Orenstein makes two very smart decisions that lead the success of her research. First, she defines all her terms in a scientific manner, not resorting to popular, political usage of words. When she talks about masculinity having a toxic effect on young men's consciousness, that is only derived from the scientific evidence of their own report. They describe to her what is happening in their emotions and psychologies, and then she culminates that data and draws out trends. Secondly, she focuses on the young men as works in progress who need help.
Instead of over-moralizing sexual violence, she takes a more scientific approach to guilt. She first analyzes the young men's points of view, because if they report that their private moral parameters are in fact out of line, then it does not matter whether they think they are behaving in a moral way or not; their opinion of social expectations is wrong and needs re-education. Concerning those young men who are unable to properly identify the worth of consent, she often notices that some warped sense of masculinity has led the young man into seasons of crisis and confusion.
That leads to the crux of the matter which is really about knowledge. Every person can naturally deduce their ethical responsibility by simply empathizing with others. However, Orenstein is more rational than religious; she has no problem admitting the true numbers of sociopathy and toxic masculinity. This means that in addition to the private responsibility of one's own choices, there is a social responsibility to overcome awkwardness to correctly educate young men about what the rules of the bedroom are. By not teaching young men correct values, a category of misconduct emerges: those who might not have offended if they were given better sexual education earlier in their lives, because they might have gone in with better empathy for their partners if their fathers had taught them to treasure consent. This in no way alleviates the guilt of those who knowingly commit acts of sexual violence.
