(no subject)
Mar. 21st, 2014 11:18The chances of Stan and Kyle having an mpreg baby with red hair are pretty low. Though
negniahn points out to me that both Stan's Uncle Jimbo and Aunt Flo have red hair, I would argue that Jimbo's hair is more brownish than not. Also, Aunt Flo is an old woman so she's probably dyeing her hair. I have pointed out that Aunt Flo is actually a personification of Stan's mother's period, to which
negniahn has argued that "Kyle is the personification of everyone's period," which I guess is a fair point. But even if Aunt Flo's hair was actually red, she's Stan's great aunt (or maybe great-great aunt?), which means the genetic link between them isn't that close. So, sure, it's possible that Stan and Kyle's mpreg baby might have red hair, but, look, probably not.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-21 16:41 (UTC)But at the same time, mpreg is unrealistic in itself and we're going to ignore genetics anyway by imagining a world where this is possible. It ends up being okay, imo, to ignore how dominant and recessive genes work... because whatever, it's mpreg, logic has already been abandoned. RED HAIR FOR EVERYBODY!
no subject
Date: 2014-03-21 22:50 (UTC)Yes, I know. I suppose it comes down to two things for me:
1. I see no reason why genetics wouldn't apply to mpreg? Yes, it's some sciencey/magical AU technology, but if Stan and Kyle are going to have a biobaby then surely the laws of genetics would apply anyhow. I don't know why I feel this way since it makes no sense, but, that's just how I approach it.
2. I just don't think they would have a child with red hair! Perhaps I'm against the fetishizing of red hair in general.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-22 03:37 (UTC)In conclusion: Stan and Kyle's mpreg babies probably still won't have red hair, because looking at Stan's family it doesn't seem like he's likely to pass on any blond hair genes. Even if you count Jimbo's hair, Stan clearly got his dark hair from his dad, so whatever recessive lighthairedness might have been hiding in his dad's family tree wasn't passed on. Auburn/red-brown/whatever you call it is still a possibility though I think??
no subject
Date: 2014-03-22 16:29 (UTC)Seriously though, I totally get where you're coming from. Even if the actual act of mpreg is ludicrous, it's best to keep some semblance of realism involved.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 00:41 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 00:56 (UTC)This is interesting and I actually hadn't heard it before. I am very interested in red hair and have always enjoyed hearing people in the fandom discuss it. I've never taken genealogy so the only thing I can add is that I know for a fact that if Stan doesn't have red hair, and neither of his parents has red hair, and it's unknown whether any of his grandparents have red hair, it's difficult for me to feel comfortable with the number of S/K babies that seemingly have red hair. I mean, this is all just pretend, right, like I don't think the kind of black hair Stan has even exists in reality. I guess anything's possible? People are just very into them having a red-haired baby. I'm curious as to why. I always figured their mpreg child would be, like, brown-haired.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 01:07 (UTC)However, I DO typically envision them with a black haired male baby, so that was an exception to my usual rule. On a more personal note, I remember once asking you who in your family passed on your red hair and I believe you said it was nobody in particular, so anything's possible, miss.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 02:19 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 03:00 (UTC)>> anything's possible
I actually had a great grandparent on each side of my family with red hair! So it didn't come from nowhere, exactly, but I do understand that even the unlikeliest genetic scenarios do play out from time to time.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 13:49 (UTC)Maybe Stan's grandma had red hair ... semi-related has anyone ever worked out the deal with Jimbo being a half-brother? I wrote up a big 'headcanon' about it once and then was like 'what am I doing'
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 17:00 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 22:13 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 22:39 (UTC)>> I refuse to believe Randy and Sharon are that fucking old to have been adults at Woodstock, especially since Randy was in a boy band at 18 and the Ghetto Avenue Boys were CLEARLY from the 80's
This is one of my absolute favorite continuity contradictions in SP. It kind of reminds me of how the Simpsons has been on the air long enough that near the beginning of its run Homer and Marge would have been in high school in the 1970s and more recently they must have been there in the 1990s and I think the show has done episodes reflecting that. That said, the SP continuity disjunction is much weirder. I am pretty sure the Woodstock they're depicted being at would have to be the original in 1969. That's the one that's most associated with hippies, after all.
Ugh, I was going to do some janky head math on this for no reason. Okay. So let's say Sharon and Randy are 18 at Woodstock in 1969. This makes them born about 1951. If they have an 8-year-old son in 1997 that means Stan was born in 1989, which would make them 38 at the time. If Shelly is about four years older than Stan she wold have been born in 1985, which makes Sharon and Randy about 34 when she is born, which is not that unreasonable, especially if you consider they are (or Randy is) relatively educated, and educated people tend to have children later in life.
If Randy is 18 in the late 1980s then Stan is basically born when he is more or less in his late teens or early 20s, which puts Shelly's birth when he is like 15 or 16, which is just weird and unlikely. I suppose if you follow the original timeline of the show (i.e. Stan is 8 in 1997) it makes more sense for them to have been at Woodstock than for Randy to have been in a NKOTB-type boy band.
Why did I write this up and what purpose does it serve?
????
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 22:54 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 22:57 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-24 19:01 (UTC)I agree with hey_feygele for everything. The gene mutations for red hair make people unable to synthetize eumelanin but since there's more than one gene for hair color, it is still possible for them to synthetize it and so having auburn hair/dark hair instead of red hair. Kyle's hair are quite dark, so I'm pretty sure he's still synthetizing eumelanin and thus I would theorize that he doesn't have only genes coding for red hair but at least one gene variant coding for another colour than red, which lowers even more the probability of Stan and him having a redhead baby.
I would love to know more about Sharon's parents though, because since Stan has very dark hair maybe he's carrying a red hair gene and we just can't see it??
So yeah, basically, Stan and Kyle would very probably have a dark-haired baby, but I believe in the magic of mpreg and cross my fingers for a baby with multicoloured hair.
(oh man I hope I'm making sense. I especially didn't take the Genetics class in Sweden because I didn't want to deal with genetics in English, aand here I am. Sometimes I'm really embarrassed with everything I do for South Park)
And lol I stumbled upon this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571053) while researching for red hair genes, and "People with naturally red hair are resistant to subcutaneous local anesthetics and, therefore, may experience increased anxiety regarding dental care."
That was unexpected.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-25 17:23 (UTC)>> may experience increased anxiety regarding dental care
Ugh, I can relate to that, I have extreme anxiety about my teeth. I floss like four times a night.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-27 12:22 (UTC)I think it has something to do with Kyle's hair being an important part of Kyle's being? (lol) I mean, I don't think we've heard Stan talking about his hair in the show while Kyle complained a few times about them, and since his hair is quite uncommon (the colour and the "fro") maybe it's like, symbolic for people to give his child red hair too. "It really is Kyle's child" or something like that.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-28 22:35 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-30 11:15 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-30 17:54 (UTC)