At 'Orgasmic Meditation' Trial, Feds Can't Find a Clitoris—or Evidence of Forced Labor
The government has been putting sexuality, sexual labor, and unorthodox ideas about sex on trial.
"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 13.The transcripts include the above exchange between Assistant U.S. Attorney Kaitlin Farrell and government witness Rebecca Halpern, which took place on May 7. Farrell returned to clitorises a bit later, this time with a diagram.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
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.
Free To Choose
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.
Beliefs on Trial
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.
Sexuality on Trial
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.
Brainwashed by Happiness?
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.
More Sex & Tech News
• 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?"
