Yep. Perhaps it is because it seems to indicate that the individual is seeking to distance themselves from social prohibitions and the social "cohesion" that those prohibitions reputedly stand for; ethical undocking by the individual from historical moralities? Or...?

I'll come back to this one later, but I'm going to comment on the 'people want to protect women' bit because that one comes up time and again.

"People" don't want to protect women. Let's be real here. It's not about "people." It's about men. MEN want to CONTROL women, not protect them. If men didn't go on their stupid protection racket--women need to be careful about where they go, what they wear, how much they drink, etc. then men wouldn't have easy, tried and true, convenient excuses to misdirect the blame when one of them rapes a woman. As long as we put ANY responsibility for rape and assault onto a woman, we give men an excuse. "You were wearing that/staying there/drinking alone/flirting...WHAT DID YOU EXPECT!!?!???!?!??" By attaching that final clause, asking a woman what did she expect would happen, men are being written off as animals prone to acts of brutality and without any control over their actions.

It's not about protecting women. there's not something 'more' to it, there's something else to it entirely. Control. Ownership. NOT protection. It was never about protection.