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.
Young girls are seeing imagery that they can defend themselves against male attacker- which is false most of the time-and that further emulates the male behaviour once that component of men wanting to proect the female goes out the window.
The young girls today are being taught to fight/act like boys and we are suprised when they have casual sex.