Some people never learn.
After serving 18 months for sexually assaulting not one, not two, but five men after posing online as a woman, a Melbourne man is officially headed back to prison for doing the exact same thing less than three months after being released.
Last Christmas, serial catfisher Peter Valsamakis tricked an unnamed 21-year-old man into coming over to his house by making him think he was meeting up with a woman.
Valsamakis pretty much used the same play book as before. After exchanging several texts and photos on the dating app Skout, he invited the victim over, but insisted he blindfold himself before entering the house.
With his eyes covered, the victim was brought inside and sexually assaulted, prosecutor Andrew Sprague said in court this week.
Halfway through the assault, the victim removed the blindfold from his face after sensing something wasn’t right. When he saw Valsamakis, he exclaimed, “Are you f*cking serious?”
The victim jumped up and punched Valsamakis, who responded by picking up a nearby flower pot and threatening to bash it over his head.
The incident happened just 75 days after Valsamakis had completed his prison sentence for a near identical crime.
In 2018, he was sentenced to 18 months for posing online as a woman named “Michelle” and luring five unsuspecting men over to his home, blindfolding them, and performing sex acts on them under false pretenses.
After serving over 500 days behind bars, Valsamakis was released, but he was brought back not long after his release for breaking his parole.
Yesterday, Valsamakis’s attorney, David Swan, said his client feels “ashamed” of his behavior then tried arguing that he only grabbed the flower pot after he felt threatened by the victim he was in the middle of sexually assaulting, to which Judge Patricia Riddell responded, “What does he expect is going to happen when this man discovers it’s not the woman he saw photos of?!”
Swan also argued that Valsamakis, who is 44, still suffered from the trauma of being bullied at school as a kid and being rejected by his family members.
But Judge Riddell was unmoved, calling Valsamakis’s behavior “frustrating” after he had already served prison time for doing the exact same thing five other times and had not made use of the support services offered to him.
Valsamakis will be sentenced later this month.
Vince
He should apply to some porn company where they can use his talents like bait bus or something.
WSnyder
I hope everyone realizes that all the ‘ambush’ sites are all fake. All the guys who are ‘shocked’ to find I guy giving them head instead of the girl they were expecting are well aware of whats happening or talked into signing off on what happened after the fact [with $$] Now it’s possible that some sites may ‘ambush’ guys BUT they may be offered larger compensation in order for them to sign off on the legally required Release Forms. No ‘studio’ gets to publish those vids w/o Consent/Release Forms. The premise that the ‘victim’ gets left at the side of the road or ‘flees’ the scene IS all FAKE.
winemaker
Poor guy. That being said the minute he heard he needed to be blindfolded before entering the house he should have thought this was too damned weird and bolted. Some people like to live dangerously. Whenever you connect with someone on line always, always meet them in person in a public place to check them out to see of they’re who they say they area and if they look like their picture among other things. If they him and haw and give you the run around, drop ’em and block heir emails or contact as something’s just not right. be wise!
Matthewnow
Adios dirtbag
mikenyc352
I’m not sure if my thoughts about this. Cat fishing is sexual assault? Would these men have felt assaulted if it was a different woman or is it only because a guy and hence threatened their fragile masculinity? And how exactly is this assault? The guys agreed to have sexual contact with this person and agreed with the blindfold. If they wanted to know what the person looked like with whom they were having contact then don’t agree to the blindfold.
mikenyc352
Also where is the line where deception is assault? Would it be assault if the pic was of the person 20 years ago? What is the photo had filters or other digital altering to make the person seem more attractive? Is that assault?
ryanM
“The guys agreed to have sexual contact with this person”
Er, no, they did not agree to have sexual contact with THIS person. Their consent was given to a fictitious person of the opposite sex. At no point of the agreement did this man ever reveal his presence. What is it that you don’t understand?
If you had agreed a blind date with a man, and he turned out to be a masculine female, how would you feel? Most people would feel duped.
ryanM
Wow, you’re ignorant…
“Cat fishing is sexual assault?”
You clearly have no idea what catfishing is if you think that this was mere catfishing.
“And how exactly is this assault?”
You’re kidding, right? Sexual assault is unwanted sexual contact. Are you telling me that unwanted fellatio doesn’t qualify?
“Would these men have felt assaulted if it was a different woman or is it only because a guy”
So what? Since when does that play into the legal definition of sexual assault? Repeat: it’s very simple. If the sexual contact was unwanted, it’s sexual assault. If the fact that the perp was a guy made the encounter unwanted, then it was assault. Very simple.
“If they wanted to know what the person looked like”
He had sent them photos so they thought they already knew how SHE looked.
“What is the photo had filters or other digital altering to make the person seem more attractive? Is that assault?”
Totally irrelevant. You’re ignorant to the fact that sexual assault requires sexual contact, and not mere misrepresentation. If the person doesn’t look like what s/he represents, that may be fraud. But once you perform a sex act under that fraud, it becomes assault. Similar convictions have occurred when someone claimed to be HIV- when he knew he was HIV+.
The bottom line is that he KNEW it was wrong and criminal. The fact that he was previously convicted and jailed for it was proof. And he knew that it was unwanted. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have lied or made them wear a blindfold. In other words, he knowingly committed sexual assault. What is it that you don’t understand???
Chrisk
ryanM
“If you had agreed a blind date with a man, and he turned out to be a masculine female, how would you feel? Most people would feel duped.”
The difference is you wouldn’t be able to convict her of sexual assault. Double standards and Homophobia still plays a major part in most courtrooms when it comes to things like this and HIV.
Trekbike
Ryan M, I totally agree with everything you said. It dumbfounds me how so few people know what sexual assault actually is. I have to think most people who are quick to blame the victim are sexual predators themselves. Any type of unwanted sexual act whatsoever are considered sexual assault. Even sexual coercion of any kind is sexual assault. Educate yourself! Unless of course you’re a sexual predator in which you already know what sexual assault really is.
mikenyc352
First off even if I agree with your definition of sexual assault (which has no singular definition), it still doesn’t address my concern that this conviction only happened because of the disproportionate policing and gay men’s sexuality. If the circumstances involved anything beyond this person being deceptive about his gender (specifically as a male) would he have been in jail. In terms of consent and these circumstances this sexual wasn’t unwanted. He discussed the type of sexual activity he would have and agreed to it. The issue is whether that consent was real because of the fraud which is what raised the question for me about when dishonesty should equate sexual assault and I posit once again that it only becomes assault when the circumstances concern the fear of gay sexuality and the disproportionate policing of gay sexuality. Your point about hiv just reinforces my point. So I ask my very relevant question again. If these set of circumstance occurred but the fraud was the use of instagram filters, photoshop, old pictures, pics of someone else but if the same gender or really ANY circumstances but that it was a gay man, would we have had a sexual assault conviction?
jockboy1986
mikenyc352, I agree with the others. You’re incredibly ignorant about the topic, and arrogant as well. No one gives a damn if YOU agree. It’s how the Australian court defines sexual assault, and it’s how American courts define it as well. Get a clue man, RyanM broke down your ignorance point by point, and any attempts to defend your ignorance just makes you look more ignorant.
expressionlessanger
Mikenyc: “Also where is the line where deception is assault?”
You’re the only person clueless enough to ask that question. As others have said, deception is not assault. I don’t know how much more plainly it can be explained: unwanted sexual CONTACT is sexual assault. If your deception led to sexual contact that the victim would not have consented to had the truth been known, it is sexual assault. Here are the keywords for you: Unwanted, Consent, Truth and most importantly, CONTACT.
Asking if an altered photo is assault pretty much shows that you’re not serious about the topic. If you want to be taken seriously, get a clue and do some research.
mikenyc352
Making ad hominem attacks doesn’t make me seem ignorant since you neglected to address my core claim. Just like people who will point to an illegal action be a person of color to support the disproportionate over policing of BIPOC, the same happens with queer people and our sexuality. My question which none of you answered is whether there are any other set of facts similar to these but where the person wasn’t a queer male would have lead to a similar outcome. I think by the very fact that none of you have said yes makes my point. The issue here isn’t their lack of consent. They consented when they walked in the door and blindfolded themselves. The issue is a “deception” expos facto removed or negated that consent but in no other set of circumstances would anyone police that kind of behavior. The issue isn’t the deception or fraud. There are deception and frauds that lead to sexual contact all the time. The issue is that is was a deception that had a heterosexual identifying man engaging in a queer sex act. That is threatening to heteronormative institutions and so is being over policed here. If a person is having sexual contact with someone you can’t see, you know or should know that any image is probably going to be somewhat deceptive in nature. In any other set of circumstances this would be accepted.
AHappyMom
Mike, your “very relevant question” is relevant to no one but you. It has nothing to do with this case or sexual assault in general. At least not in the UK, France, Australia or the US, where I’ve lived. Even my 9yo son and his friends know better than you, making him less likely to be a sexual predator than you. Thankfully, the next generation doesn’t share your moral ambiguity or ignorance. Think about it.
cutemikey
@mikenyc352, I agree with @AHappyMom (and everyone else on this thread except you). I am blessed to be a millennial raised in a generation understand that sexual consent is not ambiguous. Nor is sexual assault. Your claim that it has “has no singular definition” perfectly illustrates your blindness. It is written in black and white as far as law enforcement is concerned, whether on Melbourne or New York City, where I live. Nor was it ambiguous in Cambridge, Mass where I attended college. It was drilled into us during orientation and it was clearly written in our handbooks. As others have said: UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT. Your claim that photo manipulation might be considered sexual assault had me laughing, then shaking my head in sadness. Likewise for your complete ignorance of catfishing. Indeed, one of the posts above quoted all your laughable claims.
Here’s a clue for you: Straight men generally don’t want to sucked off by another man. Especially one who misrepresented himself as a woman. Seriously, get a clue. The law is clear. The judge was clear. The sentiments of the others on this thread are clear.
It’s too bad that your antiquated attitudes exist to embarrass the gay male community (assuming you’re gay), which already has a bad reputation for amoral sexual predation. Your inability to see that this was clear sexual assault is thankfully in the vast minority. And dying fast, as we millennials and GenZs become the majority. Stay in the past if you want. Society will be better off for it.
rickdrapertheman
Mikenyc352,
I challenge you to find a jurisdiction in the Western world where what this man did would not be considered sexual assault. Please QUOTE the law. I further challenge you to find a place where catfishing or digital photo retouching would be considered sexual assault.
mikenyc352
@rickdrapertheman
Massachusetts
In 2008, it was reported that a Massachusetts woman, Marissa Lee-Fuentes, unknowingly had sex with her boyfriend’s brother in the dark basement that she was sleeping in. He could not be prosecuted because Massachusetts law requires that rape include the use of force.[9][10] Massachusetts State House Representative Peter Koutoujian crafted rape-by-fraud legislation in response,[11] however it did not pass because legislators found the law to be too broad.
ryanM
I assume that he’s mentally ill. He’s actually quite attractive (if you’re into bodybuilders). And he’s apparently a sex worker, who services up to 30 clients a week. In other words, he gets plenty of sex. So there’s something else driving him to do this, be it the thrill and risk, or the apparent power he has over his victims. But he gets no sympathy from me. He was apparently offered psychological help after his first conviction but he refused.
You can see his photo, clad only in a thong, in this somewhat homophobic article from his first conviction. Search on “Should this bodybuilder get more time in jail?”
TonyPSP
He figured out he really likes sex with men. Maybe he wants a captive audience of men to have sex with with 24/7. He’s a sex addict. I’m sure there is a 12 step program in prison he can attend.
Neoprene
But, but, but, your Honor….my…my CHILDHOOD! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
strap2900
The supposed victim should be convicted for being stupid.
JessPH
I can’t believe that there are guys stupid enough to enter a strangers house and have sex with “her” blindfolded. Straights. Ugh.
Troysky
@strap2900 haha
AHappyMom
Mike, your “very relevant question” is only relevant to you. It has nothing to do with this case or sexual assault in general. At least not in the UK, France, Australia or the US, where I’ve lived. Even my 9yo son and his friends know better than you, making him less likely to be a sexual predator than you. Thankfully, the next generation doesn’t share your moral ambiguity or ignorance. Think about it.