Why are women still afraid to walk home at night?

First topic message reminder :

"Fury and heartbreak following the disappearance of Sarah Everard has prompted people to declare "she was walking home" in solidarity with the 33-year-old.

Thousands of people have expressed fury that women often feel unsafe walking the streets alone after human remains were found in woods in Kent after Sarah went missing.

Sick of having to moderate their behaviour for fear of encountering predatory strangers, some have questioned if a curfew for men wouldn't be a better way of keeping women safe.

The outpouring comes as police say a vigil to "reclaim these streets" organised for Saturday in Sarah's name cannot go ahead due to lockdown restrictions.

One woman wrote on Twitter: "We know it's #notallmen but unless you can tell us how to quickly assess which ones it is, it's a pointless sentiment. #shewaswalkinghome#TooManyWomen"

Another quoted the author Margaret Atwood who famously said: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."


Sarah Everard.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I suspect not a very popular one.

Actually, few men that I have asked that question of, have an answer.  They either agree with me, or simply say they don't know.  Maybe it's an instinct, born of fond memories of/with their mothers.

I mean, objectively, I'm right.  You can't actually do anything with mammary glands, can you?    

At least, not productively.  

I think nourishing ones offspring is pretty productive.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually, few men that I have asked that question of, have an answer.  They either agree with me, or simply say they don't know.  Maybe it's an instinct, born of fond memories of/with their mothers.

I mean, objectively, I'm right.  You can't actually do anything with mammary glands, can you?    

At least, not productively.  

I think nourishing  ones offspring is pretty productive.

 

Hahaha...but they are not offspring.  Sometimes they try to pass themselves off as children, but it rarely works.  

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think nourishing  ones offspring is pretty productive.

 

Hahaha...but they are not offspring.  Sometimes they try to pass themselves off as children, but it rarely works.  

I was talking about feeding ones genuine offspring, not some nappy wearing adult similar to the ones you might see on the Jerry Springer show.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

 

Hahaha...but they are not offspring.  Sometimes they try to pass themselves off as children, but it rarely works.  

I was talking about feeding ones genuine offspring, not some nappy wearing adult similar to the ones you might see on the Jerry Springer show.

I started the conversation, and I was talking about grown men's fixations on female mammary glands. I still can think of no Darwinian, or evolutionary benefit to that fixation.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:


I was talking about feeding ones genuine offspring, not some nappy wearing adult similar to the ones you might see on the Jerry Springer show.

   I started the conversation, and I was talking about grown men's fixations on female mammary glands.  I still can think of no Darwinian, or evolutionary benefit to that fixation.  

When you consider many African and Amazon tribes  women ect are often bear breasted and nothing is thought about it  by those men in the tribes it seems a very western fixation in fact many traditional cultures around the world did not require women to cover their breasts until the intervention of Christian missionaries or introduction of Islam.

so once again religion and the subjugation of women seems to be a motive

Some tribes are naked except for a few beads nobody seems to get over excited and out of control by that. A lot of them take their family line and inheritance through the females, everyone can be sure who the mother is. Where passing on possessions became a male thing it all changed to females having to be controlled to ensure the inheritor was actually genetically linked to the benefactor. Hence we get male control over females to the extent it is today from actual bodilly possession through total covering in public to segregation and mutilation. Its happened for so long it'll be a while before its changed.

Vintage wrote:Some tribes are naked except for a few beads nobody seems to get over excited and out of control by that. A lot of them take their family line and inheritance through the females, everyone can be sure who the mother is. Where passing on possessions became a male thing it all changed to females having to be controlled to ensure the inheritor was actually genetically linked to the benefactor. Hence we get male control over females to the extent it is today from actual bodilly possession through total covering in public to segregation and mutilation. Its happened for so long it'll be a while before its changed.

Interesting theory. Most of the law on Royal succession was written by the Salian Frankish King Clovis, around AD 500, and then arbitrated by a committee appointed and empowered by the King of the Franks. The best-known tenet of the old law is the principle of exclusion of women from inheritance of thrones, fiefs and other property.

France followed Salic law religiously. The Normans brought it over to England first, and then when David I Canmore (1124-1153) encouraged the Normans to settle in the lowlands and Northumberland, they brought Salic law to Scotland.

The English and Scots didn’t follow female exclusion, because Henry I wanted his daughter Matilda to inherit the throne. Instead, Stephen I grabbed the throne, but to avoid a protracted civil war he agreed that Matilda’s son, Henry II, would pick it up on his death. This established, for England, that the throne could at least pass through a female. Of course, we all know that Mary I Tudur, closely followed by Elizabeth I, established the female right to occupy the throne. It would be interesting to study the development of Salic law more closely, to see if your theory bears out.

But it still doesn't answer why grown men are fixated on Mammary glands. I'm just curious.

Something to do with evolution and walking upright, is one theory, so that the breasts became the focus of attention for females capable of reproduction and not the buttocks as in our fellow apes.

Could also be repressed memories of being suckled by the first person they bond with after birth.
When a baby grows breasts are no longer freely available....so male babies spend the rest of their lives being fascinated by them....maybe Quill wasn't breast fed.

I have also read a theory that some men are fascinated/obsessed by female feet and shoes because they played at the feet of their mother when they were small.

Another random attack in London on a pregnant woman walking alone.

"Terrifying CCTV footage shows an attacker throwing a pillowcase over a pregnant woman’s head before repeatedly punching her in the stomach. The video shows the woman, who is 20 years old, walking into an alleyway in Stamford Hill, north London while being followed by a man last week. As she gets closer to the camera the suspect, who is pushing a trolley, pulls a cover over her head before launching his vicious attack. The woman is thought to have been 27 weeks pregnant, and was taken to hospital and treated for minor injuries. The assault took place on Manor Road in Stoke Newington, at around 6.30pm on Thursday. It comes amid growing fears of random assaults on lone women in public areas, particularly in London. Shomrim, a neighbourhood watch group predominantly made up of members of the Jewish community, shared the footage of the attack. It tweeted: ‘Pregnant woman and her unborn baby survive a horrendous attack after a male suspect attacked her from behind, placed a pillow over her head and punched her in her stomach several times in a vicious unprovoked attack."







https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/22/man-puts-pillowcase-on-pregnant-womans-head-in-alley-and-attacks-her-14282823/

Vintage wrote:Something to do with evolution and walking upright, is one theory, so that the breasts became the focus of attention for females capable of reproduction and not the buttocks as in our fellow apes.

Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal (1987). Morris argued that evolution gave man several leads as to sex and procreation when s/he started walking upright (sex being essential to procreation, being essential to survival of the species). Since male homo sapiens had evolved naturally to look for sex beneath two fatty masses (gluteus maximus), once the species straightened up there evolved two fatty masses on the female chest (i.e.: seek ye below, ya dumb fooks ).

Never was an ass-man, either.

There is a culture in China near the Tibetan Border where men and women can have as many or as few partners as they wish, many keep to the same person for life. Their system is called walking marriage. The people live in multigenerational families but husbands and wives do not live together, once a girl is of age she is given a private room in the family home where she can be visited at night (only) by mutual consent by the man of her choice. He has to enter via the window or a special opening in the roof, he must however return to his mother's house in the morning where he always lives. The only males in a girls house are her maternal uncles, brothers and cousins. Bit off the track but thought it was interesting.

Syl wrote:Could also be repressed memories of being suckled by the first person they bond with after birth.
When a baby grows breasts are no longer freely  available....so male babies spend the rest of their lives being fascinated by them....maybe Quill wasn't breast fed.

Gd. theory, as well. Separation anxiety creates a lasting 'attraction' toward breasts, as the source of the first bonding experience after birth. This, then, matures into a sexual attraction. But, then, why are females not sexually attracted to breasts as well?

Syl wrote:I have also read a theory that some men are fascinated/obsessed by female feet and shoes because they played at the feet of their mother when they were small.

Again, why are not a father's feet an attractor as well? Likely they played with Pa's feet as well, perhaps with idle hands while nursing at Mum's breast.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Could also be repressed memories of being suckled by the first person they bond with after birth.
When a baby grows breasts are no longer freely  available....so male babies spend the rest of their lives being fascinated by them....maybe Quill wasn't breast fed.

Gd. theory, as well.  Separation anxiety creates a lasting 'attraction' toward breasts, as the source of the first bonding experience after birth.  This, then, matures into a sexual attraction.  But, then, why are females not sexually attracted to breasts as well?

Syl wrote:I have also read a theory that some men are fascinated/obsessed by female feet and shoes because they played at the feet of their mother when they were small.

Again, why are not a father's feet an attractor as well?  Likely they played with Pa's feet as well, perhaps with idle hands while nursing at Mum's breast.  

Straight women are not usually sexually attracted to other women's breasts possibly because they have their own.....same reason why straight men are not turned on by another mans penis.

Feet and ladies shoes are less easy to work out, though many women do have an obsession with shoes all their lives.

Vintage wrote:There is a culture in China near the Tibetan Border where men and women can have as many or as few partners as they wish, many keep to the same person for life. Their system is called walking marriage. The people live in multigenerational families but husbands and wives do not live together, once a girl is of age she is given a private room in the family home where she can be visited at night (only) by mutual consent by the man of her choice. He has to enter via the window or a special opening in the roof, he must however return to his mother's house in the morning where he always lives. The only males in a girls house are her maternal uncles, brothers and cousins. Bit off the track but thought it was interesting.

I can see that being a very attractive arrangement.
All the romance with none of the drudge.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Gd. theory, as well.  Separation anxiety creates a lasting 'attraction' toward breasts, as the source of the first bonding experience after birth.  This, then, matures into a sexual attraction.  But, then, why are females not sexually attracted to breasts as well?



Again, why are not a father's feet an attractor as well?  Likely they played with Pa's feet as well, perhaps with idle hands while nursing at Mum's breast.  

Straight women are not usually sexually attracted to other women's breasts possibly because they have their own.....same reason  why straight men are not turned on by another mans penis.

Eh, but if we are seeking a universal explanation, gender shouldn't make a difference. If it's as simple as 'breast-feeding memories create a fixation on breasts', why doesn't it work for women?

There has got to be some intervening factor. Does estrogen serve as an amnesiac on the suckling memory...or, suppress separation anxiety in women?

I dont know the answers to the above Quill.

All I know is mother nature works in mysterious ways. Luckily, enough men and women find each other's bodies nice enough to carry on procreating.....always have and always will.