OneTaste guru once claimed her alleged sex cult's philosophy could stop rape by turning 'p—y on high'
'Orgasmic meditation' guru Nicole Daedone once told her followers that they could stop a rape using their aggressive sexuality — and claimed she even did it herself against a knife-wielding man by 'turning my p—y on high,' a Manhattan court heard Thursday.
Daedone — the founder of the allegedly sick sex cult OneTaste– is on trial in Brooklyn federal court alongside her former head of sales, Rachel Cherwitz, where a jury was shown video clips of Daedone spouting her allegedly twisted doctrine about sex crimes.
5 A Brooklyn federal jury was shown footage of OneTaste guru Nicole Daedone telling the followers of her alleged sex cult how to 'deflect rape' by turning their sexuality fully on.
In a recording of a 2013 coaching seminar, Daedone told a crowded room of members of her wellness start-up that she sometimes heard women say they didn't want to be sexual for fear of being raped.
'If you want to know, the real way to deflect rape is to turn on 100% because then there is nothing to rape,' Daedone said in the video from August of that year. 'A woman turned on 100% has every single man around her bowing.'
Later in the hour-and-a-half-long video, Daedone described a 'dark' man once putting a knife to her neck, while she was working in her prior career as a stripper.
5 Daedone made the statements in a 2013 video of one of her coaching classes.
'I shouldn't be alive,' she said.
'He had [the knife] up against me and I just turned and I said, 'How did you know I like that?'' Daedone told her followers. 'And I turned on my p—y as high as I could turn it on. And we were just in that place together and all of a sudden it just absorbed everything that was in there.'
She later went on to tell the group that her dad died in prison after serving time for being a serial child molester and how she believed he was too evolved to be constrained by laws.
5 Daedone and Cherwitz are on trial on the charge of conspiracy to commit forced labor.
Gregory P. Mango
'I never took on the idea that he was a bad person,' Daedone said in the video.
'I took on the idea that he was so fourth dimensional that he couldn't confine himself to the arbitrary laws of the third dimension,' she said, referencing group-lingo about the worldly dimension versus the spiritual dimension.
'That was his only crime in my mind,' she said.
5 The controversial company pushed 'orgasmic meditation.'
Michael Nagle
Daedone, 58, and Cherwitz, 45, are on trial for conspiracy to commit forced labor for allegedly luring people with past trauma to take their expensive courses and to work for them, all with the promise of healing them through 'orgasmic meditation' — or OM.
The women have pleaded not guilty and maintained members took part in sex acts consensually. They face up to 20 years behind bars if convicted at the six-week trial.
5 Daedone also said in the video that her dad, a serial child molester who died in prison, wasn't a bad person but he was too elevated for 'arbitrary' laws.
Jurors have heard from one witness so far, Becky, who claims she was 'brainwashed' and got herself into crippling debt buying Daedone's pricy courses after joining the group in 2011.
Becky — whose full name is being withheld — claims she was forced to start working in sales at OneTaste the following year to help pay for the coaching, which in total ran her between $15,000 to $20,000.
And Becky testified that she was expected to OM with 'anybody off the street' during sessions where someone would stroke her genitals or where she was expected to stimulate someone else's genitals.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
A First Amendment Right To Preach Orgasm?
Yes, some people feared leaving OneTaste, defense lawyer Jennifer Bonjean admitted on Monday. "There was fear of being kicked out of the group chat." Bonjean's client, Nicole Daedone, is co-founder of the sexual and spiritual wellness company OneTaste. Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, OneTaste's former head of sales, are on trial for an alleged conspiracy to commit forced labor. On Monday, the prosecution rested its very underwhelming case—a case that has invoked witchcraft, bad brain science, and a disturbing infantilization of women. Typically, a forced labor case involves someone employing violence, threats of violence, or other means of "serious harm" in order to compel someone to work for them. But again and again, government witnesses—former OneTaste volunteers, employees, and community members—testified that they were entirely free to quit their positions, move out of OneTaste communes, or otherwise cease formal associations with the group without threat of physical harm or some sort of serious retaliation. They just didn't want to go because they feared being excommunicated from the OneTaste community, which they had become dependent on for their social, sexual, and spiritual identities. The idea that this constitutes a "serious harm" that can sustain a forced labor charge "gets us into some very worrisome First Amendment issues, because the First Amendment protects people's right to assemble as they see fit," Bonjean told U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati on Monday. "Scientologists are permitted to fraternize with Scientologists. Churches are permitted to socialize with people that share their beliefs. They are permitted under the First Amendment to say, you don't share our beliefs, therefore you may not be part of our community," Bonjean said. "And OneTaste also—not just as a business but as a community—was permitted to say, 'we share these beliefs, we live by them ourselves, if you don't want to live by them, then you will have to leave.' Or 'you may be a customer, you can attend classes, you can be on the outer circles, but you…may not be in the inner circle, because…we don't want people who don't believe in these principles.'" Those principles are much of what the government has been putting on trial. The prosecution's theory of the case is that OneTaste's teachings about things like sexual openness, openness to new experiences, personal responsibility, and the value of orgasmic meditation (O.M.)—a 15-minute, partnered clitoral stroking practice—left people powerless to reject living, working, or sexual situations they did not want. Yet with government witness after government witness, the defense has produced evidence suggesting that discomfort or displeasure came only with hindsight. In the moment, these witnesses were effusive—on social media, in emails to OneTaste higher-ups, and so on—about the benefits of O.M. and OneTaste teachings more generally. "What the government has alleged [and] the evidence has demonstrated is that there were people who participated in OneTaste and then later determined that they were psychologically harmed," Bonjean suggested to Gujarati on Monday. "Not that in the moment psychological harm was the reason they stayed." Government witnesses testified about fears of losing "social status" and that there was "a high school clique situation gone bad and you could lose being closer to the cool kids," Celia Cohen, a lawyer for Cherwitz, told Judge Gujurati on Monday. "And people did testify that that was what was important. And if they didn't do this, they would lose that kind of status. But again, that is not serious harm." Reading the transcripts from this trial, which started on May 5, it's clear many of the government's witnesses are now uncomfortable with choices they made while affiliated with OneTaste—things like deciding to go into debt or solicit money from a man to pay for courses; engaging in a lot of promiscuous sexual activity; or staying in a professional or volunteer role or a housing situation that eventually soured. And, whether intentionally or not, they seem to be looking for someone other than themselves to blame for these choices, even if they were mentally capable 20- and 30-something-year-old adults at the time. One government witness, Michal Neria, talked about marrying Misha, a man who had been paying for her to take OneTaste courses and proposed to her at a OneTaste event. Cherwitz allegedly suggested to Neria "that I could ask him to pay and that it's completely his decision whether to say yes or no," Neria testified on May 22. "Rachel and the other higher-ups put that idea in my head. I would have never come up with it by myself." "So, you take no responsibility for asking Misha to pay for your courses?" Bonjean asked. "I take no responsibility," Neria said. Bonjean then asked Neria if she could agree that she did not have to ask Misha to pay for her courses. "Then I wouldn't have been able to take those courses," Neria replied. So, Neria did something that benefited her at the time ("I really wanted to take that course," she told the court) or made her feel more socially accepted ("I saw other people who have gotten married and…I wanted us to be like them"). But after it didn't work out—the marriage to Misha quickly ended in divorce and Neria stopped associating with OneTaste—she seems to have totally absolved herself of any agency in her actions. Neria even brought up witchcraft, telling the court that "pretty much all of the staff, all of the female staff" were considered witches. Another government witness, Dana Gill, took a less mystical and more pseudo-scientific approach to explaining her time at OneTaste: "My brain wasn't fully developed." Gill was 25 years old and a college graduate when she started to associate with OneTaste. "I was so young, you know," she told the court on May 14. "My prefrontal cortex wasn't done developing." The suggestion here is that a 25-year-old woman is too young to legally make decisions for herself—an implication that could have serious consequences far beyond this prosecution. But believing that 25-year-olds aren't culpable for their actions isn't Gill's only unusual idea; she also seems to think that it's coercive to talk about or do things in front of her. While at OneTaste, Gill entered into a sham marriage with someone who needed a green card, getting paid $10,000 for it. She told the court that she only did this because a few other people she knew in OneTaste (neither of the defendants) had green card marriages and this "normalized" the idea for her. Likewise, Gill—who is now a Methodist pastor—became a sugar baby and then started doing sex work because her friend in OneTaste, Aubrey, was doing it, Gill testified. "Aubrey talking about her own experience normalized prostitution for you?" Bonjean asked Gill. "Yeah, it became normalized for me," Gill replied. She went on to suggest that hearing Aubrey—a friend who is not either of the defendants, mind you, or even in OneTaste leadership—describing her own positive experiences with sex work amounted to "coercion over a period of time." Back in 2011, she told podcaster Mai Vu that she had to keep her sex work "hush hush" around people at OneTaste. She also said then that sex work "was one of my favorite jobs ever. Like, I love having sex and I got paid to have sex with…random men." And that was "really thrilling." Asked in court to explain the discrepancy in how she talks about sex work now and how she talked about it back then, Gill blamed OneTaste for having "celebrated and embraced" her sexual side and given her "all of this positive reinforcement around having sex and being a sexual person." At the time, "I was like, oh, yeah, I'm going to keep leaning into that," she told the court. But "it was not freeing, in fact, in hindsight." As the prosecution rested its case, I couldn't help but think: That's it? I knew going in that this case was weak, but the court proceedings have really driven home just how weak. Basically, it's been a parade of adults—men and women, but mostly women—infantilizing themselves while granting almost superhuman power to Daedone and Cherwitz. Again and again, government witnesses testified about freely choosing to work for OneTaste, to live in OneTaste housing, and to sign up for OneTaste classes and programs. The consequences they experienced, or feared, from going against bosses or rejecting community practices are the kinds of things you might expect in any job or communal living situation: disapproval, disappointment, diminished opportunities. The reasons they gave for staying even when they were unhappy also fall more within "yes, that's life," than a criminal scope. One witness testified that she couldn't leave right away because she didn't have a lot of money saved or another job lined up. Many witnesses seemed willing, intentionally or not, to rewrite history. For instance, government witness Anthia Gillick said she felt like she wasn't able to take vacations; the defense provided evidence, which she did not dispute, that she traveled to the Hamptons, San Francisco, Bali, and Antarctica while involved with OneTaste. Gillick also claimed she didn't seek medical attention after suffering an aerial silk injury (unrelated to OneTaste) because Cherwitz allegedly discouraged it. On cross, she admitted that she had actually seen a doctor, an acupuncturist, and a masseuse. Gill told the court about allegedly being directed by Cherwitz to engage in sexual activity with Antonios Hadjigeorgalis, a student in a OneTaste coaching program in 2010. Hadjigeorgalis "was getting ready to withdraw from the coaching program, and I was told to go make sure that he stayed in the coaching program," she said in her May 13 testimony. While no one explicitly told her to hook up with him sexually, that was "my interpretation of what was asked of me," she said. Hadjigeorgalis testified in court on Monday. He was in San Fransisco once during the coaching program, in November 2010, and said that during that visit Dana came to his room and they engaged in sexual activity. He had not, at this point, had any intention of dropping the program, he told the court, and dropping out was not something he brought up with OneTaste staff until January 2011. Sometimes, the government precluded the defense from having the opportunity to challenge negative statements. Such was the case when it came to Ayries Blanck, the government's star witness until she admitted that she was untruthful with prosecutors and had fabricated evidence. Prosecutors subsequently decided not to have Blanck testify. But, on Monday, they had an FBI agent and a prosecutor read text messages sent between two former OneTaste staff members, Joanna Van Vleck and Kenan Wang, about Blanck threatening the company with a lawsuit. The texts included some of Blanck's allegations, which meant the jury was exposed to these claims. The judge told the jury these texts were being read not for their truth but merely for context. And since Blanck herself wasn't testifying, the defense had no opportunity to question her directly or challenge her claims in front of the jury. The government contended in court on Monday that it doesn't matter if people weren't actually physically trapped at OneTaste. "I know there's been arguments that people were free to leave at any time. That's not an element of the [forced labor] statute," said U.S. Attorney Nina C. Gupta. "The fact that people were physically free to leave doesn't speak to the fact that they felt psychologically entrapped." Notice the word felt there. That's what this case comes down to: feelings. Not facts about anything the defendants did but the way witnesses—10, 15, 20 years later—now feel about their lives during this time. "Of course it matters [that they could] not only physically leave, but they could leave without any real repercussions," Bonjean replied in court. "Nobody has identified a single repercussion other than Nicole might be mad at me, I would be kicked out of the circle, or that I wouldn't be able to be a part of the community." "Really what they were afraid of most is conduct that is protected by the First Amendment," said Bonjean. "So that type of fear is not the type of fear that was contemplated by the lawmakers when they passed [forced labor] legislation." Physical violence and threats of it are "the type of coercion that the lawmakers had in mind, not some type of social coercion or fear that you're going to be kicked out of the group, and that is what we've heard of." On Tuesday, the defense rested its case, having called just one witness. "I want to make the record very clear. We have plenty of witnesses that we would have presented, but it's very clear that what we want to present, the Court has disagreed would be admissible," Bonjean told the judge. Neither Cherwitz nor Daedone elected to testify. Closing arguments in the case will begin today. Ohio targets drag performers. An Ohio bill would limit "adult cabaret performances," which it defines as performances "harmful to juveniles" that feature go-go dancers, strippers, or "entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performers' or entertainers' biological sex." Free speech for me, but not for thee. The Free Press' editors champion the ban on TikTok. Pas de porno pour toi. Pornhub is suspending service in France in light of a new law that requires adult websites to verify all visitor ages. Can an egg yolk be pornographic? On obscenity and over-easy eggs Library bill dead. An Alabama bill targeting libraries for obscenity prosecutions has failed. The post A First Amendment Right To Preach Orgasm? appeared first on
New York Times
29-05-2025
- New York Times
‘Orgasmic Meditation' Case Raises Question of What Constitutes Coercion
The women arrived with dreams of rebirth, community and climax. Instead, they said, their twenties were ruined by working at OneTaste, a buzzy San Francisco company that billed itself as a health and education start-up promoting female empowerment via 'orgasmic meditation.' They came to see OneTaste as a cult, but the prosecution of two of its leaders will decide whether they were coerced into working for the company or simply deluded by its teachings. The question is central to the federal case against Nicole Daedone, OneTaste's founder and former chief executive, and Rachel Cherwitz, its former head of sales, who have each been charged with one count of forced labor conspiracy. The charge carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Prosecutors say Ms. Daedone and Ms. Cherwitz deployed 'psychological tactics' to groom OneTaste employees for masturbation rituals and to isolate them, leaving them reliant on the company and unable to access or even imagine a world outside. Such forced labor schemes usually employ a tangible threat, such as physical violence or the confiscation of travel documents. OneTaste employees have not described such blunt tactics. Rather, they say, they feared that defying Ms. Daedone and Ms. Cherwitz would ruin them not financially or physically, but spiritually. Lawyers for Ms. Daedone and Ms. Cherwitz have seized on that, noting that the witnesses were adults who had free will, and that some came from affluent backgrounds. They have pointed out that the witnesses did leave OneTaste, only to return when they yearned for spiritual community. 'Each time you left, you made a choice to come back,' Michael P. Robotti, a lawyer for Ms. Cherwitz, told one witness. To win convictions, prosecutors must convince jurors that Ms. Daedone and Ms. Cherwitz forced OneTaste employees to work against their will, using physical, emotional or psychological coercion, and that each woman benefited. They must show that OneTaste employees had to keep working, including by engaging in orgasmic meditation, in order to avoid 'serious harm.' Through the first half of what is expected to be a six-week trial, more than a half-dozen former OneTaste employees have testified to sexual acts rarely mentioned in a courtroom. They said they had no other options at the time, but have stopped short of saying they were threatened with violence, the loss of property or anything beyond losing their standing within OneTaste. Juda Engelmayer, a spokesman for the defendants, said the former OneTaste employees had chosen to explore an 'unconventional lifestyle,' and had then 'decided they were victims because it no longer aligns with how they see themselves.' 'This case is a dangerous attempt to criminalize regret,' Mr. Engelmayer said in a statement. Determining consent can be difficult when it comes to cults, which by nature wipe away a person's capacity to question order, said Rick Alan Ross, the founder of the Cult Education Institute. Mr. Ross, a deprogrammer who has testified as an expert in many such cases, said OneTaste appeared to bear the hallmarks of a coercive cult. Cults, Mr. Ross said, 'shut down your ability to critically think and reason,' leading people to do things they would never have considered before they joined the group. 'People have these unreasonable fears, that 'if I leave the group I'm a traitor. If I leave the group, I'm a counterrevolutionary,'' he said in an interview. NXIVM, the Albany-area sex cult led by Keith Raniere, also billed itself as a self-help organization and offered classes in its idiosyncratic rituals. But it blackmailed members with threats to release nude photographs and embarrassing secrets. So far, there has been no evidence of such acts against OneTaste employees. Witnesses said they did what Ms. Daedone and Ms. Cherwitz asked because their entire senses of self revolved around OneTaste. Moira Penza, a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn who helped win a 120-year sentence against Mr. Raniere, said that unlike his victims, OneTaste participants knew that sex acts were the organization's calling card. That could prove to be an obstacle for the prosecution, she said, in its effort to persuade the jury that orgasmic meditation was forced labor. 'You want to hit the jury over the head with how terrible this is,' Ms. Penza said. The work, according to former OneTaste employees, consisted of participating in orgasmic meditation with anyone they could find, at any time. The job, which was understood to be a 24/7 endeavor, entailed a grueling daily schedule of 'OM' sessions, cooking and cleaning in the communal house and seeing to Ms. Daedone's and Ms. Cherwitz's personal needs. There were also tasks well outside orgasmic meditation. Some OneTaste employees testified that they were told to have sex with a top investor who was also Ms. Daedone's romantic partner, as well as to whip him and walk him around on a leash. People outside the community were called 'muggles,' mortals unworthy of the path of spiritual enlightenment on which OneTaste adherents had embarked. Erin Hatton, a professor of sociology at the University at Buffalo, said OneTaste employees had experienced 'status coercion.' Unlike more overt and physically violent coercion, status coercion emerges when a person cannot leave a job, or 'their only community,' because of how much their self-worth depends on it. That could be a tough sell for prosecutors in a criminal trial. 'It can be a tricky argument to make, because the powers of coercion can be subtle and even invisible to outsiders,' Professor Hatton said. 'Nobody is standing over you with a whip.' And the defendants have presented a placid, upbeat image in court. Ms. Daedone, who has said that she will testify in her own defense, typically wears a flowing tan shawl each day, gazing at the jury when a defense lawyer addresses a witness. Ms. Daedone founded OneTaste in 2004, offering its courses at prices than could run into five figures. The central ritual typically involved a man stroking the genitals of a woman, with her sitting in a butterfly position on pillows, for 15 minutes. OneTaste opened centers across the country, with locations in Austin, Texas, and New York. But as the word spread, so did allegations that OneTaste was a pseudoscience-peddling cult. Employees were paid little, if at all; in fact, they paid to take OneTaste coaching courses that could cost more than $10,000. Members of OneTaste's sales team were told they could not sleep until they met certain targets, and were routinely subjected to public humiliation and ostracism. Being a saleswoman for orgasm was a surprisingly hard job, one former employee testified. The government's witnesses have described an insular culture that did not tolerate dissent, with a work environment that was unforgiving. Ms. Daedone and Ms. Cherwitz even controlled their employees' romantic relationships, witnesses said. Participation came with an expected adherence to Ms. Daedone's views on sexuality and relationships, which looked down on monogamy. OneTaste workers were frequently directed to abandon monogamy because it threatened their path to enlightenment. At least once, OneTaste's leaders personally destroyed a romantic relationship by demanding that one person sleep with another person outside the relationship. When the former employees were asked in court why they participated in sexual activities that were uncomfortable, one of them, who is now a medical resident, said that comfort had felt less important than the path to enlightenment. Far from resisting the appearance of a cult, the company embraced the label, with its leaders even referring to it that way publicly, Christopher Hubbard, a former website manager for OneTaste, testified. Mr. Hubbard, who said he had joined the company to advocate female sexual empowerment, said he was initially hooked by what appeared to be a 'Buddhist, female empowerment organization.' Over time, he grew disillusioned with what he saw as OneTaste 'trying to force people to do stuff.' It wasn't the nonconformist group he signed up for. 'I thought we were going to make a difference in this country,' Mr. Hubbard said. 'And I wanted to be a part of that.'
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
At 'Orgasmic Meditation' Trial, Feds Can't Find a Clitoris—or Evidence of Forced Labor
"And where is he stroking you?" "On my clitoris." "And that is in your vaginal area?" Welcome to the OneTaste trial, in which two former leaders of the orgasm-promoting wellness company—OneTaste co-founder Nicole Daedone and former head of sales Rachel Cherwitz—stand accused of conspiracy to commit forced labor, in a case that might charitably be described as rocky. Reason obtained transcripts of court proceedings spanning from May 6 to May transcripts include the above exchange between Assistant U.S. Attorney Kaitlin Farrell and government witness Rebecca Halpern, which took place on May 7. The transcript includes the above exchange between Assistant U.S. Attorney Kaitlin Farrell and government witness Rebecca Halpern. Farrell returned to clitorises a bit later, this time with a diagram. They were discussing orgasmic meditation, or O.M.—a 15-minute, partnered clitoral stroking session that OneTaste encouraged as a daily practice. Halpern had been a willing participant in O.M., as a student and later a coach. Farrell showed the court a OneTaste pamphlet about O.M. and asked her paralegal to zoom in on a picture of a woman's vulva and genital area. After having Halpern describe the practice in detail, Farrell asked if she might use a touchscreen to circle the areas she was describing: Farrell: So you've just made a blue mark in the middle of the screen. What is that pointing to? Halpern: That's the clitoris. Farrell: And then you mentioned the introitus earlier. If you could please circle that. Halpern: It's not doing a great job, but up here. Farrell: And for the record, that's slightly below the mark you made for the clitoris. Is that correct? Halpern: Correct. Farrell: And remind us what happens in that spot? Halpern: That's where the stroker rests their thumb. If you're struggling to understand what this has to do with labor exploitation, join the club. Now in the second week of trial, the clitoris isn't the only thing that the feds seem at a loss to find. Also missing from witness testimony so far has been convincing evidence of coerced or forced labor. So far, four witnesses have testified about the alleged harms they suffered while working for or associating with OneTaste. And they have testified that they were able to come and go freely from OneTaste workplaces and from the communal housing where they chose to live. (Employees were not required to live in this housing, but could apply to do so. Many did.) They have noted that no one ever took away their means of communicating with outsiders—that they had free access to phones, computers, email, and mail—and that they were free to visit family, friends, and places around New York and San Francisco, where the OneTaste centers were located. Some took vacations. Some had outside jobs. They also testified that they were not tricked into job situations or living arrangements that they hadn't anticipated. Nor were they trapped by a lack of options—they had other places and skills they could turn to, college degrees, loved ones outside the group. They also had agency within the organization, accepting and advocating for different positions and conditions, and leaving these positions when they wanted to without threats or backlash from Daedone, Cherwitz, or the company. Halpern even admitted that while she could have been fired for cause (her sales were not good), they instead let her go in a way that still allowed her to get severance and unemployment benefits. It was not all bliss, according to these witnesses—three women and one man as of Tuesday evening. They had some disagreements with their bosses, colleagues, and housemates. They found some of them volatile or verbally abusive, and some OneTaste exercises off-putting. But they also found great happiness, fulfillment, and friendship in OneTaste, per their testimonies. For instance, one government witness—Dana Michelle Gill—said yesterday that she stayed because she found the group's acceptance of her sexuality "very liberating" and found the practice of O.M. to be "beneficial." Now, more than a decade after leaving OneTaste, she believes that she deviated from her true values during her time there. And the government wants us to believe this was not only Daedone and Cherwitz's fault, somehow, but also serves as evidence of their criminality. A week and a half into the federal trial, it seems more clear than ever that prosecutors are trying to put OneTaste's teachings and Daedone's and Cherwitz's beliefs on trial. The government's whole theory of the case rests on the idea that OneTaste's teachings around sexual openness and promiscuity, as well as being open and receptive to foreign or uncomfortable experiences more generally, were a form of psychological abuse. This isn't just speculation—Farrell said as much in a May 7 comment to Judge Diane Gujarati. "Our theory of the case is that the defendants put some [of] the testifying witnesses, our victims, in psychological distress and also taught them concepts that taught them basically to consent to everything and to be willing to engage in certain sexual activities," Farrell told the judge. Farrell alleged that some OneTaste participants engaged in activities they might have otherwise rejected "because they were taught this was a philosophy or a religious practice that was good for them, and if they continued to do it they would reach enlightenment." Think about what the government is really arguing here: that expressing ideas that others internalize can be a form of criminal psychological abuse and an attempt at human trafficking (a label forced labor falls under) if anyone says they acted on your ideas in a way that benefited you. If this is the new standard for forced labor, all sorts of public intellectuals, spiritual leaders, religious groups, wellness entrepreneurs, nutritionists, life coaches, etc. are screwed. This conception of forced labor is a far cry from what the federal statute says. It defines forced labor as obtaining labor or services through 1) force, physical restraint, serious harm, and/or abuse of law and legal process, 2) the threat of those things, or 3) "schemes, plans, and patterns" intended to make someone believe those things were in store if they disobeyed. And this conception of consent is also disturbing. Sure, these were adults who, in the moment, agreed to the sexual activities they engaged in. But the government is saying this consent doesn't count because they have, decades later, decided they may not have consented if they had been in a different mindset. While the government has admitted to the court that this case hinges on criminalizing ideas, prosecutors seem determined to confuse the issue with lots of salacious sexual details. They have repeatedly asked witnesses to describe the practice of orgasmic meditation and to talk about other sexual elements of the OneTaste community. For instance, Gill testified on Tuesday about being directed to engage in sexual activity with Reese Jones, who was a OneTaste investor and, at times, Daedone's boyfriend. But Gill was not a OneTaste employee—her only titles were "informal," such as "Mother Teresa of orgasm," a title she adopted herself, she told the court. Her activities were undertaken as a member of the community, and neither Daedone nor Cherwitz asked her to be with Jones. The government also asked Gill about being a sugar baby and engaging in sex work, even though neither Daedone, Cherwitz, nor any OneTaste leaders had anything to do with this, and about the fact that Justine Dawson—then the president of OneTaste—stole her girlfriend, in Gill's estimation. All salacious details, and all totally disconnected from any sort of forced labor scheme. Much of the sexual activity discussed so far in court has involved things the witnesses did outside of their professional roles with OneTaste. One exception that stands out is an allegation from Christina Berkley. Berkley was 28 years old and had a college degree, a husband, and a job when she first encountered OneTaste. But she quickly quit the job, ditched the husband, moved into OneTaste's San Francisco residence, and started working for OneTaste—first running a massage studio at its urban retreat center, then doing front desk work, working as Daedone's assistant, and eventually running OneTaste's New York office, during a period between 2006 and 2010. Berkley told the court that as Daedone's assistant, she was required to sexually service Jones. But, importantly, she stressed that there was no force or coercion involved in this setup. She said she knew this would be part of the position when she took it, that she was OK with it, and that her problems with the company had nothing to do with this element. Asked Monday by Daedone's attorney Jennifer Bonjean if it was true "that the alleged trauma that you felt from being a part of OneTaste was not as a result of any sexuality practices," Berkley answered, "That's true," according to a transcript of May 12 court proceedings obtained by Reason. The exchange went on: Bonjean: You told the U.S. government, U.S. attorneys, as well as the FBI that you never felt any shame or that bad things had happened to you with OneTaste sexually, correct? Berkley: Yes. Bonjean: And in connection with Reese Jones, isn't it true that you had no issues using all of your skills to please Jones? Berkley: That's true. Bonjean: Isn't it true, Ms. Berkley, that you had no regrets about OneTaste and would do it again; OneTaste felt like a choice? Berkley: True. […] Bonjean: And you actually enjoyed that position as the assistant, fair? Berkley: Yes. Bonjean: In fact, you were excited about it, correct? Berkley: Yes. Bonjean: And it's one of those experiences that you tell people was some of the cool, crazy shit you've done, right? Berkley: Yes. Bonjean: It was not a bad experience, correct? Berkley: Correct. I'm not going to generally defend bosses asking subordinates to sexually service their boyfriends. But I think it's important to remember that we're not talking about a normal workplace here—OneTaste hovered on the edge of being a wellness company, a life coaching service, an erotic business, and a sex club—and that Berkley apparently did not and does not consider this to have crossed a line. Whatever one might think of this situation—and whatever anti–sex work laws it may have broken—it does not seem like anyone involved thinks this amounted to forced labor conspiracy. So, if none of these witnesses are alleging that they engaged in forced sex or forced work, where does the force come in? Through dubious theories of mind control, it seems. Halpern and Berkley both explicitly said that they were brainwashed. Brainwashing is a controversial concept with no scientific meaning (and Halpern even struggled to define for the court what she meant by it). Berkley claimed Monday that she was brainwashed, in part, by "love bombing," which she described as "people putting a lot of attention and affection and positive regard on you outside of what would be ordinarily called for within that context." Halpern claimed to have been brainwashed by Daedone's "ideas" and "words," and also by being happy as part of OneTaste. "That's the brainwashing," she told the court last Friday. "The happiness is part of the brainwashing." Both suggested that if they had not been so happy and included and fulfilled, they would have never put up with what they perceived as more negative aspects of the company or community. But is that a form of brainwashing, or just life, with all its ups and downs? Many jobs, relationships, and groups are experienced as partially gratifying and partially discouraging, with the more positive parts front-loaded and drawbacks discovered later. Meanwhile, Gill suggested that she was psychologically harmed because she "regularly had my intuition challenged and overruled, so I learned to dismiss my inner voice." Gill also mentions love bombing, giving as an example a time on her birthday when she was given a necklace and Cherwitz "had everyone go around the room and say the thing that they loved about me." People making you feel included, saying nice things about you, and challenging your intuition cannot be the standard by which we render something criminal coercion. And, look, I empathize with Berkley, Halpert, and Gill, all of whom were in their 20s when they got involved with OneTaste and all of whom seem to have pretty quickly made that association their whole identity. I know what it's like to be young and feel like your whole world is tied up in a particular place, group of people, and collective activities—and how devastating it can feel to have to work out a new path. With their social circles, personal purposes, and in some cases their professional lives all tied up in OneTaste's mission and practices, it's understandable why they may have been reluctant to leave even when they started souring on certain elements. It's understandable that they may have feared losing friends and having to forge new identities. But the very normal and understandable hesitation they felt about leaving doesn't mean that they were brainwashed, and it doesn't mean they were forced into staying there. The government doesn't have any valid way to tie its claims of forced labor to the actions of all these adults who engaged in them while fully informed and not under duress. So they've been leaning hard into quasi-mystical ideas like brainwashing, as if too much happiness can render consent meaningless and learning new ideas can be a form of psychological harm. These are arguments actively hostile to the idea of free speech and free will. And that should alarm you no matter what you think of OneTaste's teachings or Daedone and Cherwitz personally. • The Sacramento Bee details California Democrats' compromise in a bill concerning prostitution and minors. More on the drama and the legislation here. Among the new provisions: The deal that got worked out between the two parties now includes tougher penalties for businesses that are complicit in human trafficking, including raising fines for hotels and motels that turn a blind eye to the practice from as little as $1,000 to now as high as $25,000 and authorizes the state Attorney General to pursue civil penalties. This is obviously going to incentivize hotels to be hostile toward sex workers or anyone they might profile as a sex worker. It's the kind of policy that leads to surveillance and discrimination against single women, especially those—like trans women or women who don't dress conservatively enough—who are often stereotyped as sex workers. • The Texas House just passed a bill that "would allow pregnant drivers to use the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane by recognizing their embryo or fetus as a qualifying occupant, and thereby as a second passenger," Jezebel reports. • A Montana court has rejected the state's attempt to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors. "The court is forced to conclude that the state's interest is actually a political and ideological one: ensuring minors in Montana are never provided treatment to address their 'perception that [their] gender or sex' is something other than their sex assigned at birth," wrote Montana Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Jason Marks in the court's order. "In other words, the state's interest in actually blocking transgender expression." • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has upheld an injunction against Florida's antidrag law, opining that it's likely unconstitutional. • Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs just signed an age-verification measure into law for online adult content. See the Free Speech Coalition's comment here. • Wired spent a day at the Pornhub awards talking to adult film stars about "how social media censorship and Pornhub's greatly reduced footprint are impacting their bottom lines, the pros and cons of shooting 'mainstream' studio porn versus self-publishing their own videos, the struggles of online dating, and celebrating transgender porn—a category that's been steadily rising in popularity—under a presidential administration that is openly hostile to trans bodies." • Lenore Skenazy looks at the absurdity that is airport anti-trafficking posters. "By urging travelers to be on high alert for sex-trafficking, are these ads serving any legitimate purpose?" The post At 'Orgasmic Meditation' Trial, Feds Can't Find a Clitoris—or Evidence of Forced Labor appeared first on
