Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just an open opinions thread!! Just a question to get people's opinions. I know a lot of people in both situations, so nobody is right or wrong....Situations are all different as well, I understand that...If you were in a position for the choice....
Is it easier to have children 2-3 years or less apart or wait a longer period between children.
For example:
---- I know a couple married almost 10 years, have 5 kids....ages: 7, 5, 3, almost 2 and 2-3 months
---- I know another couple she had a son as a young adult, married her husband when baby was about 2yrs old(he's now 15). They waited to have another until he was 13ish, and just had twins 2 months ago.
Which is easier? Which would you choose? and why????
For us, we chose to have them closish together in age for several reasons. We hoped that they would be engaged with each other. We did not want to be dealing with wildly differetn age related issues at the same time. Potty training and teenaged years at the same time??!!? No! Scary! My husband was not ready to have kids until I was approaching 30. I did not want to be too old when raising little kids. I wanted to have energy.
We chose to have them closer together. We were going to have one more but life got in the way and now we are done. I would not want a big age difference. But this purely my own wishes and not a judgment on what others do.
Just an open opinions thread!! Just a question to get people's opinions. I know a lot of people in both situations, so nobody is right or wrong....Situations are all different as well, I understand that...If you were in a position for the choice....
Is it easier to have children 2-3 years or less apart or wait a longer period between children.
For example:
---- I know a couple married almost 10 years, have 5 kids....ages: 7, 5, 3, almost 2 and 2-3 months
---- I know another couple she had a son as a young adult, married her husband when baby was about 2yrs old(he's now 15). They waited to have another until he was 13ish, and just had twins 2 months ago.
Which is easier? Which would you choose? and why????
I think that it really depends on the parents and their temperments. I am not a big fan of the "little kid" phase of parenting. We had our kids close together (3 kids in 5 years) because once we were done with the little kid phase of life we would be done. We also wanted the kids to be close and that is more likely when they are closer in age. Of course now that they are older it would be nice to have a little more space between them as they head to college.
I don't think there is one absolutely right spacing that works for all families. I think you can make any spacing work.
Mine are 3.5 years apart (and are very good friends) specifically because my brother and I are a year apart and I HATED the constant comparisons that came with being that close in age. I always got the teacher he had the year before and she was always disappointed I wasn't as malleable as my brother. And my mother was always making me invite my socially awkward brother to do things with me and my friends even though he had no interest in whatever we were doing and embarassed me no end. Perhaps some siblings are closer if their ages are closer, but it sure didn't work for me.
Pros: We didn't deal with any jealousy when the youngest was born because dd1 was mature enough to understand and she adored her little sister. Another pro is that dd1 is old enough and responsible enough to help with her little sister.
Cons: Just when my oldest became more independent we went straight back to the baby stage. That was an adjustment.
My kids are 3.5 years apart. It just worked out that way. They get along great and they play well together.
My youngest sister is 11 years younger than me. When she was born, every time that we went anywhere, people assumed I was her mother, which was embarrassing to me and also made my mom furious. I was an unpaid babysitter every evening and all summer every year after that. I was responsible for all baby care chores except breastfeeding (she probably would have handed over that chore if it had been physically possible). Once she switched to formula, I got up at night to feed my sister. I got married when my sister was 8 and I had my kids in my mid-20's, which meant that my sister was an aunt at a very young age, and that she felt like my kids took a lot of our parents' attention. She's still a little resentful of my kids sometimes. And now, she's in her mid-20's, and my dad has early-onset alzheimer's, so she's dealing with a lot of pressure to move back into my parents house and care for him, since she doesn't have a family yet.
All this because my mom wanted to feel like she was still young, so she had a baby just before she turned 40. I love my sister and I'm glad she was born, but it's a weird thing to feel like a completely different generation than your sister.
Pros: We didn't deal with any jealousy when the youngest was born because dd1 was mature enough to understand and she adored her little sister. Another pro is that dd1 is old enough and responsible enough to help with her little sister.
Cons: Just when my oldest became more independent we went straight back to the baby stage. That was an adjustment.
My two have the same age gap, and I fully agree with these pros and cons.
I guess there are pros and cons either way, and it just depends on personal preference.
Mine are 9 yrs apart. I didn't plan it that way, it just happened. It is almost like having two "only-children". They both have had the opportunity to have us to themselves.
I never forced the older one to babysit. I would make an offer and pay him like you would any babysitter. If he didn't want to, he didn't, end of story. I never wanted him to resent the younger one.
I think it is easier on us this way, less hectic because we only had little ones one at a time. But I regret that they didn't develop the same bond that I have with my siblings that were close in age. In retrospect, it feels selfish for this reason, but I really didn't plan it. We just waited until we felt we could comfortably afford a second child.
My sister is 14 years younger than me. I don't envy my mom for having to take care of a newborn and a rebellious teenager at the same time. I also got the looks from people thinking I was her mother back then-- very annoying and embarrassing.
My sister and I get along great though-- she's just hitting her teens and I'm in my mid-20s and we are very close despite living 500 miles apart. We text daily and she comes and visits often. I couldn't ask for a better sister.
DH and his brother are 2 years apart and never talk except for when we visit his parents. Granted, the family in general is not very close.
All that being said, I want to have my kids close together in age. I hated being an only child and want my children to have siblings close in age to them. Ideally, I'd like my kids to be 2 years apart like your friend in scenario 1 (not 5 kids though!).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
