What’s the weirdest thing society accepts as normal?

[ForFunAquaTurtle]

Cheese on a stick

Shitty toxic parents

Screaming, unruly children charging about in pubs. I come in for a relaxing few beers, not to have my ears assaulted by your poorly behaved groin goblins.

Housing asylum seekers in hotels costs around 8 million pounds a day according to Full Facts. Genuine asylum seekers should be dealt with sympathetically and promptly, but we're now so used to boat people arriving illegally that it's become normal and our eyes slide past the fact that huge amounts of money is being spent to house them - money needed by social services and the NHS.

Who says they're not? Men have emotions it's just drummed into them that showing emotion is weakness/effeminate. Despite calls for men to be more open we still go for the 'real' men.

The misogynistic term “lost virginity”, it has nothing to do with losing anything or, providing there is full consent, anything negative.

Type into your browser: '' Does the brain absorb knowledge while we sleep''.

The thread is about what we think is the weirdest thing. gave mine and why.

There is another thread on mumsnet about a baby calmer called dreemegg and white noise.

Then go to a pub that isn’t family friendly

Housing people who meet the local council duties to house in bed and breakfasts also costs an eye watering amount….

Did you search ''Does the brain absorb knowledge during sleep?

It has been a fact for decades.

It has been common knowledge for decades, proven by science, brain scans.

When you have researched it, do be so kind as to apologise for your very insulting post.

There are people who discount it, saying that it is not possible to absorb knowledge from a recording played as we go to sleep. There is a lot of argument about it. The Bern University have conducted trials and said it is possible.

Not everyone agrees with the practice of playing a recording as we sleep, and some denounce it as a myth, but there is no doubt that the brain does absorb knowledge during sleep, absorbing information, commonly making sense of what we have learned during the day or days,

That is why I say the weirdest thing accepted by people is the machine played to a baby all night which is just a noise.

Who is ‘we’? And who is calling for men to be more open? Women? Other men?

And you seem to be discounting the absolutely accepted male emotion which is freely expressed — anger.

If you want to see men expressing emotion, just look at any sports crowd or traffic jam. Plenty of masculine emotions there.

What’s the point of the government, led by the Crown, who all showboat their Christian values, offering “thoughts & prayers “ to every awful tragic event, when they’re so consistently neglecting our most vulnerable?
That’s why it’s relevant-perhaps if you’re not in it, it’s less easy to see… regardless it’s inhumane & a disgrace, whichever suits all best.

It would definitely weird if it were true.

I am not going to argue with you. You will find lots of information on the brain while we sleep. Don't you ever dream? What do you know about REM sleep?

Research indicates that sleep plays a crucial role in memory consolidation and generalization, helping to solidify learned material and make it more accessible for future use.

The only reason men are considered less emotional is because they have successfully rebranded anger as not an emotion.

Exactly. If we rehabilitate anger as an emotion, which it obviously is, then it certainly isn’t women whose behaviour is most driven by emotion.

Yes, being separated from our mothers caused trauma on our brains. That is simply not debatable.

The impact of that trauma is affected by the environments in which we are raised in.

Adoptees have high rates of jail, suicide, substance abuse, developing personality disorders.

This does not mean we all become those things, but it’s considered a factor in us being a higher risk.

Did you not discuss this when you were going through the adoption process?

They are very thorough usually.

There are women Bishops who would take issue with that.

Jesus had a great following of women. St Paul had different views, but then he was teaching the early Christians how to live their lives so that the religion would not be criticised.

His role was to increase the knowledge of the teaching of Jesus and to do that he had to impress on the converts that they should live as 'good' lives as possible, so as not to allow anyone to levy blame and distrust on them. It was common in those days for women not to be as involved in the men. Women were responsible for the family, and that meant a big responsibility. He frowned on many things which we consider to be the same vices today, although we no longer regard women in an inferior role, and many become priests in the Anglican Church.

St Paul may have regarded women as belonging to the men, that they must obey their husbands, but he was very careful to tell men to love and cherish their wives.

You also have to factor in that nearly all children who are adopted these days have either been abused or neglected by their birth parents, necessitating the removal. So it’s more complex than simply saying that removal from the parents causes the trauma because it’s more likely to be caused by the trauma of not being cared for adequately in infancy. Removal at birth causes some trauma but nowhere near as much as being abused or neglected. The profile of parents whose children are adopted is also vastly different these days than in the past when “respectable” girls who got pregnant gave up their babies. Birth parents in modern adoptions have a high likelihood of being drug or alcohol addicted, of having serious mental health issues and of having previously committed criminal offences. There is also a higher likelihood that the birth mother will have abused drugs during pregnancy. With some MH issues in particular like bipolar or schizophrenia there is a genetic component to them which could affect the child. So it’s a lot more complex than saying removal equals lifelong trauma (and as we’ve recently seen in the Constance Marten and Mark Gordon case, some birth parents don’t give a shit about their children and should 100% have them removed).

I remember the first time I read that it blew my mind. It’s so true.

That there is a God and Jesus.

No concrete evidence as yet.

That’s only quite recent though (the working full time while having kids). It wasn’t that long ago a mother would stay at home or work part time outside the home. People on here often strongly say that a mum should continue full time work.

You haven't said anything to disprove that religions generally regard women as inferior and are designed to exploit them. The fact that after about 2000 years some women have finally managed to become bishops just proves that point.