fine.....genitics can only get fecked up with siblings, parent and child and to a lesser extent first cousins......

It is grand, go for it!

Bottle_of_Smoke

weirdedout wrote: »

op here- guys I really appreciate the responses.... we are not planning on having kids or anything like that, so the whole genetic things is not an issue in my eyes, though the research and anecdotes are much appreciated! It is just a bit of fun, it hasn't stopped as of yet, though with the fact I am still a bit cut up over my last relationship, I should imagine for me that it's the attention more than anything. He is also just out of a relationship and has just moved to a new place where he is pretty isolated, so me visiting has been a novelty. I'd imgine it will run it's course.....never thought I'd be so attraceted to a second cousin or first cousin once removed or whatever he is... but that's life I guess!

Be careful. The fact that it is forbidden can enhance feelings. Also make sure you're using extra strong condoms, whilst you only share approx 6.25% genes if you did get pregnant genetic diseases are still a higher risk than normal.

Detour

Why not just cut the chord now when its still early doors? If you guys continue seeing each other it's only going to harder to stop it. It

fungun

I dont think its wrong per se but I cant imagine how Id feel if I was in that situation and we stayed together and then had a disabled kid....Id feel like I had caused it or sth, Id feel really guilty I think.
And any reln has the possibility to develop....so if you are just in it for fun Id recommend the thousands of other guys who would love such a reln!
Best of luck

Nevyn

I know 2 sets of first cousins who married and had children and 6 sets of second cousins who married and had children and there is nothing wrong with the children what so ever.

If you are worried then if/when the realtionship get serious so that you are talking planning a family togheter then go get genetic screening done. In the mean time the only thing stopping you is you.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Personally, I think this is all kinds of wrong.

But whatever floats your boat.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thaedydal wrote: »

I know 2 sets of first cousins who married and had children and 6 sets of second cousins who married and had children and there is nothing wrong with the children what so ever.

If you are worried then if/when the realtionship get serious so that you are talking planning a family togheter then go get genetic screening done. In the mean time the only thing stopping you is you.

I don't think it is that simple, no contraception is 100%. If they're going to have a sexual relationship they have to accept the risk that potential children will have genetic diseases.

I see nothing morally questionable about it other than that.

Funky Kingston

Prince Famous Rationalism wrote: »

Personally, I think this is all kinds of wrong.

But whatever floats your boat.

+1

I know I posted here already but the more I read this thread the more stunned I get that this is okay with so many people ..... Are there not pleanty of more unrelated fish in the sea ??
I'm sorry and i know it's only my opinion but we've all seen how something casual can often turn into deep feelings ....it's illegal in some places for a good reason surely

seamus

Funky Kingston wrote: »

....it's illegal in some places for a good reason surely

If there was a good reason, it would be illegal everywhere. First cousin marriages are not illegal in the vast majority of places.

That's besides the point anyway, the OP is a million miles from that. I would suspect that this is a case of two people finding eachother very attractive and perhaps getting some comfort and enjoyment out of a casual relationship after two bad break ups.

Once both adults are consenting and it makes them happy, I don't see the problem TBQFH. To hell with how your families feel.

Aside, there is a good reason why a person would naturally find themselves attracted to their cousin. They are familiar (in that they would share many common physical and mental characteristics with you), however they are not family. We are evolutionarily predispositioned to find the idea of mating with our direct family to be disgusting, but this isn't some inbuilt DNA detector; Siblings unrelated by blood (i.e. adoptive siblings) find the idea of a relationship as disgusting as related ones.

On the other hand, people tend to find others attractive who possess similar characteristics to themselves (or those that they admire, like our parents). Cousins and second cousins skirt this line - they are quite similar to ourselves, but without that familial closeness that would breed contempt.

In the OP's case, the man is a genetic cousin of her father's and therefore is likely to be similar to her father but without actually looking like him or being a direct member of family, which would create a very strong attraction for her.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

seamus wrote: »

If there was a good reason, it would be illegal everywhere.

Not true, at all. The law has practically nothing to do with justice/morals.

But this isn't where that should be discussed.

I too am shocked by how the majority of people here are ok with this. I suspect it could be a result of readers of PI becoming 'overly-understanding' or almost too tolerant of situations like this. This topic was brought up once or twice in the real world, in my few circles of friends, and there wasn't a single person there that thought this was ok.

The scale of genetic relation should not come into play. You have the same genes. It's incest. My advice would be to find someone else not related to you.

Remember that aside from your family possibly reacting badly, you will have a hard time cutting this guy out of your life if it ends badly, as he will probably be at family events in the future, which could make things very awkward.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Prince Famous Rationalism wrote: »

The scale of genetic relation should not come into play. You have the same genes. It's incest. My advice would be to find someone else not related to you.

Yes it should come into play. The couple this thread is about will on average share about 6.25% of their genes. Now I have made it clear I do not think that is an acceptably small risk to be having sex without thinking about the consequences but it is completely different to say siblings who share on average 50% of their genes or Aunt/Nephew who share 25% of their genes. Therefore it makes perfect sense to refer to genetic scale.

When it comes to cousins the world is a smaller place than you'd think. Remember how they linked celebrities being say 6th cousins to the presidential candidates during the US elections. So many married people will unwittingly be related to each other on some scale.

I do however agree with your advice. I think peopel that closely related shouldn't be told sexual behaviour is acceptable as it creates a precedent of acceptance and we live in a society that tolerates this kind of insanity.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes it should come into play. The couple this thread is about will on average share about 6.25% of their genes. Now I have made it clear I do not think that is an acceptably small risk to be having sex without thinking about the consequences but it is completely different to say siblings who share on average 50% of their genes or Aunt/Nephew who share 25% of their genes. Therefore it makes perfect sense to refer to genetic scale.

That's a fair enough point, that it's a much lower risk of genetic disorders etc., but that's not what I was getting at.
What I'm saying is that the fact that they share any genes should rule it out, as it's incest. No matter how closely, they are still related, and it's still incest.

WaltKowalski

Thaedydal wrote: »

I know 2 sets of first cousins who married and had children and 6 sets of second cousins who married and had children and there is nothing wrong with the children what so ever.

If you are worried then if/when the realtionship get serious so that you are talking planning a family togheter then go get genetic screening done. In the mean time the only thing stopping you is you.

What about their kids kids?

If there was a good reason, it would be illegal everywhere.

The legalities of marriages seems obsolete to me.
http://www.groireland.ie/getting_married.htm#section1

I know people shouldn't generalise, and whatever about not knowing who your relatives are, but I don't understand how someone will get involved with someone they know to be their relative. As I said earlier, if no one gets hurt, then no harm done, but you really don't know what will happen to future generations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article7114113.ece

Bottle_of_Smoke

Prince Famous Rationalism wrote: »

That's a fair enough point, that it's a much lower risk of genetic disorders etc., but that's not what I was getting at.
What I'm saying is that the fact that they share any genes should rule it out, as it's incest. No matter how closely, they are still related, and it's still incest.

That's impossible though. Everyone would have to only have kids with people from other races to be sure. I think I would draw a line at 1-2%. So I think the couple in this thread are wrong to be having sex, I think a couple half as related as they are having sex (the children of her dad's first cousin) is wrong too. After that it becomes difficult to establish if the average stranger is as related so a bit pointless.

You'd probably be shocked to find some of your exes are distantly are similarly related.

Oryx

The rules for who you can and cannot marry are here. Your relationship is not excluded from marriage, and there is really nothing wrong with it. Its not incestuous.

And for those who are worried about the genetic implications, I think a situation like this is the least of it, because these days its common for children in a family unit to have mixed parentage, to have parents who never married and/or are no longer together, so they are raised by one parent who has no blood ties, or they may have half siblings elsewhere they dont know about. The family ancestry is less rigidly recorded than ever before with some fathers names not appearing on birth certs. Its likely that two people could fall in love not realising they share close blood ties.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's impossible though. Everyone would have to only have kids with people from other races to be sure. I think I would draw a line at 1-2%. So I think the couple in this thread are wrong to be having sex, I think a couple half as related as they are having sex (the children of her dad's first cousin) is wrong too. After that it becomes difficult to establish if the average stranger is as related so a bit pointless.

You'd probably be shocked to find some of your exes are distantly are similarly related.

Again, you're thinking in percentages. I'm talking about family lines, where there is a clear relation (i.e. cousins, aunts/uncles, nieces/nephews etc etc)

Also, it's very possible to share genes with people of other races, that doesn't rule anything out.

As for 1-2%, that's not that far off in my book (2nd cousin once removed).

Bottle_of_Smoke

Prince Famous Rationalism wrote: »

Again, you're thinking in percentages. I'm talking about family lines, where there is a clear relation (i.e. cousins, aunts/uncles, nieces/nephews etc etc)

I would say effectively the same thing. The higher the percentage the less complicated the description of the family line connection

Also, it's very possible to share genes with people of other races, that doesn't rule anything out.

Doesnt that kind of destroy your earlier comment What I'm saying is that the fact that they share any genes should rule it out, as it's incest

As for 1-2%, that's not that far off in my book (2nd cousin once removed).

I chose that figure because it is around then it becomes difficult to distinguish if you're genetically closer to them than any random stranger

Oryx

What I'm saying is that the fact that they share any genes should rule it out, as it's incest

I think everyone is getting very caught up in genetics here, and its getting murky. I share 98% of my genetic code with an ape, but thats not the reason I dont sleep with one.

Definition of incest: Sexual activity between individuals so closely related that marriage is prohibited. It does not apply to the op.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I would say effectively the same thing. The higher the percentage the less complicated the description of the family line connection

Nothing complicated about it... if they're in your extended family, don't have physical relations with them, it doesn't matter how you're related. Quite simple.

Doesnt that kind of destroy your earlier comment What I'm saying is that the fact that they share any genes should rule it out, as it's incest

How? I'm pointing out that just because someone is of a different race doesn't automatically mean you're not related to them.

I chose that figure because it is around then it becomes difficult to distinguish if you're genetically closer to them than any random stranger

Hardly. 2% shared is quite a lot compared to what you'd get with a complete stranger, unrelated to you.

Oryx

munkymanmatt and Bottle of Smoke, if you want to discuss the complexities of genetics then by all means do, but not here. Its straying too far off the topic and is not helpful to the op, who has already stated it is irrelevant to them.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

That's fair enough.

I'm just going to leave it at this: I think it's pretty nasty that you'd even consider going with a (close enough) relative, but as I said, whatever floats your boat.