I'm not talking about the history of the world, I'm talking about recent American culture.

Sally's desire or lack of it really wasn't present in the story. Try imagining a gender-reversed version of the story and see whether it looks odd to you.

The gender-reversed version would have to look very different to be realistic because, among other reasons, there are very strong and very asymmetrical signaling and reputational issues involved. (I'm just noting this as the de facto state of affairs, separate from the discussion of why it might be so.) If these issues weigh more heavily than the considerations of lust for one of the parties, but less so for the other, it doesn't mean that the former's lust is being unrealistically neglected.

Now, I don't know much about what American culture a few decades back really looked like, and I do have some reason to believe that the way it's popularly imagined nowadays is heavily distorted. However, if this culture really was oblivious about female lust, this would lead to some odd predictions -- for example, that people (or men at least) would lack the usual traditional inclination for chaperoning and strong reputational discipline of women, believing that they'd behave with saintly chastity if left uncontrolled. Was this really the case?

I recommend reading Yes Means Yes-- you will probably find the politics annoying and I don't sign on to them myself, but the personal viewpoints could give you an additional angle on the world.

Which one of the books under this title do you have in mind? Google Books lists at least two that look like they might be pertinent for this discussion. (I have no problem with annoying politics, no matter how extreme, if there is some insight to be found alongside it.)