Girls, Why does it seem like a lot of Females have no Shame?

[Anonymous]

[Amy_Mi]

Perception of “no shame” often comes from projecting personal standards onto others.

Confidence, self expression, or prioritizing autonomy can be mistaken for lack of modesty.

What seems shameless to one person may simply be another embracing their boundaries, choices, and freedom unapologetically.

Energy and intent matter more than labels or judgments.

[Asker]

That would make sense if women were equally accepting of men’s ‘self-expression’, But they’re not.
When a man acts confident or sexually free, he’s labeled toxic or creepy.

When a woman does it, it’s suddenly empowerment.

That selective morality isn’t about autonomy it’s about convenience.

[emeraldsaphire]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If i had to make a guess. I think you are asking why do women behave or dress in a way I don't like. Or why aren't shaming tactics working to control women.

And to that I say because women are free agents who can do what they want, just like men.

Also please don't refer to women and girls as "females" it's creepy.

[Asker]

What makes it creepy?

Is it the way that it sounds?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Shame is a tool of oppression and control. If the women around you are unable to be controlled by you, maybe you shouldn’t pay attention to them

[Asker]

That argument only works if shame never had a purpose.
But society uses it to keep everyone man and woman accountable.

Calling it ‘oppression’ just means you only like standards when they suit you.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Control is its purpose, it’s a means of excluding others for deviating from the norm, creating hierarchies and separated social groups.

[Asker]

If control automatically defines purpose, then every law would exist only to control, yet that’s not true. Laws exist to protect order and fairness, even though they also have a controlling effect. Shame works the same way: its primary function was moral regulation and accountability, not domination. Just as laws can be abused by corrupt leaders, shame can be abused by individuals or groups, but that doesn’t mean its purpose is control.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Laws are just as much about control. They’re threats by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation by a promise of violence and the police are essentially their occupying army as they exist to punish crime, not prevent it. Try going to a cop before a “crime” is committed and watch them say they can’t do anything because nothing illegal happened. Shame is just a legal version of this same power given out to the common man but with almost none of the real world value. Say what you like, you’re not going to make “shame” sound like an objective good.

[Asker]

If laws were only about control, then a world without them would be fairer, but history proves the opposite. Laws and shame both exist to protect order and trust, not to dominate. Abuse doesn’t define purpose, and without accountability, only selfishness and chaos remain.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Agree to disagree since neither of us are changing our minds

[Asker]

If shame was only control, then women rejecting it wouldn’t make them free, just unaccountable. Rules and shame exist so people respect limits, without them it’s not freedom, it’s selfishness.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Agree to disagree. Let it go, dude

[Anonymous]

What do you mean? Shame around what? Any examples?

[Asker]

I mean when women act like attention-seeking behaviour, public oversharing, or using sexuality for validation is empowerment, and anyone who questions it gets called insecure or controlling. That lack of self-awareness is what I meant by no shame. It’s about accountability, not control.