For the way I described HIV to my daughter?

[maloofshoof]

I met with my daughters dad today (we had some childcare issues to sort out). My daughter is 9, and last night she asked me what HIV was. I asked her where she had heard about that but she wouldn't tell me, kept saying she was unsure but had heard about it.

I was on the spot, we were driving to an after school club and so I said something along the lines of that it was a virus that erupted in the 80s and that they thought it started from gay men having sex but it turned out that it was a virus that could be spread by blood etc and so women, needle users etc could get it too. I said that in the 80s if someone had it they would die but now there is medicine that allows people with it to live a relatively normal life (bearing in mind I am no expert and was put on the spot with this question). Perhaps I should have said I'll explain later and done a bit of research but I didn't.

When I told my ex today he was really 'appalled'. He said he can't believe I taught our daughter that HIV was spread between only gay men when that was only propaganda and how the media portrayed it. He said I really messed up an educational opportunity with homophobic undercurrents (not homophobic in the slightest, in fact I have been with women and two of my close friends are gay).

I was taken aback and tried to explain myself but he was really upset and left on quite unpleasant terms.

Did I totally fuck up?

And same sex relationships were illegal and punishable by imprisonment and castration, some countries death by stoning? So if a kid asks you what gay is, is that the point in history you start? Or do you say it's two people of the same sex that are attracted to each other?

Exactly.

This is the history, both public and personal, that I know.

That's quite funny! Mine certainly doesn't (believe in Santa). Indeed I have always struggled to see how any child with any awareness of reality could sustain that belief beyond the age of about 4. Nor why it is considered especially desirable.

Am also struggling to know how a 9 year old could not be aware of sex. Unless they only watch C-Beebies. Don't people's kids watch films and stuff? And soap.operas? And, I dunno, the news. Documentaries, etc. Sex is q big part of life and frequently referred to in a wide range of contexts.

And the vast majority of kids will surely be aware that some people are gay. Having met gay people.

So if they know sex exists and what it is, and know gay people exist, ergo they will be aware of gay sex..... I struggle to see how anyone raises a child who isn't, unless they put extreme effort into sheltering them from his awareness (and why would you?)

Milkyaqua I don't think anyone is denying that it used to be more prevalent in gay guys, but I'm not sure why 40 odd years later that's how you'd introduce the disease to a 9 year old.

I don't know why you'd feel the need to lie about or fudge the history of a disease. If a nine year old is asking questions, then it is better to hear the facts.

BY the way, I am the sixth person to agree with and quote that pp, perhaps you want to have a stern word with them too?

Wtf are you talking about? It's nothing like what she said.
To say HIV spread through the gay male community initially and is still more prevalent there is just a basic fact that no gay person I know would dispute.

What you're arguing for on the other hand, to use your slavery example, is like saying slavery didn't primarily affect black people, it affected everyone the same.

Also, both 40 years ago, and now, HIV is more prevalent in the gay male population, in the west.

I would think a more pertinent question is why is a young girl asking about it. Rather than blaming the OP for her reply.

I asked her where she had heard about that but she wouldn't tell me, kept saying she was unsure but had heard about it.

Context is always king in these scenarios - and the OP’s daughter wouldn’t give her any. FWIW, I gave a very similar explanation to my (slightly older) kids when we were listening to the news and someone from an AIDS charity was being interviewed and was discussing Freddie Mercury’s illness. Sometimes the history and context is hugely relevant and a pap one line answer causes more confusion than it solves. So I think she was quite right to give the child a longer explanation when the child hadn’t told her how or where she’d heard about it and why she was asking.

It's like saying what are black people, "they were lesser humans brought over from Africa to serve the white". Why not say HIV is a sad disease that is now manageable?

The slavery analogy works - but it’s the other way round, surely? It’s like a child asking “what is slavery?” and your answer being “forcing someone to work for you and treating them like a possession”, without mentioning at all the fact that through history it was black people who were overwhelmingly the victims of it. And it’s not really a full explanation without it, certainly not if a child has been reading about something in the news because they won’t then understand what they were asking about in the first place.

There is no need to go into the history of it for a 9 year old and if you did it's not true that black people have overwhelmingly been the victims
throughout history. That would be more recent history.

I guess it’s difficult to know how much to give to kids though when they do ask questions that come with complicated sociopolitical context. To use your slavery example. Would you explain to a 9 year old asking about slavery a bit about the Atlantic slave trade, probably yes. Would you also point to the t shirt they were wearing and say “oh and darling, the cotton in that T shirt was probably partly picked by Uyghurs in forced labour camps, and there are probably slaves working in that nail bar over there,” probably not because I doubt they’d be able to handle it at 9

The slavery analogy works - but it’s the other way round, surely? It’s like a child asking “what is slavery?” and your answer being “forcing someone to work for you and treating them like a possession”, without mentioning at all the fact that through history it was black people who were overwhelmingly the victims of it. And it’s not really a full explanation without it, certainly not if a child has been reading about something in the news because they won’t then understand what they were asking about in the first place.

I think generally the best way to explain a new word or concept is to do so in the context of something the children already understand.
I personally wouldn’t start talking about the Atlantic slave trade if five minutes ago my child didn’t even know what slavery was. My child has been learning about Roman Britain in school and so I’d probably talk about it in that context if I did go into any historical detail. The Atlantic slave trade and the racist attitudes involved with this are significant aspects in understanding slavery for sure, but probably not as a beginner if you have literally no understanding of that era in history - or the geography - already. It’s just information overload in my opinion that actually I think will just create more confusion and misconceptions.
Same with explaining HIV - a child can understand what a disease is, they may understand what an immune system is and they understand contagion so you can explain that it can be passed on via blood to blood contact and that it makes you more vulnerable to other illnesses. They probably won’t have a clue about the 80s, have a very basic understanding of sex at best (straight sex probably, gay less so) or STIs and how they are spread. It’s just going to cause confusion. And also probably some misunderstandings.
I think both of these are actually good examples of how we associate things that are happening now with the past. HIV still exists and so does slavery. So I personally do find it odd to explain either of those via the means of a history anecdote.

I think both of these are actually good examples of how we associate things that are happening now with the past. HIV still exists and so does slavery. So I personally do find it odd to explain either of those via the means of a history anecdote.

That’s a good point, actually - as is the question of “how far back do you go?” if you’re putting things into an historical context. I suppose that’s my point about needing to know the context of the child’s original question, really; in my kids’ case, the prompt for asking about HIV was someone from the Terence Higgins trust discussing AIDS and talking about Freddie Mercury, so it absolutely made sense to explain the context of the 1980s. Similarly, most if my conversations about slavery were prompted by the Edward Colston statue in Bristol being pulled down, but in a different context, if might have made more sense to talk about the Romans.

I don’t like the attitude of “kids don’t need to know” though; if they ask questions, it’s a good opportunity to discuss some of these issues with them. Take the HIV example. Saying “it’s a virus” might make them equate it to Covid and be worried about something unnecessarily.

No you really didn’t fuck up. Probably a bit too much information for a young child to absorb (the history of the disease) , but the substance of what you said is correct.

History is important, yes, but I don't think it's right for your daughter first introduction to HIV to be its homophobic association with gay sex. That is what her first impression of it is now. This is how homophobia, racism, sexism etc gets passed down through the generations. Association.

I don’t like the attitude of “kids don’t need to know” though; if they ask questions, it’s a good opportunity to discuss some of these issues with them. Take the HIV example. Saying “it’s a virus” might make them equate it to Covid and be worried about something unnecessarily.

@WimpoleHat Yes of course, I didn’t mean at all that these things shouldn’t be discussed. In your example it makes perfect sense given the context. But if the question comes up somewhat randomly, it might just be a word they heard on the radio or said by a child at school, I think giving a simple definition of the word initially makes the most sense to me. Because of the huge scope of the subject matter, I think in some cases it can just be an overwhelming amount of information and the meaning of the word can get lost in it, or maybe associated with that one thing. I think how HIV affected the gay community and how slavery affected black people is certainly a vital part of further discussion and understanding - just not as a first port of call in terms of an explanation. I think you are then in danger of confusing a child into things like initially associating HIV with homosexuality or slavery with just the Atlantic slave trade. I’m not saying ‘kids don’t need to know’. I’m just conscious of brain overload. Especially if it might create misconceptions rather than aid explanations. Let the idea of what HIV actually is sink in, then add historical context another time.

The 9-year-old child didn't ask about the epidemiology of HIV she asked what HIV is.

OP your husband was out of line for replying so vehemently in relation to what you said it is hard when a parent is put into a difficult position while on the go. You should continue being so open with your child when answering her questions. None of us feels we get it right all the time honestly, most of my non-clinical friends would never parent their children the way I parent mine.

Just think about what you've done OP.

Agree with the point about adjusting to the child’s level of knowledge and not plunging into the Atlantic slave trade if they weren’t even familiar with the concept of slavery.

I think schools often will explain new concepts like slavery or disease by using anecdotes or context though, as it’s easier for children to understand something if given a real world example. E.g. the concept of human rights might come up as part of a history lesson about WW1 where a teacher explains what the Geneva Convention is and how is was put in place to make sure POWs we’re treated better. I think historical examples probably also get used more (like your Roman Britain one) because they are in the past, so probably a bit easier for kids to handle the concepts behind them and less scary. If you started off a conversation about slavery by talking about sweatshops, modern slaves dying in the back of lorries and Chinese labour camps, the kid would probably be too scared and shocked to understand the concept you were trying to teach.

You see something quite similar in children books and fairy tales where much younger kids are introduced to ideas about bad people, tricks, not always trusting strangers, fear, lying etc. but because it’s safely between the covers of a book they can learn a bit about it and about how fictional characters dealt with it without being too scared and overwhelmed, and then be better prepared for encountering some of these things in real life.

What she's done is given the history. Do you want her to think about that?!

It is not a homophobic association with gay sex; it is a historical fact that there was stigma towards gay men back in the 80s when it was a new and frightening disease spreading amongst gay men in western society. It is not homophobic, also, to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of new infections in western society nowadays are still in men who have sex with men.

@milkyaqua You might want to address that to @BadNomad . Or maybe not. It's up to you but I thought the accusation of perpetuating homophobia was a bit of an over reaction.

She wasn't asked for the history. She was asked what it was. I imagine most people would be more straight and factual about it being a virus and how it works. But clearly the OP associates it with gay men in the 80s, which is understandable if she is from that generation, but her daughter definitely isn't, but now she associates it with that too. Even though she never asked.

Along with thinking gay sex is men kissing.

I had a huge Freddie Mercury fan in my life when I was a child and I knew a lot about Queen.

I knew Freddie died young, and that there was something "adult" about his death. I asked how he did and was just told he "had a disease". I could put two and two together.

No one would have gone into a diatribe about gay men and gay sex and needle users.

More heterosexual women in the world have HIV and AIDS than gay men.

Surely if you're on the spot, you would say as little as possible? I agree with PP that "a disease that killed a lot of people in the 80s" would have been more than enough info.

What you said wasn't explicitly homophobic, but it wasnt exactly gay-friendly. She may now associate gay men with disease.

What has the fact that gay men were more likely to get it in the West in the 80s got to do with the question "what is HIV" though? It doesn't give any information on what the actual disease is and who got it at a particular time in history doesn't seem relevant to today anyway.

if she had asked about polio would you have started with the iron lungs of the 1920s and 1930s?

Also, please tell me you've discussed periods etc with her.