Legitimizing Pedophilia Opens Door to Predators

Article excerpt

If I never met Sam on the Internet, would this have happened? This has played on my mind for a year-and-a-half.... How can I not feel something about it? I do, in a way." That was Stephen Simmons, 45, of Holbrook, N.Y., a twice-convicted pedophile, quoted in the Bergen County (N.J.) Record March 24 regarding his yearlong sexual relationship with then-14-year-old Sam Manzie and Manzie's subsequent murder of Eddie Werner, age 11.

It appears that Simmons didn't force Manzie to engage in the sexual encounters -- both Simmons and Manzie claim it was by "consent." Law-enforcement officials stress that consent is irrelevant to the charges against Simmons because of Manzie's age. Simmons, like other pedophiles, including those organized at the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, vehemently denies that "consensual" sex with a child is "child sex abuse." Until recently, this self-serving excuse has been rejected by reputable mental-health professionals, sex-crimes investigators and anyone with common sense who knows and cares about children (see cover story, p. 10).

Last July, the unthinkable happened. This pedophile propaganda gained official status when the American Psychological Association, or APA, published a study by three professors, Bruce Rind from Temple University, Philip Tromovitch from the University of Pennsylvania and Robert Bauserman from the University of Michigan. "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," a quantitative analysis of 59 studies, sparked vehement criticism because of its conclusion that "child sexual abuse does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population."

Basically, the authors want a redefinition Of "child sexual abuse." If it was "a willing encounter" between "a child and an adult" or "an adolescent and adult" with "positive reactions" on the part of the child or adolescent, it no longer would be called "child sexual abuse." It would be labeled scientifically as "adult-child sex" or "adult-adolescent sex." The authors want society to use a "value-neutral term." They don't want us to be judgmental about these matters. Keep this in mind as you consider Simmons' relationship with Manzie.

The New York Times reported on Oct. 3,1997, that "[Manzie] was hanging around a homosexual chat line. [T]he convicted pedophile lured him from an online chat room to his home on Long Island and to motel rooms in Ocean and Monmouth counties [N.J.]." Their first encounter, which was sexual, took place on Aug. 10, 1996; others occurred Sept. 29, Oct. 1 and Dec. 15. Simmons left a trail of credit-card payments and the license-plate number of his car on motel-registration cards. Police found child pornography on Simmons' computer when they arrested him at his home -- no surprise there.

After the first sexual encounter, Manzie's behavior changed drastically. His grades, which had been straight A's, plummeted. He became angry and violent and spent five weeks in bed.

The Manzies took their son to a mental-health facility where a counselor learned of Manzie's yearlong homosexual relationship with Simmons and reported it to police as required by law. At first, Manzie cooperated with police and allowed them to attach recording equipment to his phone line and monitor any conversations with Simmons. On Sept. 22, Manzie's counselors learned that he had smashed the equipment, destroyed some tapes of calls and told Simmons about the investigation. Manzie's doctor recommended that he be placed in a 24-hour treatment program.

After two days in another facility, Manzie's parents were told that he was ready to be discharged. They protested and refused to take him home because they believed he was a danger to himself as well as others. The doctors assured them that he was not suicidal or homicidal. The next morning, Sept. 23, Manzie appeared before Judge James N. …