The Archbishop and the Rose: Is women’s private self-pleasure contributing to T&T’s social decline?

Disclaimer: I don’t work for Tribe Carnival. I am not a fan of the waste-generating, classist, exclusionary commercialization of Carnival.

As a former Minshall and 3Canal player and fan, if I were to resume playing mas myself, it would most likely be with a mas band like Berkley Mas or Traditional Mas and a real J’ouvert Band.

These represent to me the “Mother’s Milk” of the festival to feed us Carnival babies. Everything else is “Baby Formula”, full of maltodextrin and high fructose corn syrup.

But I also acknowledge that at the end of the day a fed Carnival Baby is all that matters. Those of us fed on Mother’s Milk will of course, have stronger cultural systems. Those fed on formula will have certain allergies and deficiencies.

Like it or not the Baby Formula Carnival model plays an economic role that cannot be removed without a model just as GDP and employment-generating, replacing it in short order. I support those trying to make that happen.

The Archbishop of Trinidad and Tobago publicly condemned Tribe Carnival’s inclusion of a personal pleasure device, the now-famous “Rose”, in its swag bag. He framed it as a final-straw, signalling the depths of social decay to which we have fallen.

But the real story here is not a sex toy. The real story is that once again, the powerful RC Church has revealed a frustrating kind of tone-deafness when it comes to what matters most to the public.

The responses to the Archbishop indicate that an overwhelming number of Trinbagonians, like most of the developed world, see masturbation as a non-issue.
You know what Trinbagonians are more concerned about?

They are grappling with the realities of an economic recession, unemployment, intense mental stress, high suicide rates, a simmering wrath exploding in violence at the drop of a hat, bullying at every level, corruption, police brutality, inequality, and an entire ecosystem of unchecked sexual crimes particularly against little children (for which the RC Church plays a major role), GBV, failing institutions and leaders beholden to avaricious, ecocidal billionaires, White Supremacists, genocidal Zionists and warmongering imperialists.

That is what is keeping people up late at night—not the thought of a middle to upper-income woman who can afford to play with Tribe Carnival, tickling her “little man in the canoe” in the privacy of her home.

• When Has Sensuality Not Been Part of Carnival?

Trinidad and Tobago’s Carnival has always carried a long, unapologetic undercurrent of sensuality and hedonism, rooted in its origins as a pre-Lenten festival historically tied to indulgence before abstinence.

Farewell to the flesh speaks to its original cultural function: a deliberate release of excess, desire, music, dance, food, and freedom before the restrictions of Lent.

But in Trinidad and Tobago, that European framework evolved into something far more layered, as formerly enslaved Africans who were closer to their sex-positive and gender-equal African spirituality and Indians who came with Divine Feminine Worship already in-tact, reshaped Carnival into a vibrant cultural expression of liberation, identity, and, most of all, resistance.

In both Afro and Indian cultures, dancing is a sensual activation of waist, hips, buttocks, thighs that are central movement and rhythm. Public joy is experienced though symbolic acts of reclaiming space, selfhood, pleasure and the playful blurring of what is sacred to pre-colonial culture and profane to the colonizers.

To pretend now that Carnival is meant to mirror church decorum is to misunderstand what Carnival has always been, even when it was strictly a Roman Catholic festival.

• “Carnival Is WOMAN!”

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the figure of the Jamette (from the French diamètre meaning “below the line”) represented women who lived and operated outside the boundaries of colonial religious respectability.

Jamettes were often working-class women still connected to their African spirituality—bold, sexually autonomous, loud, fashionable and most of all, defiant to the Victorian colonial ideal of the “proper lady”: silent, modest, meek, domesticated and controlled by a man.

Carnival is a celebration of the Jamette. It is one of the few spaces where women could exercise a radical kind of freedom to dress for themselves, act how they want, move how they want, wine without apology, laugh loudly, mock men and elites through satire, and temporarily suspend the social policing that governed their daily lives.

Calling it mere “hedonism” is reductionist when it has always been celebration with protest at its core. You see it in the bands that remain the Mother’s Milk of Carnival, like Vulgar Faction.

It exists in a lesser form in the bands that are the Baby Formula of Carnival. Bands like Tribe Carnival.

Many Baby Formula Bands leverage female beauty, female sensuality, female freedom in their marketing promotion, leading to women contributing significantly to Carnival revenue.

The more money that is generated the more elaborate their Carnival commodity becomes and yes, there is a serious discussion about capitalism, classism and cultural erasure to be had about this. But I will reign-in my neuro-spicy, short-attention-span self and stay on topic.

Tribe Carnival swag bags have contained everything from neck massagers to skin care, accessories, Bluetooth speakers, and lifestyle products intended for private enjoyment, comfort, or convenience.

The Rose belongs in that same category: a private personal wellness tool that makes women happy and healthy. We will get to the health benefits of self-administered orgasm a little later.

Tribe Carnival loyalists tend to be world-wise, tertiary educated, travelled, modern and Western-influenced. These are women who have already deconstructed body shame and religious prudery to wear the costumes in the first place.

These are not women scandalized by masturbation and sex toys. These are women cognizant of The Orgasm Gap in heterosexual intercourse and unlike previous generations, aren’t going to meekly accept: “Dais jes how it is.”

These women currently exist in an era where hook-up culture is officially dead and buried. They are living in the 4B Movement Era where partnered sex is not being generously handed out. Even the soca music reflects it.

“Bad gyal doh need no man!” sings Patrice and Nailah. Tribe must have known that upon seeing a Rose in their swag bag, their loyal clientele will say, “Yes! Yes!! YES!!!” because they do their market research.

So why are those who are not Tribe’s target audience getting offended at a band catering to its clients? Offended on behalf of whom exactly?

Some of the commentary on the matter seems to imply that women will be Roseying up their flaps and beans on the road. But it is illegal to have sex in public. It is illegal to expose genitalia in public. It is illegal to masturbate in public.

• 1Summary Offences Act (Chap. 11:02) – Obscene Exposure / Public Indecency
• Under the Summary Offences Act of Trinidad and Tobago, these are illegal:
• Obscene exposure: exposure of the body or parts in a way judged obscene.
• Exhibiting obscene prints:  distributing or displaying sexualised material in public.
• Exposure of defamatory objects: legal language sometimes used to capture indecent exposure.

Was this product issued as a “public performance accessory”? No. It was issued as a personal care gift to be used in private.

The Archbishop’s outrage (and those who share it) is not rooted in the country’s laws. So, what is it rooted in, exactly? This brings us to…

• Is Masturbation Objectively Wrong?

I am not here to convince those whose sincere religious beliefs are that it is a sin against their version of God to masturbate, to go out and buy Roses and Fleshlights and become avid converts to wankerism.

You are under no obligation to make your toes curl and eyes roll back in your head during May, which is World Masturbation Month.

Those who know me, know I defend our pluralistic society fiercely. You, as a free person in a democratic society, which has signed on to the Charter of Universal Human Rights, are allowed to impose whatever religious restrictions you like on your own body and mind.

I will defend your right to wear a hijab, grow your beard, grow your locks, get your own penis circumcised when you are of consenting age, refrain from eating pork or drinking alcohol, fight down and suppress your own homosexuality, gouge out your own eye or deprive yourself of any sexual pleasure outside of penis-vagina intercourse intended for reproduction only, within the confines of a marriage officiated by clergy of your preferred religion.

That is your Universal Human Right! I respect it.

Here’s the problem, that kind of rational tolerance is not being returned by religious fundamentalists toward everyone else. They believe everyone must share their body shame and their sexual shame.

If you want to make an objective moral argument why masturbation (female masturbation in particular) is (1) some kind of aberration of nature and (2) a causative factor in the downfall of society that requires state intervention you need more evidence than:

“Tickling your love button, makes God mad. Here’s some cherry-picked verses from men living before the Scientific Age who claimed to know what God said about it.”

Thankfully for us, science and medicine have been studying masturbation for over 100 years using the scientific method.

First question: Is it an aberration of nature? Well clearly not.

Biologists have observed it in many primate species including our own. What is evidentially natural is that the more intelligent the mammal is, the more likely it will discover it can stimulate its own genitals.

The primate called homo sapiens, because we have the most developed pre-frontal cortex, discovers it very early.

Reports using ultrasound have documented these behaviours most commonly in the third trimester (roughly 28 weeks onward), which is when our neurological infrastructure has developed sufficiently for conscious awareness of our human experience and interaction with our environment.

Yes, we wank in the womb.

Second question: Is it a causative factor in the downfall of society? Well, we need to start at the individual level.

If, all by itself, masturbation ruins mental, sexual, physical health and well-being at the individual level, we can make a scaling argument for broader societal impact.

So, does it? No.

The broad consensus among medical, psychiatric, and sexual health experts is that masturbation is normal, healthy sexual behaviour across the lifespan of a human being and it is not linked to any physical or psychological disorder all on its own, when practiced in privacy and moderation.

Furthermore, several pieces of medical research show that orgasm has positive benefits such as:

• Stress reduction (orgasms lower cortisol and trigger relaxation);
• Release of “feel-good” hormones like oxytocin, dopamine, and endorphins which can aid in things like pain relief, including reduced menstrual cramps, headaches, and general body aches;
• Improved sleep quality, especially due to post-orgasm relaxation and oxytocin release;
• Reduced risk for prostate cancer in males as well as healthier sperm production;
• Pelvic floor strengthening (orgasm contractions can help tone pelvic muscles);
• Improved blood circulation, supporting cardiovascular and tissue health;
• Temporary lowering of blood pressure due to relaxation response;
• Boosted immune function;
• Improved mood, body confidence and reduction in irritability;
• Increased vaginal lubrication, libido and vaginal health by increasing blood flow to vaginal tissues, especially for peri and menopausal women;
• Activates the parasympathetic nervous system (the “rest and digest” state) and improves metabolic function.

Additionally, solo sexual activity carries no pregnancy risk, which also reduces abortions, and no STI transmission risk—and in a society such as ours rife with GBV in intimate partner relationships, solo sexual activity is also safer than partnered sex.

Statistically speaking, a woman is safer staying single and masturbating than getting married. That may be sad, but it is true.

The most dangerous person for a woman is a male-intimate partner (married or unmarried). So, if society were serious about sexual responsibility, public health, and women’s safety, it would treat private self-pleasure as one of the safest expressions of sexuality available—especially during a time of heightened sensuality. Right?

So why is something that harms nobody else and will bring women joy, pleasure and empowerment, treated as a tipping point in social decline?

• The Church’s Long and Ugly History of Misplaced Moral Panic & Misogyny

Historically, religious patriarchy has always treated women’s sexuality as the most urgent battleground to maintaining power over humans, who are the livestock for the elite within its system.

A woman who owns her body is harder to control. A woman who knows her pleasure is harder to shame. A woman who rejects sexual guilt is harder to manipulate.

The Roman Catholic Church has been one of the world’s most prolific institutions in promoting the control, shame, and subjugation of women and the evidence is not modern “wokeness”.

It is written plainly in the Church’s own theological history, starting with its imposition of the Roman patriarchal model on what was a revolutionary new religion where women had leadership.

According to its own religious lore, Christian deities’ most loyal devotees and first witnesses to the resurrection were women. Churches were in households and women ran those households.

What ended up replacing that model was a rabidly misogynistic Roman culture.

Tertullian, one of the most influential early Christian writers, referred to women as the entry point of Satan into the world: “You are the devil’s gateway…”

John Chrysostom, later canonized as a doctor of the Church, reinforced the narrative that women were responsible for human ruin: “The woman taught once, and ruined all…”

St Thomas Aquinas, whose work shaped centuries of Catholic doctrine, argued that women were defective versions of men who did not reflect the image of God: “misbegotten, produced through error or weakness in nature”.

These attitudes shaped centuries of social norms, religious teaching, and cultural shame. They helped build the global Christian tradition of treating women’s sexuality as something dangerous, corrupting, and inherently sinful unless controlled by men.

If anyone doubts how far Catholic sexual policing has historically gone, they should look into the Church-enabled witch burnings from 1484–1600s where Pope Innocent VIII legitimized witch persecution through Summis desiderantes and Dominican inquisitor Heinrich Kramer produced Malleus Maleficarum (1486), an explicitly misogynistic demonology manual.

Essentially any woman who was not under the control of a man, rejected marriage offers from men, who was too wise, too knowledgeable, non-conformist, strong-willed, extremely talented, had wealth that was envied, knowledge of healing that was envied, was old or a widow was suspect.

Estimates range from 40,000 to 60,000 women killed in just Europe alone. We have not gotten to what was inflicted on our ancestors to force them to abandon their indigenous spirituality which had Divine Feminine Authority—female spiritual leaders, healers and sex was not shameful.

In more recent times, The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, something the late Sinéad O’Connor exposed, showed attitudes had not changed at all.

The millions of women in sub-Saharan Africa who died of Aids because of Roman Catholic’s preaching against condom use. The women and children who suffered because of the Church’s negative interference in women’s reproductive health.

The practice of the Church in discouraging women in abusive marriages from divorcing and shaming those who do because the sacrament of marriage is more important than the well-being of those in it. It’s a pattern.

Sinéad O’Connor openly spoke about her own experience in a Catholic institution that had formerly been one of the Magdalene Laundries when she was a teenager.

She reflected on how the Magdalene Laundry system, under Church and state authority, treated girls and women as morally suspect and disposable, not as people deserving of dignity or care.

Her experiences helped fuel her intense criticism of the Catholic Church’s role in exploiting and mistreating vulnerable women—a theme she connected to her broader activism about sexual abuse and institutional power.

So is it really that difficult to understand that when an Archbishop condemns a sex toy for women, in a Carnival bag, it does not feel like “moral leadership” but the latest echo of a very old obsession?

What makes it seem even more of a misdirection of moral outrage is that Trinidad and Tobago has recently been rocked by reports surrounding child sexual abuse allegations connected to a Catholic-run institution.

Nobody I know, with a shred of empathy, who read The Sabga Report has come out of that experience with an unaltered nervous system. So, imagine what the children went through.

Five men filed a lawsuit alleging abuse while at St Dominic’s Children’s Home, naming the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Port of Spain among defendants.

Last year, it also became public that Roman Catholic educational institutions are rife with bullying by boys of higher economic status and the religious leaders just allow it to happen, afraid of losing favour with wealthy families—laying the foundations of classism and a precedent of Might = Right at decision-making levels.

An adult woman giving herself an orgasm in her home (with or without her significant other or spouse) breaks no ethical law and violates nobody’s human rights. A child being raped or abused or bullied with no redress does.

So why, instead of a sermon and full-scale moral crusade against child abuse, bullying and class-privilege, are we getting a sermon against a pleasure product for adult women, in a swag bag during a festival with its roots in sensuality and female sexual liberation?

The Archbishop’s denunciation may sound like righteous concern to those who accept the Church as an unquestionable moral authority. But even the Church must know that number has shrunk and is shrinking rapidly.

Lost moral high ground cannot be regained by grandstanding on non-issues.

Wired868 has provided readers with solid, independent journalism since 2012. If you appreciate our work, please contribute to our efforts. Support Independent Journalism