Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

No criminal laws are written to specifically take into account psychological trauma to the victim of the crime. The laws describe only the actions that constitute a violation of the law. And offenders are charged only with the laws they have actually broken. The psychological impact of the crime on the victim is not part of the offense, or even part of the seriousness of the crime.

For instance, if you enter my house, without my consent, and remove my property, without my consent, you will be charged with the crime of burglary. How your crime psychologically or emotionally affected me, as the victim, isn't part of what you are charged with or punished for. I might have all sorts of traumatic reactions as a result of your burglary (a feeling of being unsafe in my home, nightmares about someone breaking in again, etc.), but you will still be charged only with burglary.

I think it is really the same with sexual offenses. They may be graded in terms of the degree of physical assault involved, with those involving more serious physical penetrations of the victim's bodies as carrying harsher penalties. So forced sexual intercourse (either male on male or male on female) is punished more harshly than forced fondling of the genitals or breasts, because it involves penetration of the body--the assault on the body, and the physical trauma to the victim is greater with intercourse than it is with fondling.

So rapes are among the most serious types of sexual assaults--they involve penetrations of the bodies of the victim with a penis. In some places, like England, the term "rape" is used only with a male offender and a female victim. In other places, the male on male forced anal intercourse is also legally regarded as rape. Even where the male on male situation is not legally called a "rape" (in NYS state, for instance, it is called "deviate sexual intercourse" and I think it is a violation of a sodomy law) it is now regarded with the legal seriousness and punishments that would go along with a similar rape charge.

Quote:

Please compare the violence and trauma of a person who has been forcibly entered with a penis versus a person forcibly entered with a police baton. Please compare the psychological nature of the aggressors in both cases.

There is no way of comparing the psychological nature of the aggressors. That is not a relevant factor of the law. The law simply refers to the act committed.

An object can cause considerable physical damage, much more than penetration with a penis might cause. Because this type of assault is not called a rape does not mean it is not punished as severely as the crime of rape is punished. It is punished just as severely.

Quote:

When the woman or man who is forcibly entered with a non-penis confesses they were raped, are you going to correct them? Are you going to tell me that you're going to place your hand on their shoulder and tell them "I'm sorry, I think you mean that you were sexually assaulted. You weren't raped." No. I don't believe you would.

First you applaud Canada for doing away with the term "rape" and using "sexual assault" instead, and now you are saying we need the legal term "rape"? Funny you should say that, because I read that, since Canada stopped using the term "rape", that the sentences, for that same crime, are not quite as severe. So there is an emotional weight to the term "rape" which might argue in favor of retaining it.

In ordinary everyday speech we may not always use terms in the exact way as the law does. Because the person feels they have been "raped" with an object, doesn't mean that their attacker will be charged with a rape.

Most sexual assault laws distinguish between unwanted penetration of the body by a penis or by an object. They are two different types of crimes. Penetration by an object is not legally designated as "rape". In NYS, for instance, it is called Aggravated Sexual Abuse, and there are various degrees of this crime.

Quote:

S 130.70 Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree.
1. A person is guilty of aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree
when he inserts a foreign object in the vagina, urethra, penis or rectum
of another person causing physical injury to such person:
(a) By forcible compulsion; or
(b) When the other person is incapable of consent by reason of being
physically helpless; or
(c) When the other person is less than eleven years old.
2. Conduct performed for a valid medical purpose does not violate the
provisions of this section.
Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree is a class B felony.

Notice that crime is a class B felony. But, so is this one...

Quote:

S 130.35 Rape in the first degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages
in sexual intercourse with another person:
1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
or
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years
old or more.
Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.

So, what difference does it make whether it is called rape if a penis is involved, but aggravated sexual abuse if an object is involved? The important thing is that the crime being charged fits the description of what was done to the victim. One is not a "lesser" crime compared to the other--they are both class B felonies, and carry the same sorts of punishments.

This is a description of all the sex offenses in NYS. It really covers everything.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm

Also, you have to remember that there are different degrees of all of the types of sexual assaults. Some rapes carry harsher penalties than other rapes,etc. And you can have more than one count on some of these criminal charges. And sometimes force is accomplished by using a gun or knife. So those weapons charges are added. The victim might gave been held captive during the crime. That's another charge. The D.A. breaks down every element of what was done to the victim and charges the offender with as many different crimes as he thinks he can get convictions on. So just because a serious sexual assault isn't called a "rape" doesn't mean the offender won't wind up severely punished, even more severely punished than someone convicted of rape.

Have you read the actual sexual assault laws in Canada? I'm not sure that they actually say what you think they say. I can't find them on the internet, with descriptions of the actual sexual assaults and the types of punishments they carry. It may be that rape is still rape, as a sexual assault crime involving penile penetration, but they are just not calling it "rape". The "gender neutrality" may simply be that it covers male on male penetration with a penis, as well as penetration of a female. And, if that is the case, they would not necessarily regard forced sexual intercourse of a male victim by a female as the same crime as when a male penetrates the female without consent. Do you know for sure how they treat these crimes?

I think our laws are really fair to men who are victims of sexual assaults by females. The problem isn't with the law, it's getting people to report the crime, and having enough evidence to prove it. Like the man who went to the police and said his neighbor forced him to have intercourse with her. The man isn't bruised or beaten, and he has no evidence that the sex act even occurred, let alone that it was non consensual. This is the same problem that women have had in terms of being believed, except women usually have the man's DNA as part of the rape kit evidence, so they can at least establish that sexual intercourse took place.

But, when there is no other evidence or witnesses, and it boils down to just he said/she said, how can you establish non consent, particularly in date rape situations? It's very tough. The police said they investigated the man's complaint. Well, if they spoke to the neighbor, she could deny she even had sex with the man. If she admitted to having sex, she could say he initiated it and it was consensual. So the police are left with no case, they can't arrest the neighbor without any evidence. That's what happens with most of the date rapes or acquaintance rapes reported by women. Without some evidence of force, or non consent, these cases can't go to court. So, even though men may be forced to have intercourse with females, they would have a tough time proving it wasn't consensual. But that puts them in the same boat that female victims have been in. So, finally we have gender equality.

I do think that women might sexually assault men for the same reasons that men assault women. I do think it is about dominance, power and control. I don't think it's really about sexual gratification with either gender. The notion of "sex starved females" raping men sounds like a male myth to me. Forcing someone to submit to unwanted sex is a power issue with both genders. The domination becomes an important part of the gratification, and may be the main source of gratification.

A study done in Winnipeg in the mid-1970s indicated that only 10% of original charges resulted in convictions, 20% were reduced to lesser charges, and more than 70% of the charges were filtered out of the criminal
justice system (Gunn & Minch, 1988).

Thanks Intrepid.

So I'm clear because it was confusing to me.

Quote:

A study done in Winnipeg in the mid-1970s indicated that only 10% of original charges resulted in convictions, 20% were reduced to lesser charges, and more than 70% of the charges were filtered out of the criminal
justice system (Gunn & Minch, 1988).

Just so I read this correctly, the study was done in 1970's but the quoted portion is from a publication from 1988? I was trying to make sure I understood if these numbers were from before or after. I believe this reads as these are the figures from prior to the new laws (that I have been talking aboot).

A
R
Thanks

Discussing legal language is good FF, but this topic is much larger than the law. It is emotional and social. I'm not really interested in offering a consolation such as don't worry this charge is really good too.

You are quite right that laws are not written to the trauma of the victim, however you are measuring the severity of sexual assaults as the barometer for the law. By your standard, being penetrated is the MOST traumatic form of sexual assault. How can you support this? Either of us could imagine forms of sexual assault that do not involve being penetrated which are equally or even more traumatic (physically and emotionally). Do I need to convince you of this?

My point is simple, if the degree of assault is what makes the law, then justice can't be served by creating a highest form of sexual assault and then creating a catch all for everything else.

The difference between rape being defined by the penis is to me similar to the difference in how rape is viewed once we lifted the notion that women were property of their husbands...

You're appealing to a tradition that I think should be challenged (similar to the older tradition of viewing rape as theft). Saying that the charge fits the description of the crime is one thing, but I don't think our legal language as is provides a charge that is adequate for a man seeking justice for an non-consensual act

If a [gender] boss uses coercive measures to get a [opposite gender] employee to sleep with them, it doesn't have to be violent for the law to consider it rape. We have established this. If however the gender of the employee is male, the charge is different? That is not measuring the description of the crime to the charge. If the description is written to gender, it's deficient

The main focus is changing the way photo IDs and lineups are done.

It should also be drill into the police and the court system that by all the scientific studies on victims IDing attackers had shown how very unreliable they are and therefore such “evidence” should be of secondary important and no case should be brought base on such alone.

As I said, all this can be found in details along with the studies by a fast google search.

As how do you find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by just weighing the statements of two people or perhaps even just one person?

As how do you find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by just weighing the statements of two people or perhaps even just one person?

Being able to be convincing before a jury have as must to do with guilt or innocent as being able to win a trial by combat did in by-gone days.

In addition, yes that mean that rapists will go free but it will also mean that innocents men will not be send to prison because the accuser could be more convincing telling falsehoods then the innocent person can be telling the truth.

Quote:

Discussing legal language is good FF, but this topic is much larger than the law. It is emotional and social. I'm not really interested in offering a consolation such as don't worry this charge is really good too.

I agree with you that the topic is much larger than the law, and that's why it touches on emotional and social issues that go beyond the specific laws.

But, failures art, you are complaining about the law. You seem to want all sexual offenses considered equally egregious and, therefore, charged and punished identically.

But the law doesn't work that way, not just regarding sexual offenses, but regarding all crimes. All sexual offense laws decscribe specific actions the offender has engaged in. And some of those actions are regarded as more serious than others because they involve a greater degree of bodily harm, physical trauma, and injury to a victim. And they should carry a more substantial penalty.

Quote:

You are quite right that laws are not written to the trauma of the victim, however you are measuring the severity of sexual assaults as the barometer for the law. By your standard, being penetrated is the MOST traumatic form of sexual assault. How can you support this? Either of us could imagine forms of sexual assault that do not involve being penetrated which are equally or even more traumatic (physically and emotionally). Do I need to convince you of this?

My point is simple, if the degree of assault is what makes the law, then justice can't be served by creating a highest form of sexual assault and then creating a catch all for everything else.

This isn't my standard, it is the standard of existing law. A sexual assault that involves penetration of the victim's body, by either a penis or an object, is considered the most serious, and I think you will find that true globally.

I looked through that entire list of all the things classified as sexual offenses in NYS and I do not see any other sexual offenses that could cause an equivalent degree of physical trauma, pain, and injury when compared to the offenses involving penetration with a penis or object. And those other sexual offenses are not "catch all", they are all separate and distinct actions toward a victim which an offender could be charged with.

The law has to separate out different actions. An offender can only be charged with offenses that meet the physical description of what he or she actually did. It makes no sense, either legally or logically, to lump together penetrations of the victim's body by a penis and by an object. They are quite different acts. In one case, a part of the offender's body, the penis, is used to penetrate, and, in the other, it is an inanimate object. But, despite the fact that these crimes have different names, they are of equivalent severity and carry equivalent punishments.

I am not sure why it matters to you that one type of penetration is called rape and the other is called aggravated sexual assault. Justice is served when both carry equal penalties for the damages and physical trauma and injury inflicted on the victim.

The offender who uses a police baton to penetrate the victim is just as severely punished as the one who uses a penis, in fact, the one who uses the baton may be even more severely punished if he or she caused bodily injury with the baton. Not all degrees of rape are that severely punished, some are, but some aren't.

Rape, as a crime of forced intercourse committed by a man, with his penis, against a female victim, has a long history in the law (and in religions). It describes a very specific act that is widely understood and agreed on as a crime.

Beyond the law, this act against the female victim encompasses all sorts of other things people in varying parts of the world have concerns about--notions about virginity, family honor, the marital "rights" of a husband to force sex with his wife, etc.

There is also another fact that can enter in, which the law really doesn't explicitly consider, and that is the fact that a pregnancy can occur as a result of this unwanted intercourse, and that is not true of other types of sexual assaults. Not only may a female be forced to have sexual intercourse against her will, she may wind up impregnated against her will.

There have been changes made in the laws to include male victims of a non consensual act that includes penetration by a penis--male on male anal rape.
This was, and is, an attempt to provide gender equality for an equivalent crime against a male victim. In some places the crime against the male is called "rape" and in other places it is called "forced deviate sexual intercourse" ( because of a view of anal sex as "unnatural"). In either case, it is regarded as seriously as the crime against the female, and it is punished accordingly. So gender equality has been achieved for victims of similar crimes.

What you would like is for the crime of forced sexual intercourse, with a female offender and a male victim, to be considered rape, and identical to the act of forced intercourse with a female victim. I'm not sure that they are identical acts.

In the case of the female victim, her body is penetrated with the penis and, in the case of the male victim, no penetration, or invasion of his body has occurred.

I'm not even sure that both victims would even experience a similar degree of physical pain and trauma from the intercourse because of the gender differences.

Both situations, those with the male victim, and those with the female victim, involve forced intercourse, but they do not involve precisely the same act by the offender. The female isn't inserting anything into the male body when she forces him to have sexual intercourse.

I think the crime against the male victim is a different crime than the one against the female in terms of forced sexual intercourse. I think the crimes should have separate names and not both be called "rape". But I think that they should carry similar penalties.

I think that in some places the crime of forced intercourse with a male victim and a female offender may also be called "forced deviant intercourse" to distinguish it from the crime with a female victim, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Because it seems that women aren't being tried for this sort of crime, it's hard to find out what kinds of charges would actually be used in such a case.

And, realistically, a man would be much, much less likely to be the victim of the more brutal stranger rapes that warrant the most severe rape charges.

I do want to see equal justice for a male victim. I'm more concerned that the penalties be similar for similar crimes against male and female victims than that the legal charges have the same name. In the case of penetration with objects, there is already no distinction made on the basis of the gender of the victims, and there is no assumption that the offender would be male--such an act can be done by either a man or a woman.

I can understand why you think it's unfair that an act of forced intercourse should be considered differently depending on the gender of the victim. I think it should have a legally different name than the crime with the female victim for the reasons I've already stated. But I also am not sure I'd have a really strong objection if both were called rape, although I think most of the cases with male victims would fall into the date rape/acquaintance rape category. And those are the hardest cases to prove in court for female victims, and it would likely be even harder to prove when the victims are adult males.

Seriously, what more should the police have done for that man who alleged he was "raped" by his neighbor. Beyond talking to the neighbor, what more, realistically could they have done? There was no evidence of sexual contact, so how could they find any evidence of rape? This is where the problem is. The problem really isn't in the way the laws are written. A D.A. can't take a case to trial without evidence, they can't even lodge charges against someone without evidence. This is the dilemma that female victims have been in. They can at least show that the sexual intercourse took place, but it is hard to demonstrate non consent with date and acquaintance rapes.

Quote:

If a [gender] boss uses coercive measures to get a [opposite gender] employee to sleep with them, it doesn't have to be violent for the law to consider it rape. We have established this. If however the gender of the employee is male, the charge is different? That is not measuring the description of the crime to the charge. If the description is written to gender, it's deficient

I think this is sexual harassment in the workplace and not rape, regardless of the genders involved. If a boss says you'll lose your job if you don't have sexual intercourse with him/her, you aren't being forced into a sex act at that precise moment.

You can lodge a sexual harassment complaint, or quit the job, etc.

the sex isn't being forced in the legal sense of forced intercourse, but you are being threatened with your job. If your boss grabs you, throws you down, ignores the fact you are saying, "No", and has sexual intercourse with you anyway, well that's a different story.

If what you say is true, what is the legal difference between genital mutilation by means of teeth (the aggressor's) versus with a sharp object versus fire? Would the penalty be greater/lesser or equal to a person who has been drugged and penetrated?

S 130.85 Female genital mutilation.
1. A person is guilty of female genital mutilation when:
(a) a person knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole
or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another
person who has not reached eighteen years of age

Malicious wounding as defined by the VA criminal code is the act of shooting, stabbing, cutting, wounding, or causing bodily injury with the intention to maim, injure, disfigure, disable, or kill.

I'm still interested if you personally tell a woman that was penetrated by an object other than a penis that she was not raped...

Not all rapes assume the violent model. How many rape stories exist where a woman says no, and then is coerced into compliance (not consent)? A rape victim may even remove her own clothes. She may act in exactly the way that she believe she needs to act to avoid violence or desertion or bribery or etc etc etc. In these cases, physical pain is not the identifier I think you want to endorse.

. "Forcible compulsion" means to compel by either:
a. use of physical force; or
b. a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of
immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another
person, or in fear that he, she or another person will immediately be
kidnapped.

Judge Orders Rape Survivors to Take Lie-Detection Test
March 19, 2010 by Shira Tarrant · 19 Comments

File this under “For Real?!”

Cleveland, Ohio Juvenile Court Judge Alison Floyd is forcing sexual assault survivors to take polygraph tests before their attackers are sentenced. To date, at least four teenage girls have been ordered to do so. All have refused.

According to reports from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, even prosecutors see the problem. Ordering sex crime survivors to undergo polygraph testing exceeds judicial authority over victims, says Assistant County Prosecutor Nicole Ellis.

Plain Dealer reporters Rachel Dissell and Leila Atassi write that Judge Floyd also “ordered the teenage boys who were accused of rape and other sex crimes in those cases to undergo polygraph examinations as part of an assessment done before the teens would be sentenced.” Although the defendants have not objected, this raises procedural concerns about due process for teens in the legal system.

But back to the sexual assault survivors. Still not sure what the problem is? Here’s the breakdown:

• The judge’s order may violate Ohio’s rape shield law, which is intended to prevent courts from effectively trying the victim instead of the defendant.

• Forcing victims to take a polygraph test violates the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

• Polygraph testing can be intimidating for rape survivors who already have difficulty in coming forward. Cleveland Rape Crisis Center president and CEO Megan O’Bryan tells Ms.:

We want to create a culture where survivors are supported in coming forward. Forced polygraph testing sends a message that survivors’ stories are not believed.

This sort of order contributes to the fact that sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. The National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) indicates that a mere 39 percent of rapes or sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement agencies.

Of those assaults reported, even fewer lead to convictions, partly because of extreme delays in testing rape kits. Yet, according to a 2009 publication by researchers from The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women, false reports of sexual assault are only between 2 to 8 percent. Ashleigh Klein, a Los Angeles-based sexual assault prevention educator, points out that polygraph testing adds to problem of discouraging reporting and encouraging misinformation. She tells Ms.:

In my work I repeatedly hear the myth that women lie about rape to get back at men or because they are embarrassed by what they have done. We know that this just isn’t true. Reporting a rape and having a rape kit exam done can be extremely devastating to someone who has just experienced trauma. A very small percentage of women would voluntarily go through this invasive process and not be telling the truth.

Clearly, when it comes to sexual assault, what’s needed is more streamlined criminal justice procedure, not further blockades to victim support. We hope Judge Floyd gets the message.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/03/19/judge-orders-rape-survivors-to-take-lie-detection-test/

Legal Ethics
Judge Who Ordered Rape-Victim Polygraphs May Be Reconsidering
Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:49 PM CDT
By Martha Neil

An Ohio juvenile judge who ignited a firestorm of criticism by ordering young sexual assault victims to take lie-detector tests after she found their alleged attackers delinquent seems to be reconsidering whether the polygraphs were a good idea.

Although Cuyahoga County Juvenile Judge Alison Floyd hasn't commented publicly about her handling of the cases, she said in a journal entry that she ordered the lie-detector tests for a victim and the defendant in one case to resolve the "significant discrepancy" in their stories and "verify his truthfulness to determine an appropriate treatment services and an appropriate victim and community safety plan," reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

At the same time, however, she acknowledged that she lacks jurisdiction to order a victim to take a lie-detector test after resolving the case with a delinquency finding. At this point, none of the victims has complied with the judge's polygraph order, according to the newspaper.

The judge's action was opposed by victims, women's advocacy groups and prosecutors, who argued in one filing that the judge was trying to re-investigate a decided case. Ms. Magazine also editorialized that it violates the federal Violence Against Women Act and might violate Ohio's rape shield law to treat victims in this manner.

"We are very concerned that these actions will discourage other rape survivors from coming forward," says Megan O'Bryan of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, which has worked with some teen victims concerned. "All survivors should feel believed and supported at all stages of the criminal justice process, but especially after their perpetrator is found guilty or adjudicated."
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_who_ordered_rape-victim_polygraphs_may_be_reconsidering/

This goes on in trials all the time, not just with rape trials. Jurors listen to witnesses, experts, the victim, and only sometimes, the defendant, if he or she decides to take the stand. And it is the jurors who decide who is to be believed and which evidence is most compelling. Most of the time, the defendant does not take the stand to give testimony. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case--the defendant is presumed innocent.

Sorry with no other proof but the word of one person again another there is no way on it face that the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt can be met.

The law used to agree also that such is not enough proof in many places and it should be change back at once.

Man Accused Of US Rape Is A French TV Star
Saturday July 31, 2010
Sarah Gordon, Sky News Online

A man arrested for raping a Russian tourist and harassing multiple other women in New York City, has been identified as a French-born television presenter.

Hugues-Denver Akassy was arrested on Tuesday after allegedly attacking a Russian woman he had arranged to meet for a picnic in New York's Riverside Park on Manhattan's Upper West Side.

His website claims he is an award-winning journalist and executive producer of a programme on French cable channel Orbite TV which has broadcast profiles of some of the world's most important people from Kofi Annan and Bill Clinton.

Aside from the rape charge, Paris-raised Akassy is accused of a string of charges against women including aggravated harassment and trespass.

In 2009 he was first accused of harassment when he chased a 33-year-old woman on an Upper West Side street and yelled at her after she spurned his advances.

The 42-year-old also allegedly sent a woman an email which read: "You are a pathetic retarded girl. You gain a reputation for being obnoxious and disgusting. You are shameful and do not deserve my attention."

A trespass charge was brought against him a week ago when he was found on the fire escape of a 33-year-old woman on the city's West 75th Street.

Akassy has already been charged with two other counts of trespass after turning up at a New York gym from which he had been barred.

The Russian woman alleges that she agreed to join the journalist for a picnic after meeting him at the Time Warner Centre which houses an upmarket shopping mall.

However, after eating, he took her to a scenic lookout point where she alleges he raped her.

When asked about the case, Akassy's attorney, Howard Simmons, said the Frenchman acknowledges having sex with the 43-year-old woman, but insists it was consensual.

Akassy is currently being held on $100,000 (about £63,000) bail while he awaits a court hearing.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/New-York-Man-Who-Allegedly-Raped-Rusian-Tourist-Is-A-French-Born-Television-Presenter/Article/201007415674298?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15674298_New_York_Man_Who_Allegedly_Raped_Rusian_Tourist_Is_A_French-Born_Television_Presenter

A date with the 'rapist'
By MANDY STADTMILLER

Last Updated:August 2, 2010

He was loud, boisterous, complimentary and charming -- and now he's accused of rape.

The man being called the Riverside Rapist, a smooth, handsome, 42-year-old, French-born TV reporter named Hugues-Denver Akassy, hit on me as I shopped at the Fifth Avenue Apple store.

Akassy -- now charged with raping a tourist last week and facing lesser raps in an alleged two-year reign of terror against women on streets, in sports clubs and even on fire escapes -- was so friendly, so charismatic.

In May 2007, we met for our first and only date at a restaurant he described in an e-mail as a "cosy [sic] cave-bar called Shalel right on the corner of 70th & Columbus."

Also right near sprawling, darkly lit Central Park.

He was impeccably dressed, and Akassy and I drank a bottle of wine together in one of the private corners, with a curtain drawn.

He immediately started lavishing me with compliments. I was so beautiful and sophisticated and intelligent. I was hungry, but he said we didn't need much food and poured us more red wine.

Less than an hour into the date, he pressed himself into me and started kissing me intensely. Looking back, I shudder at how aggressive he was -- and I regret not listening to my internal warning bell.

Akassy then suggested we go for a walk along Central Park, where he spoke fondly of John Lennon and Strawberry Fields and held my hand all too possessively. It was unnerving and deceptive. I had just met him.

"I guess one of the beauties and mysteries of the life's journey are special people you meet along the way," he wrote me in a broken-English e-mail shortly after we met in March.

When I started the dating column "About Last Night" for The Post later that summer, I decided to write about my awful date with Akassy, calling him "Mr. Whip It Out" and explaining just how "uncomfortable" he made me.

What I didn't say then I'm ready to tell now. That night, when we walked to Central Park, when he took me to the water, his kissing very quickly led to his leading my hand down to his pants and begging me to touch him. I told him I didn't feel comfortable, but he was so aggressive. He kept unzipping his pants, making me touch him, and trying to put his hands down my dress. I remember telling him I wasn't going to have sex with him, and he was so insistent.

And then he tried to guilt me into doing it. He yelled at me and turned angry. He said I was a "sexy brat provocateur." I was stunned.

And lucky. Very lucky. The whole thing was like a terrible dream. We left Central Park, and I stared down at the dirty sand in the park as he rambled about how difficult it was for him to deal with a cellphone bill. The entire night was revolting.

Learning about the Russian tourist who alleges that Akassy raped her Tuesday, the word to describe how I feel goes beyond "horrified." I've always imagined myself to be so tough, so untouchable, so essentially protected in Manhattan. People tell me I must have good guardian angels.

I'm starting to believe them now.

The problem with men like Akassy is that they turn romantic idealists like me into doubters -- because I want to believe men are essentially wonderful hearted and don't try to bully you into sex in Central Park on a first date.

Akassy ruins it. He ruined my night then, and he ruins the reputation of all the good guys who just want to take a romantic stroll along the park.

My column was where I deployed my revenge.

I wrote of telling him to stop "with just enough legal pull to indicate I-will-prosecute-you-Mr.-Whip-It-Out-oh-yes-I-will." I almost wanted to warn the entire city of Akassy.

After our date, I ignored his text messages, which turned increasingly ugly.

When his Orbite TV show continued to e-mail me newsletters, I wrote back, bitterly, "Thank you, Hugues-Denver! Am hoping you've been able to keep it in your pants."

I received an e-mail back telling me of my "insanity." A common pattern, apparently. One of his accusers says he continued to terrorize her, writing that she was a "pathetic retarded girl."

It makes me shudder to think of this, at first glance, friendly, boisterous man I met at the Apple store by chance.

He seemed so normal, e-mailing me once that we were "just two dear companions who enjoy each other company to explore the beauties of life."

No, Akassy -- you are beauty turned inside out.

[email protected]
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/date_with_the_rapist_ywrdGg4YUqQ6rcwiR08zVI

Rape suspect Hugues Akassy attacked me too, prosecutor says
BY Melissa Grace and Bill Hutchinson
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Tuesday, August 3rd 2010, 4:00 AM

An assistant district attorney has told probers she was a victim of sexual abuse by the same smooth-talking homeless man busted for raping a tourist in Riverside Park.

The jaw-dropping bombshell was revealed Monday by the lawyer for accused sex fiend Hugues Akassy.

"There is another victim who is an assistant district attorney - it's of a sexual nature," defense attorney Howard Simmons told reporters outside Manhattan Criminal Court.

Simmons said he was told by the Manhattan district attorney's office that a working prosecutor claimed Akassy, 42, victimized her.

"It was not rape," Simmons insisted, adding he knew nothing more of the stunning allegations.

It was unclear if the victim works as a prosecutor in Manhattan or elsewhere.

The Manhattan DA's office refused to comment.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/08/03/2010-08-03_rape_suspect_attacked_me_too_prosecutor_sez.html

Apart from anecdotes and your own generalized anxieties, do you know of any studies that show that the victims of criminal sexual assault are any more likely than the victims of other crimes to misidentify defendants

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you have evidence for your position, it's your job to find it.

I don't see a problem releasing his photo. Afterall, anyone who is arrested anymore can easily end up on TV or in the papers. In this case, it looks like it is going to really help get this person off the streets!