It started off so nice. I'm teaching Sunday School this quarter and my Canadian friend/coteacher created a letter to parents that talked in detail about food allergies. **I** was the one to soften the language a bit--only because DS isn't the only one. But we're allowing no food and will only consider it if it relates to the lesson and won't exclude anyone. The wild boys were tame. It was a lovely morning.
I get to choir warm up. And this older gentleman makes an innappropriate comment about Christine's death--not about her, but about the sitation and about DS. I'm robing at the time and absolutely stunned that this man is staying this about DS and pretty much making light about the possibility of this kind of reaction for DS. I can't think. Do I hit him? No, technically, I'm a pacificist, and it just would have been a bad, bad move on my part. Do I say, "Listen. The light of someone's life was just snuffed out. The same could happen to DS--long before dating age--if DH and I aren't careful. Don't you think I worry about this every single day that I live and breathe? It's not funny!" No. I didn't. I was stunned stupid. All I said was, "DS knows this can happen because a few months ago we told him this would be a possibility. But he doesn't know about this little girl's death. Please don't mention this to him." And I whispered what happened to a friend and tried to sing.
I didn't get very far. I just started bawling and had to leave. I spent the entire rehearsal in the bathroom crying.
After church we had a potluck, and there was a jr. high age boy who is somewhere on the autistic spectrum (but is pretty high functioning) sitting across from DS and me (DH was talking to everyone). Out of the blue, this kid starts to tell DS about the movie Monster in Law. And I can tell where this is going because I've read about the movie on this board. When he said, there was this woman allergic to nuts . . . I said, we really need to change the subject and not talk about this. DS is 7 and way too young to know that PA could be a means for murder, although to my knolwedge it's only been fictionalized murder and only in this movie and The Da Vinci Code. I knew that this boy has a difficult time knowing boundaries. I understand that completely. What I didn't know (that DH later told me) is that if I had said this is not appropriate for DS, that this kid would have always remembered not to talk about it with DS. But still---what if I hadn't been there to intercept the conversation?
Well, I finally told DS about Christine's death on the way home from church. I just think he was going to hear about it from the older kids at church (he likes being with them), and I wanted it to be from me first. He was very sad for Christine and for her family and for her boyfriend. And he understands this was not intentional (I told him her boyfriend may not have known she was PA).
And then we talked about what this means for him. He said that when gets older if someone wants to date him but won't give up nuts, he'll dump her. He apologized for using that term and then said he didn't know what else to use. I smiled on the inside and outside that he knows himself to be that important.
I told him about Carefulmom's sitation--a daughter allergic to dairy and egg, too. I asked him what if he wanted to date someone who had other food allergies. He said that if he **really** liked her, he'd give those things up.
And I have to say, I do think my son who has been vegetarian for a month now would do just that.
[This message has been edited by McCobbre (edited January 08, 2006).]
