Aimee Louise Sword
For long-time fans of PYSIH, you will recognize a wonderful vindication of sorts. Many stories on this site often attract friends, relatives and the like to come and defend their own special criminal.
When this story first broke the waves of the media, it was so un-fucking-believable that it automatically was relegated to tabloid status. And, like all stories dealing with human trash, there was an onslaught of supporters of the perp stating how she was innocent and that the victim was the real villain — You people slinging blame just don’t know all the facts!
Oh, yes. Innocent, innocent, innocent. With this case, some had the audacity in the comment sections of articles posted to liken the “poor” child-raper to Christ on the cross and His sufferings.
Well, turns out the perp came clean in a court of law and pleaded guilty as charged. Yep. Owned up to it being all HER fault. She doesn’t know why she did it, but yep, it was all on her.
Sooooooooo, it is with great pleasure that I can ask all of those denizens of denial, “How’s that working for ya now?”
Let’s get to the story, a story of incest, rape, psychological manipulation, emotional trauma and a life-sentence of being totally screwed up.
Depending on the personal belief of the reporter, you can tell by the headline how he/she really feels about the story:
Michigan Mom in Prison For Getting Intimate With Her Own Son
Mother Sleeps With Son She Gave Up For Adoption (no link)
If you think that perhaps you are seeing more than one news story, then it is perfectly understandable as you’d never be able to tell that it is one and the same story. In various headlines, the crime is described as: rape, sexual assault, incest, sex, affair, a summer romance, physical relations – but “Mother sleeps with son” has got to take the cake. It sounds like a police state over-reaction to a mother sleeping in the same bed with her son!
And summer romance?
Give me a break!!
Overall, the predominate tone is hushed, muted. Few papers were calling it rape or sexual assault. The headline where it states “Aimee L. Sword sentenced to 30 years in prison for having physical relations with her son” is a real work of art. From the headline, one could suspect that something happened under the banner “physical relations” and that Aimee was being unduly punished.
Papers that felt she was being treated harshly reported the upper limit of her sentence and it is only once you read the body of the article that you find out that she is sentenced to 9 to 30 years in prison, with 9 years mandatory before consideration of parole.
Furthermore, the people who raved on and on about how innocent Aimee was built their house of cards around vilifying the victim. Should we be surprised? Nah. This kind of thing goes on all the time. When the facts aren’t out there (as they were under wraps here with Aimee), then the next best thing is to spew whatever you can in terms of shit at the target – the victim – and some shit is bound to stick.
The worst of it came from her supporters – Aimee was really “forced” into having sex with the boy, don’t cha know? He laid on a guilt trip on her about her giving him up for adoption and she felt like she had to have sex with him. Well, that was one story. It actually makes it a tale of rape in reverse – the child raped Aimee.
Well, Aimee’s supporters didn’t stop there. He was said to be a 17-year-old gangbanger who was in serious trouble with the law all the time. He was diagnosed bipolar, he was on the run, he was into drugs, he was … well, just short of Adolph Hitler right?
While they were busy shooting down her boy, the denizens of decorum were busy saying that the fruit of her loins was a piece of white trash. Really. That’s what it amounts to.
So how did they deal with the fact that Aimee has (sort of) confessed and pleaded guilty? Aimee swears it was just the one time that they had sex, but the boy said it was many times, and the prosecutors have the hotel records of several trysts. They don’t know the exact number, but they know it was more than once.
Back to her supporters. Well, I would like to tell you that these idiots finally came forth and apologized for demonizing said boy, but we know that ain’t the way the world works.
There appears to be a movement afoot that would, if the genders were reversed, be stomach-churning and nauseating.
It would seem that there is a plethora of incest-supporters out in internet-land. It is sad that the excuses weren’t so freely posted before, but there appears to be a “new” study that indicates Genetic Sexual Attraction as an affliction one psychologist seems to think explains this all away.
Forgive me for being old-fashioned, but there already is a term that explains a mother sleeping with her son: INCEST.
But these people would have you believe that it was something Aimee couldn’t help. This is bullshiting a bullshit theory at its best because GSA was only dreamed up to explain couples who DO NOT KNOW they are related, meet and fall in love. It was theorized that this thing can happen and that there was a psychological explanation lurking nearby.
In Aimee’s case, one must first examine the facts. She gave the child up for adoption two days after she gave birth to him. She did receive updates from the adopting family about her boy throughout his life. She was kept in contact with his progress. When she didn’t receive an update when she felt she should have after his 14th birthday in 2008, she took matters into her own hands and she used the internet to track him down, primarily through Facebook and Myspace.
Aimee found him and got to see a recent photograph of him. In her own words, at court, she said that when she saw his picture, it wasn’t a mother-son feeling she experienced: it was a girlfriend-boyfriend feeling.
All together now: EEEEEWWWWWWWWW!!!
And, knowing, as all people do that the feelings she was having were wrong, and a clear sign she needed psychotherapy, in a perfect world, she would have signed herself up for frequent appointments at the local psych ward.
But as we know, she didn’t do anything smart like that. After all, she’s a narcissist. What she saw was a perfect way to travel back in time and use the boy she got pregnant with fourteen years ago. Sort of an easy way to recapture her youth, know what I mean?
As the boy was having problems in Grand Rapids, Aimee suggested the boy come stay with her for a while. The adopted parents, feeling that maybe some time with his biological mother may help him with the terrible teens all that angst and stuff, agreed.
Remember folks, at the time, she is MARRIED and has FIVE children living in her home. She is 35 years old and she looks her little boy up in his 14TH year. Essentially, this 35-year-old woman is having the hots for a 14 year old boy. We are looking at a BIG gap. Some papers try to skew the facts and let the reader assume that the age difference ain’t so big. She was a teenager when she gave him up – nope, she was at least 21 years old. Another said she gave her son up ten years ago – nope, at least 14 years ago. But that story said she gave him up when he was 5 years old. See,, whatever Aimee’s fans want to spin, then they play fast and loose with the facts. If she had actually given him up at 5 years of age, then it would have been even worse.
The media has tried to track the ex-husband down to get his view on all this, but he hasn’t said a word. What could you say?
And dear sweet Aimee, her lawyer said that she decided to plead guilty because she didn’t want the boy to suffer the trauma of having to testify against her.
I can hear it now – she just did that so that the boy would be safe. Yes,, she isn’t really guilty of anything except loving her son too much. YUCK!!!
Oh, and her lawyer said Aimee had been sexually and physically abused in her childhood too. Hmmm. That must be why she abused her son. She just wanted him to have the same wretched fucked up psychosis for his life, too, right?
Wow. She’s mother-of-the-year material.
I guess what sticks in my craw more than anything is the blatant double-standard that seems to be going on here.
The whole focus should be on the victim; but you know it isn’t. He was vilified up one side and down the other.
To give you some idea, here’s a quote from one site(emphasis mine):
The original press article mentions that her son wasn’t ten but fifteen. Not only that, this teenager was a gangbanger. He had been repeatedly in trouble with the law. He likely used anabolic steroids. Most likely, as most criminal juveniles his age, he already had a wild sex life.
Aggressive, early matured boys at that age are at their sexual prime, and guys with a criminal record and who even threaten their parents don’t exactly take no for an answer when they try to get into a girl’s pants. So much for the “Permanent emotional damage of the little boy that so cruelly lost his virginity by a perverse incest rape” that the prosecution alleges. As far as we know, it was him who demanded the sex, not his biological mother.
She conceded partly due to guilt, partly out of fear of losing contact with her son forever and last but not least, partly because she was asked by his adoptive parents, the social workers and her son’s shrink to make an attempt to bring him to his senses – or he would face juvenile detention. She was desperate to do whatever it took to save her son from jail.
The article in question isn’t provided with a link for readers to judge for themselves, but factual truth is the least of this writer’s concern.
The teenager had just turned fourteen when his mom hooked up with him.
He wasn’t a gangbanger.
He hadn’t been repeatedly in trouble with the law, but, like most adolescent boys, had been in trouble and was getting counseling from a psychologist and his parents were spending time and money to get him help.
He didn’t use anabolic steroids – but you’d leave this article with the impression he did.
He wasn’t a criminal juvenile – but again you’d think he had a rap sheet a mile long.
And he didn’t already have a wild sex life.
It glides over specifics and gives the impression that he had a criminal record, that he had threatened his parents, that he had raped other girls.
They do state “As far as we know….” but when you first read this article, it takes a very critical eye to spot the fallacies they are fobbing off as facts.
In fact, you get the impression that the son raped the mother. Every time I read this paragraph, I can feel my blood pressure rise.
“As far as we know, it was him who demanded the sex….” Actually, no, we know it was Aimee as she testified that it was all her idea.
They end their supposition with poor Aimee giving in to her child’s demand for sex in an effort to assuage the guilt he made her feel at putting him up for adoption and in an effort to keep her emotional connection with him.
Hmm? Sounds like she’s not playing with a full deck. Any mother this easily manipulated doesn’t deserve to be in charge of raising any children, and Aimee has five more at home. So the case of the boy bullying his mother into fornication doesn’t stand any sort of scrutiny.
And when you start to look at the way in which the words are put together, you realize what kind of a hatchet job they are doing on the victim.
He didn’t want or seek her out and make contact. Aimee did that all on her own. She testified in a court of law to this and she was the one who asked the adopted parents if she could have him live with her for a while.
The thing people have lost sight of is the young boy who is now royally screwed up. He wasn’t some drug-using sex-mad aggressive gangbanger intent on raping all females in his path, up to and including his biological mother.
Who’s the victim here?
You’d honestly swear it was Aimee. The article continues:
Is Aimee Louise Sword A Pedophile?
Look at her. Is this a pedophile predator? She seems to have no problem getting adult male attention, and clearly enjoys it. A pity we have no picture of her “raped” son, because we strongly suspect that he looks similar in maturity to this tattoo artist. Poor child. His tender soul will never recover from banging this MILF he has no emotional bond with and wouldn’t even recognize as his biological mother. When a man violently rapes an underage girl, it is a despicable crime. When an adolescent horny young man manipulates a woman he has no relationship with into sex, it is worse for that woman than for him, if that woman is his mother and is desperately trying to establish a rapport with him. He certainly isn’t being raped in the ethical, moral sense. We sometimes forget that the Law is there to fairly enforce the morals of society, not to be politically correct. The Law should concern themselves with the spirit of the law, not blindly follow its letter. However, extremist feminism and political correctness make us treat “statutory rape” cases equal, regardless of which gender is the “rapist”, what the relationship was between the parties and how much emotional or physical damage was inflicted. This is an abomination. There were other cases where a gang of youths coerced a not so bright teacher into gang-banging them, and hey presto, the woman gets plastered all over the Internet as one of the worst serial rapists in history – and she’ll spend her prime years in jail.
I particularly like the inference that there is a “look” that one can identify for pedophile predators. Again, the rape isn’t about sexual attraction – it’s about power. The pseudo-pity is more salt on the wound. It mocks whatever feelings the boy may have, and it certainly paints him as active participant and chief villain in his own assault.
Did he know she was his mother? Yes, eventually.
Did he know prior to their first encounter? Well, no. You see, Aimee got around to telling him at their first rendezvous. And since the Aimee-supporters engage in speculation, I can too. Can’t you just hear her telling the boy, “We’re special, you and I. We have a bond no one can understand. We are connected on a different plane of existence. The rules don’t apply to you and I.”
Of course, I can’t do Aimee justice as I don’t really know what yarn to spin to convince a child I had given birth to that it was okay I tracked him down just to have sex with him.
And there is the blatant stereotype here of the wronged woman – “experts|” have been crawling out of caves to spew forth some drivel about “genetic sexual attraction” as some sort of explanation for Aimee’s actions. GSA is seen as a reason for people having attractions for their cousins or relatives they never knew about.
This is bogus and I call it junk science.
To begin with, IF Genetic Sexual Attraction exists, then it should at least follow the theory’s premise. The premise? That two individuals, who do not know that they are related, somehow meet and find an irresistible attraction to one another.
I’ll reiterate this sticking point: the two individuals do not know they are related.
Hmmm. Doesn’t really cover Aimee’s case, now does it?
But you’d be nauseated to read in comment after comment the apologists foisting this tepidly acknowledged psychological babble as the “explanation”.
In Aimee’s case, she knew who the boy was and when she didn’t get her update on her 14 year old, then she tracked him down.
My theory? Aimee is one of those women that never want to grow up. She is a narcissist who thinks everything she does is clever and cute. Every man she’s been with she has managed to have a child with. Starting with this boy.
When she saw her boy, entering the teen years, he must have resembled the original man that knocked her up and left her flat.
And why shouldn’t she go and have a piece of time travel and recapture her youthful passionate relationship with the end result of the original fling?
How often have we read stories about fathers, particularly lately, deciding to keep their daughters captive and impregnate them year after year until they escape? The reason being, I made you, you’re mine to do with as I please.
I don’t cut any slack if the perp happens to be a mother doing essentially the same mind-fuck.
And she is.
Do you know how difficult it is for males to even admit someone is sexually abusing them? There are studies on male victims of sexual abuse, but the studies are fraught with problems as it is under-reported especially for boys. There is a cultural bias that males cannot be victims. To be a victim is to admit that one is less than a “true” male; aggressive, assertive, confident, knowledgeable, in charge and in control.
So aside from having to surmount this hurdle, what if the boy in question responds sexually to the abuse? The victim would somehow feel responsible for the abuse – why else would his body have reacted?
It is a vicious set of cultural and psychological factors that almost condemn male victims to suffer in silence. Both girls and boys fear having the abuse made public, but boys fear it for more reasons: loss of freedom and independence, the perception of others of the male as a “helpless” victim, the threat of reprisals, negative judgment, being held responsible for the abuse occurring in the first place.
Worse consequences are for those males who may have a homosexual orientation and thus end up believing that they somehow “attracted” male abusers, that it is somehow their fault. Public revelation would then carry the double threat of exposure to the abuse and to the boy’s orientation. There is less sympathy held for male victims of sexual abuse, and even less for homosexual victims.
In Aimee’s abuse, it is thoroughly reprehensible. The “Mrs. Robinson” scenario of an older woman seducing and “initiating” a young male into sexual activities is seen as some sort of cultural rite-of-passage, and the fact that many sites on the internet have referred to her as a MILF (Mothers I’d Like to F*ck), the whole thing is taken as a joke.
But would it be so funny if the genders were reversed? Would people be so quick to crack jokes if this were a story about a 35-year-old father looking up his 14-year-old daughter? She is having troubles at school and coping with adolescence; she’s seeing a psychologist and a school counselor. She’s into arguing with her adoptive parents and is moody and sulky – in other words, a typical teenager.
Along comes her father, to whom the adopted parents have kept in touch with over the years and have sent him updates as to her life: how she’s done in school, the sports she’s good at, her likes and dislikes. They have even mentioned the help she’s been getting for her teen troubles. The father suggests taking her to his house with his family (spouse and five other children) to see if a visit would break her routine and maybe help her keep her mind off her troubles or work things out?
The couple is happy that the father is taking an interest and agrees wholeheartedly. I mean, after all, she’d be going to a house where the wife and children are, so it would be safe. And, the man is her father, right?
Now, the father takes the daughter to a motel and they end up in bed together. It doesn’t happen just once, but many times. It happens at the house where the father and his wife live. It happens at several other motels.
The girl returns home after a period of months, but she’s not any better. In fact, she is now downright secretive. The discussions are few and far between. Conversations are non-existent and responses are monosyllabic.
Do you see the difference? I can, and I’m just writing it down. The whole idea that it is somehow less of a crime against a young, confused and vulnerable boy is just wrong and I don’t believe that shame and the trauma of abuse has a color or a gender.
In fact, I think what Aimee’s done is even worse as the boy isn’t going to get any sympathy as her crime is seen as “not that bad” and I’ve seen comments in internet sites about this case stating things like, “You can’t rape the willing.”
I think Aimee and her ilk all deserve a special place in hell. Their justifications and rationalizations are just as bad as those used when girls are raped by their fathers.
And the excuse that Aimee used? I mean, you know that an excuse had to be coming because no one accepts responsibility for anything anymore.
Her excuse? She was sexually and physically abused when she was young.
You know what? Big deal. Suck it up and move on. Many people were, but they chose not to ever abuse anyone in their life time. It’s called making a choice and living to a code of moral standards.
Aimee should try it some time.
She does have at least nine long years to think things over.
Does Aimee Louise Sword Belong In Hell?
- Yes (83%, 351 Votes)
- No (17%, 71 Votes)
Total Voters: 422
172 Comments »