Do you let sims with common ancestors that the game no longer considers related be romantic? «12...Next Go

alexjoanroww

Most,if not all of us probably already know that the game doesn't consider sims related after a generation or 2 and a sim can be attracted to e.g their 2nd cousin. When things like this happen, do you let your sims pursue their interest or do you avoid it?

JoAnne65

Yes,they're no longer related.

I once let two cousins become romantically involved even (I could because I had moved my sims to another world/new save so they didn’t recognize each other as relatives anymore). Actually, in real life in most countries cousins can actually marry. The ‘ew’ is between our ears, technically there’s not much wrong with it. Other than a slightly bigger chance of getting children who can’t reproduce (a risk comparable to a 35+ woman who gets pregnant for the first time, which we don’t consider ew either). Charles Darwin married his cousin I learned (when I did all this research because of my storyline, which in fact was mainly based on the fact that I liked to mix their genetic features). And as for further back: my own real life parents alledgedly share the same ancestors, a few generations back. There is no biological reason why that would be unadvisable.

Kristina

Ew no

Would've preferred a straight "no" option in the poll rather than the 'ew', but it's the only one applicable.

Anyway, no. The game might not recognise them as related but I'd know.

bekkasan

Ew no

I have so many sims that I want to use in my games I see no reason for them getting involved with any relatives.

ChuChuExpress

Ew no

I would find it morally wrong...

Melmack

Yes,they're no longer related.

I try to play without altering any born in game sims, so if they both have traits I want passed on I get them together to make sure those traits get into the next generation. Kinda like dog breeding... hahaha

nerdfashion

Neither (Explain in the comments)

I've never had a save last that long lmao

Mikezumi

Yes,they're no longer related.

As in real life, I don't think second cousins is a problem. Not that I know any of my second cousins since I was raised in Australia by parents from different countries I think "Ew" is a tad extreme in the options.

I keep my populations small in generational saves, allowing families (except the active household) to only have two children. If I didn't allow second cousin relationships I would have to constantly introduce new "blood" which would defeat my efforts at keeping the population small.

Kelvin

Yes,they're no longer related.

Love is love, you cannot deny it

Personally I'd go for it because I think this is just a game after all, no need to get all serious about a bunch of pixel people getting romantic virtually.

SummerRoxy

Ew no

My 2nd generation heir's step aunt keeps sending him gifts and asking him for dates but I just find it weird so I always decline. Maybe after 5 generations (if I can ever get THAT far) or if I've really run out of options, I might consider it.

dreamerz13

Ew no

Ew no seems a bit extreme. But no, I wouldn't. The game might not know anymore but I would, and to me it's just no. Relatives are just off limits. Maybe if you get really far back. A generation or two though, no.

coco

Neither (Explain in the comments)

It all depends on how close they are in the family tree. I probably wouldn't marry second cousins because seeing generations down the line doubled up on the family tree would be annoying. But for example with my 10 generation family in Sunset Valley it's inevitable to have "related" sims mingle.

izecson

Ew no

I dont think i have a problem with cousins, but sims and their great grandparents that is the problem.

annaliese39

Neither (Explain in the comments)

It depends on the story/sim (e.g. a royal vampire family might want to 'keep it in the family') and the nature of their relationship e.g. distant cousin is probably fine, but great grandparent? Uh no thanks.

pisceschick75

Yes,they're no longer related.

It's just a game...

Auroraskies

Neither (Explain in the comments)

I would let siblings be romantic if the unmodded game would allow it. The only thing that bothers me about in-family romantic gestures is the common behaviour of in-laws to autonomously flirt with eachother; and mostly because I ordinarily do not wish it to happen, since it can easily destroy their relations with their partners and the other's partner, and any toddler that catches the interactions, etc etc... The game is very open and closed at the same time.

Cororon

Neither (Explain in the comments)

I have played my sim family for nine years but haven't had that many generations yet for it to be possible. I'm not sure if I would let it happen, but it's possible. It depends on the sims and what they do on their own.

Sindocat

Yes,they're no longer related.

Not related is not related. Every human being now alive in the real world has ancestors in common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

king_of_simcity7

JoAnne65 wrote: »

I once let two cousins become romantically involved even (I could because I had moved my sims to another world/new save so they didn’t recognize each other as relatives anymore). Actually, in real life in most countries cousins can actually marry. The ‘ew’ is between our ears, technically there’s not much wrong with it. Other than a slightly bigger chance of getting children who can’t reproduce (a risk comparable to a 35+ woman who gets pregnant for the first time, which we don’t consider ew either). Charles Darwin married his cousin I learned (when I did all this research because of my storyline, which in fact was mainly based on the fact that I liked to mix their genetic features). And as for further back: my own real life parents alledgedly share the same ancestors, a few generations back. There is no biological reason why that would be unadvisable.

Queen Victoria married her cousin Albert and they have a lot of surviving children.

These days though cousin marriage is a taboo

annaliese39

Neither (Explain in the comments)

king_of_simcity7 wrote: »

Queen Victoria married her cousin Albert and they have a lot of surviving children.

A good example of why a lack of genetic diversity can become problematic - in this case the spread of hemophilia amongst royals.

Auroraskies

Neither (Explain in the comments)

Luckily the genetics in the game is not as complex as real life's. I would have liked more diseases though!

JoAnne65

Yes,they're no longer related.

annaliese39 wrote: »

king_of_simcity7 wrote: »

Queen Victoria married her cousin Albert and they have a lot of surviving children.

A good example of why a lack of genetic diversity can become problematic - in this case the spread of hemophilia amongst royals.

Hemophilia was passed through because both parents (cousins in this case) had it. That fact increased the odds. It’s estimated that 4 to 7 percent of children born to first cousins are likely to have birth defects, compared to 3 to 4 percent for children whose parents are more distantly related. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not the end of the world—or the family tree. Victoria and Albert had more children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who had no hemophilia than those who did. The real issue would arise if the next generation of kids also married their first cousins. Their offspring will have even more DNA in common—and an even greater chance for birth defects. (source).

Apart from the fact a couple can also decide not to have children if they don’t want to take the extra risk. In any case, I seriously object against ‘ew’, because having a higher chance to have children with birth defects is not ew. It’s sad at most, for the persons who it concerns. Like a colleague of mine who is seriously epileptic and has to take heavy medicines that will guarantee (100%) birth defects, if she’d ever get children. She is married and not ew.

Waterdragon

Yes,they're no longer related.

Yeah, why not? Cousin marriage is legal in a lot of countries (including mine). Personally, I wouldn´t want to do anything romantic with my cousins, but considering genetics, there´s no real problem (not "ew" in any case).

The game is wacky anyway when it comes to relatives. If two sims who have children from different partners marry, those children are considered siblings, and can have no romantic interactions, which doesn´t make sense at all (especially if the children are already grown up).

annaliese39

Neither (Explain in the comments)

JoAnne65 wrote: »

annaliese39 wrote: »

king_of_simcity7 wrote: »

Queen Victoria married her cousin Albert and they have a lot of surviving children.

A good example of why a lack of genetic diversity can become problematic - in this case the spread of hemophilia amongst royals.

Hemophilia was passed through because both parents (cousins in this case) had it. That fact increased the odds. It’s estimated that 4 to 7 percent of children born to first cousins are likely to have birth defects, compared to 3 to 4 percent for children whose parents are more distantly related. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not the end of the world—or the family tree. Victoria and Albert had more children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who had no hemophilia than those who did. The real issue would arise if the next generation of kids also married their first cousins. Their offspring will have even more DNA in common—and an even greater chance for birth defects. (source).

Apart from the fact a couple can also decide not to have children if they don’t want to take the extra risk. In any case, I seriously object against ‘ew’, because having a higher chance to have children with birth defects is not ew. It’s sad at most, for the persons who it concerns. Like a colleague of mine who is seriously epileptic and has to take heavy medicines that will guarantee (100%) birth defects, if she’d ever get children. She is married and not ew.

Oh no, of course! I don't think 'ew' when cousins marry (and certainly not when people with genetic defects or disabilities do either). I only meant to point out that in some cases there may be risks/difficulties for future generations over time if there is a lack of genetic diversity, such as when royal families insisted on maintaining the royal bloodline.

JoAnne65

Yes,they're no longer related.

annaliese39 wrote: »

JoAnne65 wrote: »

annaliese39 wrote: »

king_of_simcity7 wrote: »

Queen Victoria married her cousin Albert and they have a lot of surviving children.

A good example of why a lack of genetic diversity can become problematic - in this case the spread of hemophilia amongst royals.

Hemophilia was passed through because both parents (cousins in this case) had it. That fact increased the odds. It’s estimated that 4 to 7 percent of children born to first cousins are likely to have birth defects, compared to 3 to 4 percent for children whose parents are more distantly related. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not the end of the world—or the family tree. Victoria and Albert had more children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who had no hemophilia than those who did. The real issue would arise if the next generation of kids also married their first cousins. Their offspring will have even more DNA in common—and an even greater chance for birth defects. (source).

Apart from the fact a couple can also decide not to have children if they don’t want to take the extra risk. In any case, I seriously object against ‘ew’, because having a higher chance to have children with birth defects is not ew. It’s sad at most, for the persons who it concerns. Like a colleague of mine who is seriously epileptic and has to take heavy medicines that will guarantee (100%) birth defects, if she’d ever get children. She is married and not ew.

Oh no, of course! I don't think 'ew' when cousins marry (and certainly not when people with genetic defects or disabilities do either). I only meant to point out that in some cases there may be risks/difficulties for future generations over time if there is a lack of genetic diversity, such as when royal families insisted on maintaining the royal bloodline.

No, the ‘ew’ remark wasn’t referring to what you said, sorry for the confusion. And indeed, if families continue marrying within the small circle of their own relatives, it indeed will become a problem. And, not unimportant, probably not based on love.

buffyballoon

Ew no

yeah na. that would make me so uncomfortable because i would know that they were related.