The decline of the great British public toilet is described by the Royal Society for Public Health as creating a “urinary leash” which restricts how far people can travel out from their homes. Access for women The lack of public toilets for women reflects their exclusion from the public sphere in the Victorian era. During this period, after leaving their parent's home, women were expected to maintain a career as homemaker and wife. Thus, safe and private public toilets were rarely available for women. The result was that they were often restricted in how far they could travel away from home without returning. Alternatively, they had to make do in the public streets as best they could. They often experienced sexual harassment as men tried to "sneak a peek" or otherwise bothered them. Some women experienced even worse if they could not secure safety and privacy even at home or in their workplaces. There problems continue for women in all parts of the world. The practice of pay toilets emerged in the US in the late 19th century. In these spaces, public toilets could only be accessed by paying a fee. Sex-separated pay toilets were available at the Chicago World's Fair (US) in 1893. Women complained that these were practically unavailable to them, authorities allowed them to be free, but on Fridays only. In the twentieth century, activist groups in the U.S., including the Committee to End Pay Toilets in America claimed that such practices disadvantaged women/girls because men/boys did not have to pay for urinals. As an act of protest against this phenomenon, in 1969 California Assemblywoman March Fong Eu destroyed a toilet on the steps of the California State Capitol. Although by the 1990s most US jurisdictions had migrated away from pay toilets, until 1992, U.S. female senators had to use toilets located on different floor levels than the ones they were working on, a reflection of their intrusion in an all-male profession. While some public facilities were available to women in London by 1890, there were much fewer than those available to men. Toilets also were assigned strong moral overtones. While public water closets were considered necessary for sanitation reasons, they were viewed as offending public sensibilities. It has been said that because public facilities were associated with access to public spaces, extending these rights to women was viewed as "immoral" and an "abomination". As a result