>it's perfectly normal to make an anime about fucking

Except that's not your real sister or mom because you're adopted.

>>134785058
This was criminally too short

>>134785102
inseki is fine too

>>134785058
It's not even close to the same thing.

>>134785250
You're right, there's actually less chance of genetic abnormalities if you have a child with your mother vs. your sister.

>>134785285
How so? Explain with reference to the inbreeding coefficient.

There's the LN where the MC's mom became a teen again.

File: Hideauze.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>134785285
>there's less of a chance of genetic abnormalities if you have a child with your mother, who is not only related to you but also probably over the age of 35 and most of her good eggs are gone than there would be with your sister who would be young and fresh

Amazing.

Do not actually have sex with your mom. She loves you, but not like that.

Have sex with your mom. She loves you, don't you love her too?

>>134785413
His biological mother? Is she the main heroine of the story?

Become your mom. And then proceed to love yourself.

File: IngresOdipusAndSphinx.jpg (164KB, 800x1054px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 800x1054px

>>134785848
>>134785817
Getting mixed messages here.

The main difference is not everyone has a sister, but everyone has a mother. So, everyone knows how gross it is.

>>134786021
>everyone knows how gross it is.
Anyone that doesn't want to fuck their mother either has an unattractive one or they simply don't love her.

>>134786089
this.

>>134786021
>only people who don't have sisters like sister incest

every fucking time, when will this falsity be laid to rest

Age difference.

>>134786263
The father is a bigger issue.

>>134786335
There's a lot wrong/creepy about parent-child incest, I just took the most obvious one.

>>134786335
He must be eliminated.

>>134786369
>There's a lot wrong/creepy about parent-child incest
There really isn't.

>>134786448
to you anon maybe not

but to call parent-child incest a social more is kindve an understatement right?

regardless of what you or I think is right you have to agree that in this day and age its a big social taboo

>>134786418
But, how?

>>134786541
http://exhentai.org/s/e684836c7b/204972-16

>>134785285
>>134785382
It's bullshit, parent and children share 50% of their DNA, as do full blood related siblings.

However I think the chances of genetic diseases are higher if you breed with your mother/father, though I am not sure about it, (you anons just made me come up with this idea, so I'll try my best to explain it)

Assuming the mother has a recessive allel associated with a disease (if she doesn't have any, the problem does not exist), the chances the children will inherit it are 50%. So, in case the son in question fucks his mother and gets her pregnant, the newborn will be affected in 1/2*1/4=1/8 of the cases (12,5%). Now,as for a hypotetical sister, she also has 50% chances of having inherited the allel. The chances of both of them being healthy carriers is 25%, and those of both of them passing the allel to the offspring is also 25%. So you have 1/4*1/4=1/16 (6,25%).
tl,dr
If one of the parents is a healthy carrier of a recessive genetic disease, the siblings have 6,25% chances of having an affected kid, against the 12,5% of the parent/child couple.

Keep in mind these digits are only true in the specific case of only one of the parents being a healthy carrier, and only for one gene in an autosome (non X/Y chromosome). Still, it seems like having a kid with a parent is more risky.

>>134785285
>>134785382

That depends. while a full blooded sibling would share more genetic markers then just a parent a half sibling would be the same. You'd both have both parent's recessive genes vs just 1 parent in either alternative. That's not taking into account ages., but that's more birth problems then defects.

>>134787204
Actually, theoretically, full blooded siblings could share 0% or 100% of their genes.

>>134787261
True. Extreme deviations are very unlikely though.

>>134787261
How would that even be possible. You don't just spawn out of no genetic material. You have to have some of your parents genetics. Is it even possible in extreme deviations barring genetic mutations?

>>134787339
For 0% you'd have to get, for every gene, exactly the opposite that your sibling got, Needless to say, it's (almost) statistically impossible

>>134787339
You get half of your genes from each parent.
Assuming no mutations at all and no gene migration, we can say that the mother's gene can be divided in half as M1 and M2, and the father's as F1 and F2, it's possibly that one sibling got M1 and F1, while the other got M2 and F2.

>>134785413
What's its name homie? Also I know about maken no daydreamer having some kind of mother-son thing going on... the only issue is that his moms a slutty demon

>>134787339
You're made up of 50% of each parents genetic material, and those halves aren't identical.

In reality, of course, recombination makes 0% statistically impossible.

>>134787204
I've read that it may actually not be as bad to reproduce with a sibling/cousin as people make it out to be, but there's no real research done on it since it's such a taboo.

I'm not advocating it in any way, of course. Just odd how people say there's supposedly conclusive evidence on something that hasn't really been studied. You didn't say this, I'm speaking in general.

>>134787537
I think there's actually been some studies stating that breeding with first or second cousins is the most optimal genetically.

>>134785285
You share the same amount of DNA with your mom and your sister: about 50%

>>134787617
Parents are 50%, sibling can vary though usually in the 50% range.

>>134787649
Sorry, statistically speaking, you're 50% related to them. Sure you have the chance to be 0% related to them as one anon mentioned in the thread but going by probability, you can assume you're about 50% related to your blood sibling.

With a sibling I suppose you could do genetic testing to see if you're carriers for specific diseases.

>>134787757
Could do it with parents as well

>>134787649
Uh no. On average you share about 25% DNA with your sister. You however do share 50% with your mother.

>>134787242
You got me thinking, and I analyzed the case where both parents are healthy carriers for two different autosomic genes. The same process applies for multiple genes, (with different numbers) but for the sake of simplicity let's just assume that is the case:
the chances of affected offspring for the child/parent couple is still 12,5%
As for the siblings, the chances of homozigosity for ONE gene is still 6,25%, but now there are two of them. The chances of homozigosity happening in at least one of them are: 0,0625+0,0625-(0,0625^2)=12,11%
So yeah, only 0,39% less than the other couple. Basically the same. Also, 0,39% is also the probability of the newborn being affected by both diseases.

>>134787537
I have no data to back me up (I never looked too much into the subject) but I think the public perception definetely overstates the actual risks. Surely they exist, there's no doubt about it, but it's not some kind of divine punishment that strikes in every single case.
>>134787854
I think that only applies to the XY/XX couple. There are other 22 couples of chromosome not affected by sex.

>>134787854
Sorry. I messed up.... Yes it's 50% with sister. I had a hiccup in my head that you share 25% with your sister from your mother's side.

>>134787964
>I think that only applies to the XY/XX couple
Ops, I messed up, it's not 25% because of the different size of the X and Y chromosome. It's (statistically) still less than 50% for that couple though

Going into this thread I thought there were going to be Freud jokes, but it seems we skipped straight past him and went to genetics.

File: advice.png (348KB, 800x435px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 800x435px

>all this argument over 3DPD logic in a 2D thread
have my captcha you faggots

>>134788290
But this is /a/ - pseudo intellectuals & genetics

File: 0068.png (331KB, 562x512px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 562x512px

>>134788290
>not wanting your narratives to be built on realistic and coherent logic

>>134788290
>guys stop i dont understand

>>134788325
this thread's pretty clear though, what don't you understand?

>>134788290
Incest is sacred enough to take it seriously.

>>134788290
>3DPD logic
But it exists in 2D as well, just to a slightly lesser extent

>>134788290
/a/ - Genetics
Anime genetics are often total bullshit

>>134787537
>I've read
>>134787593
>I think there's actually been some studies

Cool sources, kids. You may want to look up the time when the royal family of Spain died out because they inbred until they became infertile.

>>134789926
>they inbred until they became infertile.
That's some quality reasoning here.
But yeah, unless you really can't help it, it's better not to have kids with a relative. Banging them is fine though.

Videogames.

>>134792029
Shitposting.

>>134789926
An healthy dose of incest is used to select good trait and purge bad trait in animals.
And humans are just animals.

>>134786089
>>134786169

I blame a lack of socializing and a strong masculine role model for this generation that never grows out of lusting for mommy's boobs and feeling filial affection, romantic love and lust all mixed up together.

>>134792136
Just like pedigree dogs and cats. So healthy!

When you guys see porn, video or printed, you see yourself as the protagonist or just a guy seeying the scene developing in front of you?

>>134792255
depends on the porn/smut

>>134792230
Don't bring those degenerate abominations into it, I was referring to working dogs, cattle and fishes.
Not blingbling doggie that will be binned when the fashion change.

Being pregnant past 30 is a worse biological crime than any form of incest.

>>134792342

give me an example

>>134792255
>When you guys see porn
>porn
>3D

I'm not a voyeur.

>>134789926
That's because of successive generations of incest. The first and second time around the risk of genetic abnormalities is barely different from the norm. The third generation is when risks skyrocket.

>>134792358
I think people make a bigger fuss about chances of babies being born with defects than anyone in actuality cares. Just let do people what they want. Incest included.

>>134792411
this you dumb nignogs
there's barely anything wrong with first-generation interbreeding and there is L I T E R A L L Y nothing wrong with non-procreative incest.

>>134785058
Spoonfeed me please

>>134785285
That's actually double wrong, your babies are more likely to be retarded simply by basis that she's over 35.

However if your mom gave birth to you at 15 then it's okay.

>>134792584

>mom
>over 35

Anon. Some moms are under 18.