College guys have always been unpaid whores. Nothing has changed there, it's the nature of the beast.
Well, perhaps. However, if you look back at the traditional roles, the sexual mores for men and women had different sources.
Men were supposed to treat women as people whose virtue must be protected (from men). Women were supposed to be virtuous, and to save themselves for marriage. The social value of this arrangement is best understood by looking at the damage caused by its demise -- as, say, among unwed black mothers and their children.
Note the unsurprising assumption in the traditional approach: it was all about protecting women from men's urges. For men, the motivation was to forego their natural desires in deference to the woman's sanctity -- IOW, men are assumed to be pigs. Women were supposed to be concerned to protect their own chastity -- it is they, after all, who always have to bear the cost of their indiscretions, regardless of whether or not the man does.
The difference between then and now is not with the men (whose urges are unchanged), but with the women. Men have no reason to hold women's chastity in any higher regard than the women do. If women are willing to take upon themselves the cost of sexual promiscuity, there are (as there have always been) men who are willing to let them do so. (This explains why there are so many more prostitutes than gigolos.)
Which is a long way of saying, the women probably do bear most of the responsibility for the availability of cheap sex.
Actually, from a Christian perspective, the man is MORE responsible than the woman. He is the leader, the decision maker, the priest of the family (supposedly). He can only be that to his family if he has practiced it in his life. I've tried to teach my sons that THEY are responsible for protecting their "women" from harm, whether it be physical, emotional, or moral.