Society is generally more accepting of male promiscuity than female promiscuity, however, society is more concerned with the well-being of females than the well-being of males. If the intent of the OP (as the OP states) was to establish that society cares more about men than women in general then that's not even close to being true. We are always taught about saving the women and children first and so many films are about protecting women from abusive men. It's fully penetrated into the public conscious that women deserve to be considered and protected first and that men should put themselves in danger to do so. Even to the point where only males can be drafted when we know full well that only a very small percentage of the military is actually a combat role. It's a little sexist both ways but such is the nature of a sexually dimorphic species in which one sex is naturally stronger than the other sex.
Also, regarding the difference in acceptance of promiscuity, it isn't necessarily just social norms that dictate this perception. We are likely biologically evolved to accept male promiscuity in that males can reproduce successfully multiple times a day whereas women can only successfully reproduce once every nine months. Ergo, it has benefitted our species to have one sex (females) that handle quality control in being selective in their mating whereas the other sex (males) has to compete for selection. It would be erroneous to think that we don't have basic natural instincts and that said instincts don't reinforce social trends.
People forget that some elements of gender roles are actually elements that have made us fit as a species and have only recently become less necessary due to technology and scientific achievement.
To address the questions in particular:
People have a responsibility to behave appropriately and wisely. In some scenarios, the victim does have responsibility in the outcome when they're aware of the risks of the actions they're taking. This does not, however, absolve or trivialize the perpetrator of the crime of their actions. To wit, a criminal is 100% responsible for their crime, the victim is usually partially responsible for taking an unnecessary risk but not the crime itself. That can be unpopular and considered victim blaming, but people really do need to take responsibility for their choices and the potential ramifications of said choices. The statement that they "deserved it" however, is ridiculous. They don't deserve someone wrongfully harming them, it was just one possible outcome of the risk they may or may not have knowingly taken. We take risks all the time, every time we leave our home and even when we don't. Some are bigger than others.
I mean, for a personal example, there have been a couple nights in the early A.M. where I've walked down a bad street in Brooklyn to get back to the place I was staying at the time. I could have left earlier but we were behind in wrapping gifts and stuffing stockings for the neighborhood children a few days before Christmas and we needed to catch up on the numbers to have them ready in time. Now, had I been assaulted or mugged, it would only have happened because I took a risk (i.e. responsibility for knowing the risk and doing it anyways despite it being potentially devastating and unnecessary) but I would not have "deserved" such an action. No one that matters is going to say, "Oh well, poor children don't need gifts for Christmas, what was he thinking?" But that logic should extend to people performing other legal actions too who just happen to be out late. Yeah, they shouldn't have been out at that time in that neighborhood. Yes, that was a poor decision. But they didn't deserve to get shanked. That's on the criminal.
TL;DR
It doesn't matter which sex you use in the questions. If they took a risk knowingly then they are responsible for the risk they took even if not for the crime someone else committed against them. The risks people take include a full set of possibilities, most of which hopefully end up fine and those are the ones they're (hopefully) aiming for. It's just that they aren't responsible for the other peoples' actions too. In the most extreme example, a person (male or female) who gets so inebriated in a public place that they are the victims of a crime or perpetrators of a crime ARE responsible for creating the environment in which that was possible. If they committed a crime then we all accept their blame (for example, a drunk who rapes or kills under the influence is readily convicted and thrown in prison without remorse despite clearly impaired judgement) because they willingly gave up control of their bodies. A victim is also responsible for having willing given up said control. They just aren't responsible for someone having taken advantage of that control. So it is correct to say that the victim shouldn't have put themselves in that situation, but it isn't correct to say that they deserved what they got because of the risk they took. Had they known the outcome for certain then that would be a different story.
Also, regarding the difference in acceptance of promiscuity, it isn't necessarily just social norms that dictate this perception. We are likely biologically evolved to accept male promiscuity in that males can reproduce successfully multiple times a day whereas women can only successfully reproduce once every nine months. Ergo, it has benefitted our species to have one sex (females) that handle quality control in being selective in their mating whereas the other sex (males) has to compete for selection. It would be erroneous to think that we don't have basic natural instincts and that said instincts don't reinforce social trends.
People forget that some elements of gender roles are actually elements that have made us fit as a species and have only recently become less necessary due to technology and scientific achievement.
To address the questions in particular:
People have a responsibility to behave appropriately and wisely. In some scenarios, the victim does have responsibility in the outcome when they're aware of the risks of the actions they're taking. This does not, however, absolve or trivialize the perpetrator of the crime of their actions. To wit, a criminal is 100% responsible for their crime, the victim is usually partially responsible for taking an unnecessary risk but not the crime itself. That can be unpopular and considered victim blaming, but people really do need to take responsibility for their choices and the potential ramifications of said choices. The statement that they "deserved it" however, is ridiculous. They don't deserve someone wrongfully harming them, it was just one possible outcome of the risk they may or may not have knowingly taken. We take risks all the time, every time we leave our home and even when we don't. Some are bigger than others.
I mean, for a personal example, there have been a couple nights in the early A.M. where I've walked down a bad street in Brooklyn to get back to the place I was staying at the time. I could have left earlier but we were behind in wrapping gifts and stuffing stockings for the neighborhood children a few days before Christmas and we needed to catch up on the numbers to have them ready in time. Now, had I been assaulted or mugged, it would only have happened because I took a risk (i.e. responsibility for knowing the risk and doing it anyways despite it being potentially devastating and unnecessary) but I would not have "deserved" such an action. No one that matters is going to say, "Oh well, poor children don't need gifts for Christmas, what was he thinking?" But that logic should extend to people performing other legal actions too who just happen to be out late. Yeah, they shouldn't have been out at that time in that neighborhood. Yes, that was a poor decision. But they didn't deserve to get shanked. That's on the criminal.
TL;DR
It doesn't matter which sex you use in the questions. If they took a risk knowingly then they are responsible for the risk they took even if not for the crime someone else committed against them. The risks people take include a full set of possibilities, most of which hopefully end up fine and those are the ones they're (hopefully) aiming for. It's just that they aren't responsible for the other peoples' actions too. In the most extreme example, a person (male or female) who gets so inebriated in a public place that they are the victims of a crime or perpetrators of a crime ARE responsible for creating the environment in which that was possible. If they committed a crime then we all accept their blame (for example, a drunk who rapes or kills under the influence is readily convicted and thrown in prison without remorse despite clearly impaired judgement) because they willingly gave up control of their bodies. A victim is also responsible for having willing given up said control. They just aren't responsible for someone having taken advantage of that control. So it is correct to say that the victim shouldn't have put themselves in that situation, but it isn't correct to say that they deserved what they got because of the risk they took. Had they known the outcome for certain then that would be a different story.