I think that technology isn't helping, but not for the same reasons.
Technology allows people to trace and draw inferences from behaviour that used to be managed differently, and forgotten.
For example, one might read an article 'How to have an affair' in an edition of Cosmo, or Closer etc 'How to meet a sexy new partner' or 'How to use a sex toy properly' or (as has been the case) 'Pegging and how to do it' (Metro), in the common room at work. Someone might flirt at a coffee shop, or sit and people watch having mini fantasies about what might happen. Some of these behaviours serve to keep people feeling attractive and stimulated in relationships that might otherwise lose their spark (it can be really nice to have someone flirt with you in a lift or at work and it boosts your confidence nicely!).
Now, though, each one of these behaviours leave an electronic trace that when discovered by someone feeling insecure, in detective mode or just out of context with the mood, massive inferences can be drawn about intention that are sometimes not there.
If I am sitting people watching and fantasising sexually or romantically about people nearby, I could be thinking 'in a minute I am going to go over and kiss that person' or 'if they asks, I would go straight back to their flat and oh what I would do!' but never actually do, or even would really carry it out. - now one can find someone on the internet who will give off similar signals and may join in, knowing full well that there are many stages that have to be gone through to actually carry anything out - that is a big safety blanket and I would suspect that 99% of the flirting/promises made/fantasies expressed to people on the internet are nothing more than self-gratification or ego massage.
I have been involved in several situations where someone reading about pornography at work, has been transposed by employers into actually seeking pornography - sometimes.. in fact mostly.. from articles in popular press or even from the organisation's own website. Those inferences can be used to hint at massive porn use and even child abuse, even if the piece in question is a painting of a nude by a recognised artist, solely because of the paranoia that electronic use is somehow more dangerous, but also just simply because its traceable - glancing at a top shelf in a newsagents, or going to an art gallery- even if there was intent to only look at nudes, would never cause a trail, a massive argument, dismissals and tribunal cases, yet that is what is happening if the same activity happens on the internet.
I think its important to realise that people will have chats and enrol in 'possibility' websites, just to see what's out there, to see if they can connect briefly with others in the same way one might have a flirty day out at the shops or evening out etc, but they are (rather sadly) doing this on the internet because of time, laziness, an ability to talk themselves up easily, and perhaps shyness and lack of real confidence in actually doing it in RL is part of it too.
Basically I think that the traceability, lack-of-context and internet paranoia about what small indications 'really' mean added to the triumph of 'real' proof from one or two clicks and their records plus some massive paranoia raising by the popular press and LTB proponents is the problem, not really the access.