Latest news with #RachelCherwitz
New York Times
06-07-2025
- New York Times
In ‘Orgasmic Meditation' Case, Did a Zealous Media Strategy Backfire?
When they were convicted of forced labor conspiracy, two leaders of OneTaste, a lifestyle company devoted to the female orgasm, used a fierce public relations campaign to claim they were victims of the justice system. Then, that fervent advocacy helped land the women, Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, in jail. After weeks of sordid testimony, the judge, Diane Gujarati, specifically cited the publicity effort before refusing to grant the defendants bail before their September sentencing, an uncommonly strict requirement for first-time, nonviolent criminals — and one that the government had not sought. Juda Engelmayer, the women's lead publicist, had written online posts that the judge found troubling, including one that featured a swastika superimposed over the Justice Department's logo. 'You think a swastika is helpful to the defendants?' Judge Gujarati asked Jennifer Bonjean, a lawyer for Ms. Daedone, at a hearing on June 10 in federal court in Brooklyn. Zealous media strategies surrounding celebrity trials have become common, with a blueprint created by President Trump's aggressive attacks on prosecutors, judges and plaintiffs. For the defendants in the 'orgasmic meditation' case, the strategy may have backfired, even though it won some conservative commentators to their side. 'It's treacherous, the relationship between the media and the clients and court,' said Arthur Aidala, a lawyer who has represented high-profile clients including Harvey Weinstein. 'You really need to proceed with caution.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is now embracing ideas about coercion and consent that rose to prominence on college campuses during the Barack Obama administration. That's the implication of the OneTaste case, in which a jury has returned a guilty verdict against Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, who stood accused of a conspiracy to commit forced labor during their time with the sexual and spiritual self-help organization. I have written many words about this case already, and I'm going to try to refrain from rehashing all of the details in today's newsletter. (If you're new to the case and want to dive deep, here you go. If you want a couple of overviews of how the trial played out, see here and here.) What I want to focus on right now is the larger implications of this case. They're not pretty. If these ideas about coercion and consent didn't start on the college campuses of the 2010s, that's at least when they became fully institutionalized —adopted as not just the framework favored by activist students and women's studies professors but by college administrators and the Title IX offices they were beholden to. There was affirmative consent, sure, but also a broader suspicion of consent as a worthwhile standard, or at least a willingness to dismiss it for more arcane ideas about sexual permissibility. Suddenly it wasn't enough to say no and it wasn't even enough to say yes—one had to consider a complex set of power dynamics, alcohol consumption levels, subtle nonverbal cues, and so on, to determine if consent counted. It stopped just short of taking astrological signs into account. We went from a reasonable corrective (acknowledging that sexual assault needn't necessarily involve force or violence) to women getting support for claims of sexual coercion and violation even when they seemed to willingly go along with sexual activity at the time but later said that they weren't enthusiastic enough about it and a partner should have known that and stopped. Basically, it was only consensual if a woman felt deep down in her heart, during and after, that everything had been OK. We saw this idea migrate from campus newspapers and Title IX offices to the broader world during the #MeToo movement. It's perhaps best exemplified by a story about the actor Aziz Ansari. A young woman went to dinner with him, then back to his house, and later excoriated him in Babe magazine for not reading her cues about not wanting to fool around and allegedly pressuring her to do so. The piece called it sexual misconduct and a violation. But when the woman explicitly told Ansari no, he stopped, per her account of things. And when she wanted to go, she left. The Babe article provoked a huge debate about whether this sort of thing—which in another era we might have just called a bad date or caddish behavior—was a form of sexual assault and where responsibility lies here. Are sexual partners supposed to be mind readers? Do women have any responsibility for explicitly making their wishes known? Obviously, not all or even most campus sexual misconduct or #MeToo stories were like the Aziz Ansari story. But there were enough that it was clearly not an isolated idea or belief system. It was a new paradigm—and one sold, perversely, as empowering to women. That was a lie. Broadening the parameters of nonconsensual sex like this does women a disservice, portraying us as somehow having less agency and less moral culpability than male peers (which could have consequences far beyond the bedroom) while also telling women that it's normal—desirable even—to just shut up and go along with unwanted or uncomfortable activity in the moment and then object afterward. Rather than encourage women to be bold and unflinching in expressing what they want and don't want, it encourages putting out with a promise that later they can get their vengeance in public opinion or in court. We're uncomfortable as a culture with "assigning women complete sexual responsibility, even though we want them to have complete sexual liberty," said Kat Rosenfield on a recent episode of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Rosenfield and her co-host were talking about the murky way we sometimes talk about women's actions when allegations of sexual misconduct are concerned. People can do a lot of "squirming around to try and make a choice that was made [into] not actually a choice," said Rosenfield. And once you're in that mode, you end up with some real mental shenanigans around consent. The OneTaste trial shows that these ideas have now crossed over from college values or cultural vibes to legal standards adopted by federal prosecutors with the power to help put people in prison. In the OneTaste trial, prosecutors elicited testimony after testimony from "victims" who admit they consented to various sexual activities, from orgasmic meditation (a core activity in OneTaste courses and communes) to random hook-ups to relationships with OneTaste community members, investors, and students. They not only did not say no, they affirmatively agreed to these encounters or even initiated them. The repercussions they now claimed to have feared if they didn't do these things—many of which were core parts of the intentional communities and/or classes they chose to partake in, applied for, paid for—were things like social disapproval or missing out on opportunities to move up in the OneTaste ranks. Some were not even employees when the activities in question took place, and even among those who were, much of the action they talked about took place in contexts outside their employment. Prosecutors argued that Daedone's ideas (like daily orgasmic meditation being good for you, orgasm as a way to clear out bad energy, and the importance of being open to sexual encounters that might be out of your comfort zone) and Cherwitz's encouragement or shunning amounted to a form of coercion that rendered these women's seeming consent invalid. We're supposed to ignore the fact that these women admittedly never told Daedone or Cherwitz, let alone their sexual partners, that they were uncomfortable or didn't want to do these things. We're supposed to ignore the fact that contemporaneous accounts of these acts—emails, texts, journal entries, social media posts—often showed sunny feelings about what was going on. And we're supposed to ignore the fact that these women didn't report any crimes or labor violations at the time and are only testifying after being approached by FBI agents a decade or two later. The defendants are being held accountable for how these women feel—or at least told FBI agents who were making promises and extolling their victimhood that they feel—about 10- and 15-year-old sexual activity that everyone seems to have been perfectly fine with at the time. We're looking at campus kangaroo courts come to a federal courthouse, with U.S. attorneys fully embracing ideas about consent that were weird and radical just a decade or two ago. I'm sure this will be cheered by some people. I find the prospect offensive and dangerous. It's a total affront to due process, giving people little notice about how to avoid liability (since consent in the moment clearly doesn't matter). And unlike on college campuses, the arbiters of these disputes now have the power to help put people in prison for long stretches. It creates a dangerous situation not only for people who engaged in sex acts with someone claiming, decades later, that their consent was invalid but also for anyone who might be said to have "conspired" to have encouraged these sexual encounters or to have "participated in a venture" that received any benefit from them. It opens the gate to forced labor or sex trafficking prosecutions based on sexual regret. It's also one more step in the total infantilization of women, negating the gains in sexual and social autonomy that we've won. This situation where we expect all the rights of adulthood but none of the responsibility can't last. We're going to start seeing—we are seeing—rights chipped away at, too. At a time when many are keen to use sexual "harms" to justify everything from online censorship to limiting LGBTQ expression, curtailing reproductive rights, and encouraging women to give up on college and just have babies, no feminist, friend of women, or woman who cares about her own bodily autonomy and ability to consent should be cheering this safe space–ification of the DOJ. • The slippery slope of age-verification laws for adult content is on full display in France, where the "government is considering designating X as a porn platform — a move that will likely have the platform implementing strict age verification requirements," per Politico. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in the U.S., rendering laws aimed at carding people who visit porn websites as a backdoor to either require age verification for social media, too, or make social media websites ban sexually oriented content and accounts of any kind. • President Donald Trump is expected to once again extend the deadline for TikTok parent company ByteDance to sell the company or be banned. "Remember when TikTok was supposedly an urgent national security threat that required emergency legislation? Funny how that 'emergency' keeps getting 75-day extensions," Techdirt Editor Mike Masnick writes. That "should tell you everything about how 'urgent' this national security threat actually was." • "It would help immensely if the critiques of porn, did not confuse 'sex' with 'porn.' The push to be 'sexy' and sexism are not rooted in one form of media," comments Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition, in response to a New Yorker review of the new book Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves. "But linking both evangelicals and anti-SW feminists is the idea that sexist evil can be traced to one tantalizing source. To do that, in these sexual monotheories, porn has to be a monolith. That it presents women one way (submissive) and with one look (skinny, with big tits). Antiporn texts depend on a charicature [sic] of porn, a flattening of sexual speech, in order to establish a clear directional effect on culture." As to the idea that focusing on consent in porn is somehow insufficient, Stabile posts: says: "We focus on 'consent'…because it's how we restrain the urge to police other people's fantasies and sexualities. Because saying 'your articulation of sexuality' is damaging to ME, is the same impulse that underlies anti-LGBTQ censorship." The post Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent appeared first on
Associated Press
10-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Leaders of ‘orgasmic meditation' women's wellness company OneTaste convicted in forced labor trial
NEW YORK (AP) — The leaders of a sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted 'orgasmic meditation' have been convicted of federal forced labor charges. A Brooklyn jury on Monday found Nicole Daedone, founder of OneTaste Inc., and Rachel Cherwitz, the California-based company's former sales director, guilty after deliberating for less than two days following a five-week trial. The two each face up to 20 years in prison when sentenced later. Prosecutors had argued the two women ran a yearslong scheme that groomed adherents — many of them victims of sexual trauma — to do their bidding. They said Daedone, 57, of New York, and Cherwitz, 44, of California, used economic, sexual and psychological abuse, intimidation and indoctrination to force OneTaste members into sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive, such as having sex with prospective investors or clients. The two told followers the questionable acts were necessary in order to obtain 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' and demonstrate their commitment to the organization's principles. Prosecutors said OneTaste leaders also didn't pay promised earnings to the members-turned-workers and even forced some of them to take out new credit cards to continue taking the company's courses. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nina Gupta, in her closing statement last week, said the defendants 'built a business on the backs' of victims who 'gave everything' to them, including 'their money, their time, their bodies, their dignity, and ultimately their sanity.' 'The jury's verdict has unmasked Daedone and Cherwitz for who they truly are: grifters who preyed on vulnerable victims by making empty promises of sexual empowerment and wellness only to manipulate them into performing labor and services for the defendants' benefit,' said Joseph Nocella, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Daedone's defense team cast her as a 'ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur' who created a unique business around women's sexuality and empowerment. Cherwitz's lawyer, Celia Cohen, argued that the witnesses who testified weren't forced to do anything. When they didn't like the organization anymore or wanted to try other things, she said, they simply left. 'No matter what you think about OneTaste and what they were doing, they chose it. They knew what it was about,' she said in her closing statement last week. 'The fact they are regretting the actions that they took when they were younger is not evidence of a crime.' Lawyers for the defendants said their clients maintain their innocence and intend to appeal. 'We are deeply disappointed in today's verdict,' the lawyers said in a statement Monday. 'This case raised numerous novel and complex legal issues that will require review by the Second Circuit.' Daedone co-founded OneTaste in San Francisco in 2004 as a sort of self-help commune that viewed female orgasms as key to sexual and psychological wellness and interpersonal connection. A centerpiece was 'orgasmic meditation,' or 'OM,' which was carried out by men manually stimulating women in a group setting. The company enjoyed glowing media coverage in the 2010s and quickly opened outposts from Los Angeles to London. Portrayed as a cutting-edge enterprise that prioritized women's sexual pleasure, it generated revenue by providing courses, coaching, OM events, and other sexual practices for a fee. Daedone sold her stake in the company in 2017 for $12 million — a year before OneTaste's marketing and labor practices came under scrutiny. The company's current owners, who have rebranded it the Institute of OM Foundation, have said its work has been misconstrued and the charges against its former executives were unjustified.
CBS News
10-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Leaders of sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted "orgasmic meditation" convicted in forced labor trial
The leaders of a sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted "orgasmic meditation" were found guilty Monday in what has been described as an abusive scheme to coerce their employees into performing traumatic and demeaning tasks with little or no pay, authorities said. A Brooklyn jury deliberated for less than two days before convicting Nicole Daedone, 57, and Rachel Cherwitz, 44, on federal forced labor charges, following a five-week trial. Daedone founded OneTaste Inc., the California-based wellness company, and Cherwitz formerly served as its sales director. The two each face up to 20 years in prison and will be sentenced at a later time, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for New York's Eastern District. Prosecutors had argued Daedone and Cherwitz ran a yearslong scheme that groomed adherents — many of them victims of sexual trauma — to do their bidding. They said Daedone, of New York, and Cherwitz, of California, used economic, sexual and psychological abuse, intimidation and indoctrination to force OneTaste members into sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive, such as having sex with prospective investors or clients. Three witnesses testified they were coerced into becoming a "handler" for OneTaste's first investor, who was also Daedone's boyfriend, and said doing that that required them to live with him, cook for him, and "perform demeaning sex acts at his direction," the U.S. Attorney said in a news release. Daedone and Cherwitz allegedly told followers the questionable acts were necessary in order to obtain "freedom" and "enlightenment" and demonstrate their commitment to the organization's principles. Nicole Daedone, center, founder and former CEO of OneTaste, departs Brooklyn federal court on Tuesday, June 13, 2023, in New York. Jeenah Moon / AP Prosecutors said OneTaste leaders also didn't pay promised earnings to the members-turned-workers and even forced some of them to take out new credit cards to continue taking the company's courses. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nina Gupta, in her closing statement last week, said the defendants "built a business on the backs" of victims who "gave everything" to them, including "their money, their time, their bodies, their dignity, and ultimately their sanity." "The jury's verdict has unmasked Daedone and Cherwitz for who they truly are: grifters who preyed on vulnerable victims by making empty promises of sexual empowerment and wellness only to manipulate them into performing labor and services for the defendants' benefit," said Joseph Nocella, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Daedone's defense team cast her as a "ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur" who created a unique business around women's sexuality and empowerment. Cherwitz's lawyer, Celia Cohen, argued that the witnesses who testified weren't forced to do anything. When they didn't like the organization anymore or wanted to try other things, she said, they simply left. "No matter what you think about OneTaste and what they were doing, they chose it. They knew what it was about," she said in her closing statement last week. "The fact they are regretting the actions that they took when they were younger is not evidence of a crime." Daedone was convicted on federal forced labor charges by a Brooklyn jury. Jeenah Moon / AP Lawyers for the defendants said their clients maintain their innocence and intend to appeal. "We are deeply disappointed in today's verdict," the lawyers said in a statement Monday. "This case raised numerous novel and complex legal issues that will require review by the Second Circuit." Daedone co-founded OneTaste in San Francisco in 2004 as a sort of self-help commune that viewed female orgasms as key to sexual and psychological wellness and interpersonal connection. A centerpiece was "orgasmic meditation," or "OM," which was carried out by men manually stimulating women in a group setting. The company enjoyed glowing media coverage in the 2010s and quickly opened outposts from Los Angeles to London. Portrayed as a cutting-edge enterprise that prioritized women's sexual pleasure, it generated revenue by providing courses, coaching, OM events, and other sexual practices for a fee. Daedone sold her stake in the company in 2017 for $12 million — a year before OneTaste's marketing and labor practices came under scrutiny. The company's current owners, who have rebranded it the Institute of OM Foundation, have said its work has been misconstrued and the charges against its former executives were unjustified. They maintain sexual consent has always been a cornerstone of the organization. The company didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
CNN
10-06-2025
- Business
- CNN
Leaders of ‘orgasmic meditation' company OneTaste convicted in forced labor trial
The leaders of a US sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted 'orgasmic meditation' have been convicted of federal forced labor charges. A Brooklyn jury on Monday found Nicole Daedone, founder of OneTaste Inc., and Rachel Cherwitz, the California-based company's former sales director, guilty after deliberating for less than two days following a five-week trial. The two each face up to 20 years in prison, with sentencing due later. Prosecutors argued the two women ran a years-long scheme that groomed adherents –many of them victims of sexual trauma – to do their bidding. They said Daedone, 57, and Cherwitz, 44, used economic, sexual and psychological abuse, intimidation and indoctrination to force OneTaste members into sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive, such as having sex with prospective investors or clients. The two told followers the questionable acts were necessary in order to obtain 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' and demonstrate their commitment to the organization's principles. Prosecutors said OneTaste leaders also didn't pay promised earnings to the members-turned-workers and even forced some of them to take out new credit cards to continue taking the company's courses. Assistant US Attorney Nina Gupta, in her closing statement last week, said the defendants 'built a business on the backs' of victims who 'gave everything' to them, including 'their money, their time, their bodies, their dignity, and ultimately their sanity.' 'The jury's verdict has unmasked Daedone and Cherwitz for who they truly are: grifters who preyed on vulnerable victims by making empty promises of sexual empowerment and wellness only to manipulate them into performing labor and services for the defendants' benefit,' said Joseph Nocella, US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Daedone's defense team cast her as a 'ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur' who created a unique business around women's sexuality and empowerment. Cherwitz's lawyer, Celia Cohen, argued that the witnesses who testified weren't forced to do anything. When they didn't like the organization anymore or wanted to try other things, she said, they simply left. 'No matter what you think about OneTaste and what they were doing, they chose it. They knew what it was about,' she said in her closing statement last week. 'The fact they are regretting the actions that they took when they were younger is not evidence of a crime.' Lawyers for the defendants said their clients maintain their innocence and intend to appeal. 'We are deeply disappointed in today's verdict,' the lawyers said in a statement Monday. 'This case raised numerous novel and complex legal issues that will require review by the Second Circuit.' Daedone co-founded OneTaste in San Francisco in 2004 as a sort of self-help commune that viewed female orgasms as key to sexual and psychological wellness and interpersonal connection. A centerpiece was 'orgasmic meditation,' or 'OM,' which was carried out by men manually stimulating women in a group setting. The company enjoyed glowing media coverage in the 2010s and quickly opened outposts from Los Angeles to London. Portrayed as a cutting-edge enterprise that prioritized women's sexual pleasure, it generated revenue by providing courses, coaching, OM events, and other sexual services for a fee. Daedone sold her stake in the company in 2017 for $12 million – a year before OneTaste's marketing and labor practices came under scrutiny. The company's current owners, who have rebranded it the Institute of OM Foundation, have said its work has been misconstrued and the charges against its former executives were unjustified. They maintain sexual consent has always been a cornerstone of the organization. The company didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
