The Clitoris is Legal, Teaching About it Isn’t: Unravelling the Daedone and Cherwitz Case

“Abandon all hope, ye brainwashed fools.”

Orgasmic Meditation (OM) is a practice where someone, usually a man, strokes a woman’s clitoris for fifteen minutes. It is consensual.

Two women, Nicole Daedone, who popularized the practice in San Francisco, and her top promotional assistant, Rachel Cherwitz, are in federal custody for teaching that practice. They await sentencing, and prosecutors are asking for 20 and 14 years, respectively, for a conviction on forced labor conspiracy.

Prosecutors never charged actual forced labor, only that the women planned through this practice to force people to do labor.

This standalone charge of conspiracy without the actual crime being charged never happened before.

But then there never was a meditation practice that involved a man stroking a woman’s clitoris for 15 minutes, being called a spiritual and health practice, and not sex.

So the prosecutors were really trying to protect you from thinking you were meditating when all you were doing was having sex.

These practitioners were all adults, and no one alleged that any of the 35,000 who took a course or attended an event to learn the practice of OM was under 18.

No one ever said anyone was forced. The prosecutors said there were 9 women who said they were brainwashed into doing this practice that they thought they loved at the time, but later realized it was brainwashing.

That did not prove they were forced to labor, but was offered as proof that Daedone and Cherwitz conspired to force women to labor through brainwashing and other nonphysical means through this practice of stroking and being stroked, and how they described it as not sex but meditation.

It was a philosophy that the government saw fit to stop to protect you.

The judge Diane Gujarati did not allow any evidence that the women defendants wanted to present that might show that their practice was not sex but a natural healing and meditative option among the many out there.

But since it involved the clitoris, it was not admissible.

Besides, OM is legal. What was alleged to be illegal was to use it to brainwash people (if you believe in brainwashing) into possibly doing labor coercively, even if they did not, for as I said, it was only that the women conspired to force women that was charged. They were not charged with actually ever forcing anyone to labor.

The evidence that the judge excluded is worth not excluding in these pages because we are not a judge interested in an outcome, and to be blunt, unlike the good judge, we are rather interested in truth and sharing the truth as we see it so that others can make up their own minds and not be brainwashed, or what may be worse, protected by the government from being brainwashed.

We can at least evaluate if the women now in custody and facing a long time in prison actually meant it when they said OM was not sex.

Their trial concluded in 2025. They went to the hellhole of federal care, the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center as they await sentencing in March where then they will likely be sent to some other prison and spend years there unless some good angel appears and realizes that these women may be the precedent for convicting people for their beliefs by using not substantive crime but brainwashing, which is a way of saying if the clitoris was not involved, if it was not being stroked, there would be nothing for you to read today on this topic. But let me be candid, there may be something for you to read tomorrow for if the government can convict two women for brainwashing today because of the clitoris, tomorrow they will convict someone on the elbow, or the brain or the heart or just something they teach, something legal, just like OM is legal, based on they didn’t like it and someone complained, sometimes years after they loved it that it was a case of brainwashing ergo regret ergo the people who taught it must have conspired to force them to labor even if they never did a lick of labor, forced or otherwise.

The greatness of the Daedone and Cherwitz case is that the government is stepping in to protect us from what they think is bad religion or bad meditations or bad philosophy, just like they do in fine countries like China and Iran.

 And certainly bad because it involves clitoris stroking, bad or good or otherwise, for we open the door with calling philosophy sex just like they did back in Genesis, and then we can criminalize just about anything we don’t like, like they did in Germany once and Saudi Arabia today.

But the question is, is it sex? It is legal, but if it is just plain sex, can we call it philosophy and still be legal?

If it involves a clitoris, then the whole thing cannot be philosophy because the government doesn’t think so.

That is the question. That is why two women are in custody. They taught that maybe the clitoris might not be illegal, or at least it might not be used only for sex.

Abandon your burqas, your veil, and your intellectual chains, and abandon your notion of a government that can brainwash you into thinking you need to be protected by it from brainwashing and learn what the hell happened here and what OM actually is and what it isn’t.

Legal Analysis 

This is a federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1594 (conspiracy to engage in forced labor), in which prosecutors charged only the conspiracy without proving that the underlying substantive offense actually occurred. The case raises significant constitutional questions about:

1. First Amendment Religious/Philosophical Expression: Whether the government can criminalize teaching practices framed as spiritual/meditative
2. Due Process Concerns: Prosecuting conspiracy without the underlying crime
3. Evidentiary Issues: Excluding defense evidence about the practice’s nature
4. Prosecutorial Overreach: Using “brainwashing” theories to establish coercion

The prosecution’s theory seems to be that the defendants used psychological manipulation through their teachings to create a coercive environment, even without proving anyone was actually forced to perform labor.

This case could set a dangerous precedent for criminalizing belief systems or alternative practices based solely on later participant regret and conspiracy theories.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio