Its very clear that OneTaste targets people like "music bloggers" to come and write articles, because those folks have no awareness, knowledge, experience or education in these areas of psychological persuasion. So they are easy Marks.

And its not like OneTaste is openly setting up a sex-club or swingers-group or something like that for consenting adults. Any adult would realize that consenting adults, who even pay a small membership fee like a "swingers club" or whatever, that is their own concern.

But OneTaste is not doing that.
They are misreprenting everything they are doing, under a New Age sex-enlightenment veneer, when in fact they are going in the direction of being a multi-level sect like Scientology.

Its based on deception, misrepresentation and brazen bald-faced old fashioned lying.
OneTaste is an old fashioned giant scamola.

Who are the people who serve as the "bait" to bring in the paying customers middle-aged men?
How are they being recruited, manipulated, exploited, and used?

as well, if you go to Google and press the IMAGES link and search for her name..

nicole daedone


at the top, Google again brings forward the words "cult" and One Taste cult.

The images being used by OneTaste to sell themselves, are very revealing. They are putting out photos of women naked from the waist down, with men dressed in black (like a parody of a cult) all with their hands between these women's legs.

If you press the Image search offered by Google...One Taste cult....
a lot of other images come forward.

No one ever went broke selling sex for money.
But who is paying the price?

One Taste will never stop on their own, they will only work to grow bigger. the only thing to stop them, would be if they over over-expand and go broke, or if there is trouble due to the injuries and damages being sustained by participants.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2014 05:25AM by The Anticult.

How many pieces of shill viral marketing are there online for One Taste? dozens? There seems to be no end to them.
Even Vice.com is doing its free advertising for One Taste. Or is it free?

Its beyond shameful that these ridiculous marketing pieces appear online, with not one word about the tactics and techniques being used on people's minds manipulate them on the deepest level.
What about the damages?

Was the writer of this "article" paid in some way to write the article? Was he given any gifts, or expenses?
Or is simply the lure of "free sex" enough?

That is another problem with the sex sects, because they are offering up sex, the inducements for promotion by certain media shills is probably even greater than cash inducements in brown envelopes.

Its pretty easy to determine these types of viral shill marketing pieces, because they always leave out any serious criticism of the group who is doing the marketing using their name.

OneTaste Inc's marketing dept must reach out to bloggers, and offer them inducements to write these these types of shill pieces, to try and lure more Marks in online, and to counter the accurate criticisms of OneTaste by people.

All of this is not going to end well for OneTaste and its leaders.


------------link to shill viral marketing piece on vice.com--------------

IN PURSUIT OF THE FOUR-MONTH-LONG ORGASM: GETTING OFF WITH ONETASTE ORGASMIC MEDITATION
By Roc Morin Mar 2 2013
www.vice.com/read/in-pursuit-of-the-four-month-long-orgasm-getting-off-with-onetaste-orgasmic-meditation

Google is quite useful...Using the Google date-specific advanced search, you can see that there seems to be only one mention of Nicole Daedone being a follower of Victor Baranco before October 2008 when it was posted in this thread.

Re: One Taste, Nicole Daedone, Victor Baranco Date: October 23, 2008 08:24AM
[forum.culteducation.com]


"She segued into the sensual realm in 1998 when she joined a community that practiced and studied the teachings of Dr. Victor Baranco, founder of More University."
[forum.culteducation.com]


Since then its be reposted probably hundreds of times, included in many media reports.

She had that line above removed from the Personal Life Media website after it was publicized, and now it ONLY exists in this thread, and one archive area.

Daedone has tried to minimize and expunge that Baranco connection, and almost got away with it.

[www.leagle.com]

STATE v. BARANCO
NO. 16911.
884 P.2d 729 (1994)
77 Hawai`i 351
STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Victor W. BARANCO and Cynthia A. Baranco, Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court of Hawai`i.
November 15, 1994.

Peter C. Wolff, Jr. of Hart & Wolff, Honolulu, for defendants-appellants.
Don Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Atty., City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ.

RAMIL, Justice.
Defendants-Appellants Victor W. Baranco and Cynthia A. Baranco (collectively Defendants) were indicted by Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai`i (Prosecution) for promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1242(1)(a) (Supp.1992). Following a mistrial, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, arguing that a retrial would violate their constitutional right against double jeopardy. Defendants appeal the circuit court's order denying their motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. We affirm.

I. FACTS
Victor Baranco was a co-founder of More University, a private educational institution involved in experimental lifestyles and the study of social interaction, headquartered in California. He and his wife, Cynthia Baranco, were residents of More House Hawaii, an experimental living situation located on the North Shore of Oahu, which was affiliated with More University.

On January 18, 1989, police conducted a search of More House Hawaii pursuant to a valid search warrant. While conducting a search of Defendants' bedroom, the police recovered, among other things, approximately fifty units of the drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) hidden in a Bible.

Consequently, Defendants were indicted for possessing a dangerous drug in violation of HRS § 712-1242(1)(a). Before trial, the circuit court granted Defendants' motion in limine to exclude certain evidence obtained during the search and to limit cross-examination regarding Defendants' prior "bad acts" and "other crimes."

On November 10, 1992, Defendants' jury trial began. Defendants' called as their first witness, Anthony Maxfield, the manager of More House Hawaii. During cross-examination, Maxfield testified that there were hard feelings between Wayne and Hannah Steele (also residents of More House) and Defendants. The Prosecutor then asked "[and] isn't it true some of that hard feelings arise out of the accusation that the Steeles made[,] that they were forced into prostitution by the More House?"1

Defendants immediately moved for a mistrial, which the circuit court granted.
Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, arguing that a retrial would violate their constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. The circuit court denied Defendants' motion. Defendants then moved for leave to file a notice of interlocutory appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-17 (1985), which the circuit court also denied. On March 4, 1993, the circuit court filed its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Indictment with Prejudice.
Thereafter, Defendants filed a notice of appeal. The Prosecution moved to dismiss Defendants' appeal in the circuit court, which the circuit court denied. The Prosecution
[884 P.2d 731]
[...]

1. The Prosecutor's question was based on a newspaper article which referred to a civil libel lawsuit filed by More University against an Allan Steele concerning allegations of forced prostitution.
[www.leagle.com]

To see some photo's of Vic Baranco, search google images for:

Victor Baranco

to see a very apparent used-appliance salesman who decided instead of selling appliances, he's sell access to sex.
WARNING: be aware that you will see disturbing images of a middle-aged man posing in Guru pajamas, tracksuits, and shirtless on pillows with young women.

(EXCERPT for educational research)

Quote: "The articles also reported the allegations of a former student, Alan Steele, who said that More coerced students into prostitution and provided them with LSD and other illegal drugs".

[www.casp.net]

Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co. (“Morehouse I”)
Cite as: 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46

LAFAYETTE MOREHOUSE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
The CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPANY et al., Defendants/Respondents.
No. A067522.
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5.
Aug. 9, 1995.

COUNSEL
Richard W. Hyland, Lafayette, Walter P. Maksym, Walter Maksym & Associates, Oak Brook, IL, for appellants.
James M. Wagstaffe, Mark L. Tuft, Cooper, White & Cooper, San Francisco, for respondents.

PETERSON, Presiding Justice.

...

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This appeal arises from the trial court’s decision to dismiss a libel complaint filed by More University and several affiliated persons and entities, against the company which publishes the San Francisco Chronicle and several of its reporters.
More University was founded in the late 1960?s as an outgrowth of the alternative living experiments of the time. Located near Lafayette, [FN2] the university describes itself as a “unique” institution, which was established to “expand the physical, spiritual, and intellectual capacities” of its students, while maintaining “tolerance for all apparent alien encounters.” The university offers courses in a variety of traditional disciplines such as art, music, and philosophy. However, the university also offers somewhat unique degrees in the areas of “sensuality,” “lifestyles,” and “communication.” Students studying in these latter disciplines take courses in areas such as “niceness & meanness,” “teasing,” “sensuality,” and “mutual pleasurable stimulation of the human nervous system.” Through study and course work (both in class and at home), students can obtain advanced degrees in these fields, such as a Ph.D. in “sensuality.”
FN2. We say that More is located near Lafayette; however, it is not clear whether this is technically true. More admits that it formerly occupied the Lafayette site, but it contends that it does not currently operate there. More’s college catalogue, however, continues to represent that classes are offered at the Lafayette site. We need not resolve the ambiguity to decide this appeal.

In early 1992, persons living on the More University property permitted a large number of homeless to live in tents on the site. This influx caused a corresponding increase of complaints from neighbors who alleged they were subjected to the annoying and sometimes criminal behavior of these new residents. Store owners experienced a sharp increase in the number of aggressive panhandlers and persons harassing their customers. Homeowners reported cases of public urination and public intoxication. Other homeowners complained of an increase in litter and petty crime. A local police lieutenant reported a “significant” increase in the number of problems related to the More University property including felony assaults, panhandling, and abandoned vehicles in residential and commercial areas.The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors responded to these and other complaints by holding a series of public hearings beginning in May 1992, to discuss whether this use of the More University property violated local health, land use, or other governmental regulations. As a result of those hearings, the board of supervisors determined that permits were needed since the activities violated local zoning laws. When More University officials refused to comply with the permit process or to cease the challenged activity, the county filed an action in state court to enjoin the alleged violations. More and various related entities responded by filing their own civil rights suit in federal court alleging the county’s enforcement action violated their right to free expression and privacy.

Beginning in June 1992, the San Francisco Chronicle published a series of articles which described the dispute we have set forth above. The articles reported the influx of homeless living at the More University site and the corresponding increase in complaints from neighbors. The articles also discussed the board hearings which were held to discuss the problem, the county’s enforcement action, and the university’s complaint in federal court.
The reporters who wrote the articles sometimes used colorful language in describing the dispute and the parties, e.g., characterizing More as a “sensuality school” and stating that it offered a “unique course in carnal knowledge.” In addition, the articles characterized Victor Baranco, the founder of More, as a “reclusive guru” and accurately reported that he and his wife Cynthia were the subject of an LSD drug prosecution in Hawaii.

The articles also reported the allegations of a former student, Alan Steele, who said that More coerced students into prostitution and provided them with LSD and other illegal drugs. Furthermore, the article accurately reported that More had filed a libel suit against Steele arising from his allegations.

More and various other persons and entities who were mentioned in the articles filed a complaint against the Chronicle and the reporters who wrote them. [FN3] As eventually amended, the complaint alleged seven causes of action, however, only one of them is relevant on the present appeal. More alleged that the newspaper articles were libelous.

FN3. The complaint names as plaintiffs Lafayette Morehouse, Inc., which does business as More University; Dr. Victor Baranco; Dr. Cynthia Baranco; and three additional corporate entities, Humore, Inc., the Private Sector, Inc., and Turn on to America, Inc. The latter three corporations are apparently affiliated with More and helped provide assistance to the homeless living on the More University property. Two of them, the Private Sector, Inc., and Turn on to America, Inc., were mentioned in the articles in question.The named defendants were the Chronicle Publishing Company, the entity which publishes the Chronicle; and the reporters who wrote the articles, Dan Reed, April Lynch, and Alice Kahn.
Unless otherwise indicated, we will refer to the plaintiffs collectively as More and to the defendants as the Chronicle.
The Chronicle responded to the complaint by filing a special motion to strike under section 425.16. [FN4] Consistent with the language in that section, the Chronicle argued that More could not establish there was a probability it would prevail on the complaint because, among other things, the articles were neither false nor defamatory. After hearing and argument, the trial court agreed and granted the special motion to strike, ruling that More had failed to present proof of falsity.
FN4. Section 425.16 provides in pertinent part as follows: “(b) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.[P] … [P] (e) As used in this section, ‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ includes any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.”
More then asked the court to reconsider its ruling, and it filed numerous declarations in support of its request. After argument, the court denied the motion, finding that More had failed to present evidence of falsity, and that it had not presented a prima facie case of actual malice. This appeal followed.


....

Furthermore, More’s arguments are unconvincing in any event. For example, More argues it was libeled when an article stated that it offered a “unique course in carnal knowledge.” However, truth is a defense to a libel suit (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, s 494, p. 583; see also Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 154, 269 Cal.Rptr. 379), and the article’s statement was undeniably true. More’s general catalogue shows it offers courses in “Advanced Sensuality” and “Mutual Pleasurable Stimulation of the Human Nervous System.” Even a cursory glance at the content of these courses shows the essential accuracy of the Chronicle’s characterization. [FN6]
FN6. More’s course description for the “Advanced Sensuality” class explains that “Students work with partners” and do “research and experimentation” in the areas of “engorgement, lubrication, seminal secretion.” The outline for the class in “Mutual Pleasurable Stimulation of the Human Nervous System” (which is limited to married couples and consenting adults) states that students will examine “partner exchange, emotional involvement related to sexing and oral-genital relationships.” The outline further explains that the successful student will be required to “come undeniably every day,” and that one of the goals of the course is to “make friends with another crotch.” The outline also cautions students to bring “small hand towels, and lubricant, plus latex gloves” to class. To obtain a doctorate in sensuality, a male student “must demonstrate how to take control of a woman’s level of tumescence sn a laboratory setting under the direct supervision of the faculty of the Sensuality Department.” A female student “must demonstrate, for one hour, her ability to respond to the direct control of her level of tumescence at the hands of a certified partner in the laboratory setting.”

More also argues it was libeled when the Chronicle described it as a “sensuality school.” However, it is undisputed that More offers an advanced degree in “sensuality” and that many of its courses have an explicitly sexual theme. Since the substance and gist of the characterization is true, any minor inaccuracy cannot be deemed libelous. (Heuer v. Kee (1936) 15 Cal.App.2d 710, 714, 59 P.2d 1063.)More contends that its founder, Victor Baranco, was libeled when the Chronicle described him as a “reclusive guru.” However, a statement cannot be deemed libelous unless it conveys to the recipient a provably false assertion of fact. (San Francisco Bay Guardian, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 655, 659, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 464.) The term, as used in the articles in question, was not capable of being proven true or false.
More also contends it was libeled because the Chronicle reported that a former student, Alan Steele, had alleged the school was engaged in questionable and illegal activity. However, More itself sued Steele for libel because of his allegations, and the Chronicle simply reported the same facts contained in the libel suit. A “fair and true” report of a judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged. (Civ.Code, s 47, subd. (d).) More’s briefs on appeal do not even attempt to explain why this privilege is inapplicable.
We conclude More has not met its appellate burden of showing error. The trial court properly granted the motion under section 425.16.

III. DISPOSITIONThe judgment is affirmed.
KING and HANING, JJ., concur.


[www.casp.net]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2014 01:28AM by The Anticult.

A summary from Nymag, and they make the point that OneTaste and Daedone are "monetizing orgasms", and making people dependent on an external organization and external people, instead of themselves. (which of course is how they make money off it).

Except that they say cult experts have linked Daedone to Baranco, which is false. OneTaste's own PR people stated...

"...OneTaste's cofounder Robert Kandell from 2006 tells a different story, saying Daedone had "spent the last seven years devoting her energy to the work of Dr. Victor Baranco. "


It was only later that Daedone tried to cover that up.
OneTaste has directly copied the methods of Baranco and Co. But now its even worse, as OneTaste has added "levels" like Scientology, they are franchising their operation and using techniques similar to Landmark.

They also have/had the financial resources and venture capital of Reese Jones.
Search Google for:
"reese jones" netopia Biophysicist
[www.crunchbase.com]
[www.linkedin.com]
[about.me]


[nymag.com]
Techies Predictably Eat Up Orgasmic Meditation Lifestyle
BY KAT STOEFFEL 10/16/13 at 5:51 PM

Writing for the Cut, Aurora Wells reported that the hippie hand jobs traded at OneTaste-branded “orgasmic meditation” workshops (OM, for short) left something to be desired. According to Gawker’s Nitasha Tiku, who spent three immersive days with team OneTaste at OMXperience, an “orgasm industry” conference in San Francisco, the meditations gets better. The company selling the pricey OM workshops (and even more expensive orgasm-coach training courses), on the other hand, might be some kind of pyramid scheme and/or cult.

OneTaste's business model is monetizing orgasms — basically the only good free thing left. And orgasmic meditation makes it so you can’t even give yourself one: OneTaste dictates that you need a partner to describe your junk before touching it at precisely eight o’clock (your one o’clock) and saying “thank you” a lot for exactly fifteen minutes. (Is there any other form of meditation that requires the assistance of another person? Where one "gets meditated"?) The mental-health benefits of orgasms are widely documented; what the (mostly male) “master strokers” get out of the whole thing is very vague.

According to Tiku, OM began as a New Agey spiritual practice and has, under OneTaste CEO’s Nicole Daedone’s palatably normal hand, pivoted into a fashionable body-hack technology. One that comes with half-naked chicks.

At the end of The 4 Hour Body’s orgasm chapter, the efficiency impresario Tim Ferriss declares: ‘This should be required education for every man on the planet.’ Many of OneTaste’s employees and devotees work in the startup sector. Reese Jones, Daedone’s sometime boyfriend, is also a venture capitalist and serial inventor credited with the first sound-recording software. During a presentation at the conference, Jones would compare the "OM container"—which refers both to the pillow-and-blanket covered ‘nest’ one [meditates in] time limits and emotional boundaries of the practice—to the Internet communications protocol TCP/IP.

Tiku reports that some cult experts have linked Daedone with Victor Baranco, the “responsible hedonist” Svengali who ran the controversial “intentional community” Lafayette Morehouse. (Her family background is also compelling: When Daedone was in her mid-twenties, her estranged father went to prison for molesting two girls, though not Daedone, who hopes OneTaste will "go into the belly of the beast and begin to heal this trauma about misused sexuality.") Tiku hints that 1080 Folsom Street, the three-story San Francisco residence where many OneTaste employees live (though not exclusively), might be its more benign, contemporary equivalent. The house holds a daily group OM session, and some use OM to resolve work conflicts. "You come in with certain boundaries," OneTaste's business development manager, Marcus Ratnathicam, told Tiku. "And because it gets so multidimensional, it starts to crack open ... Friends are lovers are friends."
----------------------------








[about.me]
Reese Jones

Trustee - Singularity University

When Reese Jones founded Farallon in 1985, then Netopia, he set himself on the path to a long career in technological innovation and investment. As a graduate student in biophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, Reese Jones decided to focus his attention on his entrepreneurial endeavors (as an grad student at Berkeley, Reese Jones founded BMUG, the campus’s first home brew computer society). After some great success and a number of inventions and patents, Reese Jones moved into venture capital and took on advisory roles at Silicon Valley firms, including Convergence which merged to form c-core and then was acquired by Arris. Reese Jones currently serves as a Trustee of Singularity University. Reese Jones is also a board member of liveBooks, an online company providing Internet service infrastructures for professional photographers. Jobvite, Smaato, Related Content Database, and others have counted Reese Jones among its board members. In addition to his work with privately held companies such as Smaato, Jobvite, Moon Express, Definitive Stories, liveBooks, and Current Group LLP, Reese Jones is working on a long-term project focused on his interest in human evolution. Reese Jones is a Lester Fellow at the University of California Berkeley and serves on the board of the nonprofit Chabot Space & Science Center. A San Francisco resident, Reese Jones makes his home in San Francisco, though he has also lived in France and other California cities.

[www.crunchbase.com]
Reese Jones has 25 years in innovation, entrepreneurship & patents. As a venture strategist Reese has engaged in a dozen company's innovation, start up, financing, development, IPO, boards, mergers and acquisitions.

Activities include Netopia, Farallon, Convergence, C-Core, Mediabolic, Rotani Wireless, RCDb, WatchWith, Self Health Network, Genome Compiler, Cambrian Genomics, Dulcetta, Focus@Will, SU Labs and Singularity University; also Venture Partnerships including Accel, August, Telesoft, Current Group LLP, Definitive Partners, and others.

Reese has academic experience in biophysics and human brain research at UC Berkeley, LBL, and UCSF. Jones supports public education via UC Berkeley, Wikipedia, Chabot Space Science Center, Genetics Advisory Counsel at Harvard Medical School, Trustee at Singularity University at NASA Ames and Trustee at Santa Fe Institute.

No mention of OneTaste?

AngelList

[angel.co]

Reese Jones

Trustee @Singularity University I like building infrastructures: mobile, media, wireless, broadband, internet, health, synthetic biology; silicon valley veteran


VC

Accel Partners
Cambrian Genomics Founder
August Capital Employee
Accel Partners Employee
Jobvite Investor

Founder
Cambrian Genomics, Smaato, Netopia, Farallon Computing

Team Member
Accel Partners, August Capital, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, UCSF

Investor
Jobvite, Moon Express, PhoneTell, Motricity, liveBooks, Arris Networks, Self Health Network, Smaato, Current Group, Netopia, RDCb


What I Do
I'm a valley experienced entrepreneur; a dozen successful ventures. 10 years as CEO growing 0 to 300 employees. Start-up through VC, M&A & IPO experiences to >$1b. I like start, patents, IP, design, branding, monetization, legal, governance, difficult people & teams, infrastructure & board strategy

Achievements
I've invented twisted pair networking ("BaseT") standard internet wiring and extended broadband infrastructure for cable, telco, grid, wireless, & internet media. I first commercialized digitized sound in computers and produced the first sound use over internet -- these became standards for apps, games, media, internet phones, speech, VoIP, iPods, tablets, computers, routers, music, internet video, entertainment, voice AI and internet infrastructure generally.

I've bootstrapped a company from 0-300 employees by frugal operations (no early investors, only very profitable sales & operations), then raised VC, many M&A, and IPO.

A decade of biophysics at UC Berkeley, a Lester Fellow, serve HMS's Genetics Advisory Council, I'm a Trustee at Santa Fe Institute, a Trustee at Singularity University & assist multiple related ventures. I'm early and active in digital biology infrastructure.

Skills
Biophysics, Digital Media, Infrastructure, Mobile, Sound, Synthetic Biology, Wireless Networking

Services
Board Members, Co-Founders

What I'm Looking For
like lean startup minimum viable product, market need focus, technical founding team, worldwide perspective for infrastructure as platform, exponential people/revenue scale, articulate how business makes profits, like early stage pre-revenue addressing a clear need + solution to customer's problem

Markets
Big Data, Consumers, Health Care, Infrastructure, Media, Mobile, Personal Health, Sensors, Social Commerce, Synthetic Biology, Wireless

Locations
Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley

OneTaste San Francisco, CA

www.meetup.com/OneTasteSFBay/members/13664599/
[www.meetup.com]

Reese Jones
Location:
San Francisco, CA
Hometown: San Francisco

Interests
· singularity · Meditation · Sexuality Awareness · Open Relationships · Dating and Relationships · Spirituality · Human Sexuality · Sensuality and Intimacy