My ideal was zero for most of my life. DH wanted four so when we got married I agreed to two. I had so many complications with DS1 and he was such a hard baby that I kind of backpedaled on two. However, I obviously got over that. I feel completely satisfied with two.
This whole discussion is really making me want a fourth! Especially h' hairdresser's insight. God help me, lol.
Now how to convince dh??
Good lord, my hairdresser is going to be responsible for an MMM baby boom! Just remember--it is that kind of thinking (plus religious extremism and perhaps mental illness, I suppose) that got Michelle Duggar where she is today. Watch out!
I am one of four between my brother and step-sisters, and I LOVE the family dynamic now that we are all grown and have spouses and kids of our own. Sure, part of me thinks "maybe one more baby..." now and then. But sadly, we are at our limit, if not emotionally and physically, then certainly financially.
We will probably stop at two (though three is not off the table permanently), but we've both agreed that if money was not a concern we'd have a large (4+) family.
Post by noodleskooze on Sept 27, 2014 8:43:22 GMT -5
I'll admit to saying that travel logistics seem to get complicated with more than two kids. It hasn't factored into our decision because we don't have the money to travel anyways.
I had always wanted 3 and H has wanted two. Infertility was likely going to make this our only child, but the stress/anxiety that we have had in the past few months regarding the baby have made it so neither of us want to even consider going through this again.
Unless you have triplets, three children aren't all babies/toddlers at the same time.
I mean, my three are crazy close together (18 and then 19 months) but I manage! I guess the comment way earlier in the thread about not being able to handle more kids than hands has spurred me to chime in. If I had to get on a plane with all three by myself, it would be totally fine to have my oldest sit in the row in front of me because she's four lol. I'd hand her the leap pad and some snacks and she would be just fine.
DH and I said four before we had any. Then he was good with two when I was sure a third would happen. But now, I'm feeling pretty content with three. Maybe I'm just so far in the trenches but adding the third was by far, the easiest transition. Also, I really feel like I've hit my groove as a mother now with three. I was in shock with one, going to two was the hardest transition, but three? Psh, not bad at all and there's a comfortable rhythm to our days. I also could see myself adding one more because again, the other three get a day older everyday. And what's one more lol. I'm just preparing myself for the fact that I may very well come home from Hawaii next month pregnant. Because alcohol lol. But if not, I really am good with three. For now. I don't think I want to go past four though. Too many logistics with buying a van etc. And I love our house and it's 2200 sq feet. Fine for four little kids but I think it'd be tight with any more as they grew.
You can still totally travel with and without kids after you have them. I know we're fortunate to have family and incredible friends that help us out but we haven't scaled back in that category at all. In fact, we might be traveling even more with kids. But DH and I have both always had careers that requires a lot of travel so it just doesn't phase us as much. (Except when my anxiety was off the charts when I flew to Europe by myself with the baby). And points, we have lots of travel rewards lol.
I'm one of three and we're all seven years apart and not close but my youngest brother is just now 18 so hopefully we'll grow closer. I love seeing this little team we've created grow and play together. It's a crazy life but it's without a doubt, the best choice for us.
Post by chickadee77 on Sept 27, 2014 9:34:14 GMT -5
I think I would like a second at some point, but H is still a bit traumitized by the newborn phase. He was initially wanting three until we had our first, now he's all, "Maybe just one is a-okay!" Lol. Time will tell.
I find that when this topic comes up I hear so many women say that they won't have more than X (usually 2) because travel is a priority. Yet, strangely, I often observe that these families don't travel that much. There's a disconnect between what they see their priorities as and what they're actually spending the money on. So they have a huge new house and lease new cars and scrape together a 3-4 day Disney vacation every other year. So is it really that they want to travel? Or is that what they're telling themselves because there are other reasons they don't want to have more than two kids.
All of us moms of 2 are so selfish, driving our leased BMW's and counting our 'dolla 'dolla bills all day.
Maybe people cite travel as a reason to stop at 2, when really a third would ruin them financially or at least put all fun and travelling on hold?
I have 2 kids and I don't have a big new house or new cars. I guess I'm doing it all wrong.
We have always talked about having 2. A year or so ago, I started really thinking about only having one, mainly due to finances. Now that MIL is moving out here to care for the baby, we very well may end up with two, but it will really depend on how she's feeling about caring for the baby. Finances are pretty much the entire reason we would end up with less than our ideal.
DH just got snipped this week and we have a 5 and a 2.5 yo. Sometimes I get wistful for an oops baby, but realistically I have no desire for a third kid. We're 35 plus money makes it really unappealing. Maybe I'm materialistic, but there's so much I want to give my girls (activities, travel, education - not things) that a third would really hamper that ability. And from a non-monetary point, I already feel that dd2 gets an attention point that I dont see how a third would work.
n our area I've gathered that most people with more than 2 kids are either religious in some way or it was an oops situation.
Unless you have triplets, three children aren't all babies/toddlers at the same time.
I mean, my three are crazy close together (18 and then 19 months) but I manage! I guess the comment way earlier in the thread about not being able to handle more kids than hands has spurred me to chime in. If I had to get on a plane with all three by myself, it would be totally fine to have my oldest sit in the row in front of me because she's four lol. I'd hand her the leap pad and some snacks and she would be just fine.
I agree. DS1 is 5.5 and actually pretty helpful. He carries things when my hands are full, or holds the baby in his lap if I need to put him down. He frequently volunteers to "keep an eye on" DS2 and I can trust him to do that for a couple of minutes.
I have never once heard a person claim they only wanted two for travel. Like I am racking my brain. Then again travel is not the priority it is for people I know IRL vs gbcn.
Really, I hear this a lot. That the world seems to be set up for units of four. I do sometimes wonder how we'll handle it at places like DW. I guess someone will have to sit by themselves on the rides.
We've gone to WDW & DL (& several other places) with 3 kids...and outside if extra ticket cost for airplane, admission I don't see any real big difference. My H & I don't mind sitting out a ride or riding alone. . I have heard several people say they only want 2 in part due to travel. That's their business I don't care...doesn't apply to me. I take all 4 of mine alone on trips without incident. But my Mom did the same thing...there were 5 kids in my family. I always wished for more siblings, especially sisters. My parents wanted 7 & had 7pg but lost 3 boys (5 boys, 2 girls total) and adopted 1 boy. My older brothers were awful to me but I still loved having a lot of siblings. My house was always bustling & busy.
Post by thecatinthehat on Sept 27, 2014 11:40:42 GMT -5
DH wanted 3 maybe more, I always wanted 2. We may become OAD but we are not 100% there yet. We are giving it some time to see if we really want another. Reasons are partly financial and realizing how much work newborns really are. We had no family nearby, my parents are overseas and they haven't been able to come at all.
Right now we are finally getting to the point where it is 90% fun having a kid and 10% wtf did I do, so I feel link we are on the verge of changing our minds about having another. I am 34 so if we do we won't for a year or two as I think it would work out better is DS is a bit older before we have a newborn. I am a SAHM and DH can sometimes have busy days.
Post by mrsfarmer on Sept 27, 2014 12:25:58 GMT -5
A little different take: it was a long wait to adopt so we were willing to adopt one and be done. Through a twist of fate we adopted 2 sisters and at the adoption hearing for DD2 this past Wednesday, they half jokingly asked us to take a newborn boy. This would have made it 3 under 3. They did find another option for him but said if we ever want more kids to give their office a call.
I'm pregnant with #3 right now and DH and I agree 4 is our ideal number. That said, we're probably stopping after this one.
I find that when this topic comes up I hear so many women say that they won't have more than X (usually 2) because travel is a priority. Yet, strangely, I often observe that these families don't travel that much. There's a disconnect between what they see their priorities as and what they're actually spending the money on. So they have a huge new house and lease new cars and scrape together a 3-4 day Disney vacation every other year. So is it really that they want to travel? Or is that what they're telling themselves because there are other reasons they don't want to have more than two kids.
That's exactly why I don't want to have more children. Travel IS a priority. We find hotels, packages, etc all designed for families of 4. We take anywhere from 2-6 holidays per year, some with and some without kids. More than 2 kids would severely limit the number of trips we would take because of childcare, logistics, etc. it can be difficult to get hotel rooms in Europe for 3-4 let alone trying for 5.
We always discussed having 5. I grew up with only 1 sister but I absolutely love children. My husband would have had 10 but really only because he loves babies:) The first 3 were 2 years apart and that is what we wanted for the last 2. However, the 4th one took 6 years to get here and now I am 41. So, the tubes have been tied and we are 4 and done. I had some grief after the surgery because I am not entirely sure that I was done but it only made sense for us to stop with 4. My age being the major reason. I also have a thriving business that I own and operate myself. Unpaid maternity leaves are a killer on the finances.
Post by wanderlustmom on Sept 27, 2014 13:58:32 GMT -5
Like many families, we had to really talk a lot about this because I wanted three and DH wanted two. We decided that the one who wanted fewer had priority. DH said he didn't want to spread himself emotionally to three kids. He said he felt capable with two and not three. Our income could also not afford an international vacation each year with three and I wanted that.
Post by wanderlustmom on Sept 27, 2014 14:04:31 GMT -5
Also I have talked to people who regret having fewer and those who regret having more. My friend is one of ten and she loved it--but she has two. All nine of her siblings had two kids. Also my stepdad had five--he said he should have had two. And I have heard of families wishing they were bigger later. I think all you can do is communicate and when you decide--feel at peace.
I'm pregnant with #3 right now and DH and I agree 4 is our ideal number. That said, we're probably stopping after this one.
I find that when this topic comes up I hear so many women say that they won't have more than X (usually 2) because travel is a priority. Yet, strangely, I often observe that these families don't travel that much. There's a disconnect between what they see their priorities as and what they're actually spending the money on. So they have a huge new house and lease new cars and scrape together a 3-4 day Disney vacation every other year. So is it really that they want to travel? Or is that what they're telling themselves because there are other reasons they don't want to have more than two kids.
We could swing 4 kids, DH is a high earner and we're frugal with housing and vehicles, we have budget to travel a few times a year, have a weekly cleaner, have me SAH and work freelance as I like, have our toddler in two mornings of daycare a week.
Probably the biggest reason we won't have more, in addition to our ages and just being tired in general from lack of sleep, is that we want to retire early. Ideally DH goes freelance, semi-retired in the next 5-7 years (he'll be just past 50) and I follow suit when I'm 50 (13 years away!). If we have a fourth this timeline would push back a few more years.
If I have a real itch for #4 we're going to discuss fostering and adoption of a child that is school age.
WTH are you talking about? I only want two kids and travel is a priority but not the only one, not even the biggest one.
We have family in DC and Pittsburgh we like to visit. Our good friends are in Toronto. My H's family is in Tobago and we are definitely going in a couple years. My big plan is a Safari when they are in upper elem/middle school. It just is logistically easier to travel with fewer kids, even if you are only going a couple hours away to the mountains or the beach.
It doesn't make having more or less kids right or wrong. If you can do everything you want with 3 or more kids, great.
Just sharing some anecdotes and observations from my IRL friends, relatives and acquaintances. I don't know anyone on this board IRL, nor was I making any connection to previous posts in this thread or on this board.
From several other responses I am assuming my experience on this topic is quite different from most people's on this board.
Post by aspentosh on Sept 27, 2014 14:24:09 GMT -5
Ideal number is still being decided. I've always thought 2 or 3, but the longer it takes me to conceive #2 the more I wonder if I'd be happy with 1. I don't quite feel "done" and I want DD to have a sibling... so we continue to try.
My ideal number is based on a bunch of factors. That "many" because I want them to have siblings and a companion at home. That "few" because of finances, time, space.
Really, I hear this a lot. That the world seems to be set up for units of four. I do sometimes wonder how we'll handle it at places like DW. I guess someone will have to sit by themselves on the rides.
I grew up in a family of five and it was fine.... lots of DW rides are set up for units of three.
I think I hang in less affluent circles perhaps. Most people I know have always vacationed a week at the beach (driving) vs internationally. We do have some friends who love travel and many of them are childfree by choice
I don't just think of travel as being vacation/international. I'd say the vast majority of people I know IRL live far away from family. They pretty much have to travel at least once or twice per year to see them, whether that is on a plane or a multi-hour car or train ride. Factor in that one of those times may be Christmas or Thanksgiving and that increases the cost exponentially.
Andplusalso, it's just a PITA to travel with a bunch of small people, or at least it seems to me like it would be a nightmare to regularly fly or drive long distances with 3 or 4 young kids. One (just one) of my reasons for a larger age gap was definitely travel. But ultimately, I don't want 3 or 4 kids because I just don't.
BUT, I want to be a grandmother to a whole brood of grandchildren. I'd love to retire early and watch my grand kids all day while my daughters and their husbands are at work, if this is what they choose. I want a house full of my kids and grandchildren at the holidays. I saw this played out through my MIL while she was still alive and she was always so happy. There were always kids around, always a child to do something with. I can only hope to be as lucky as she was. When I picture how I want my life to look 20-30 years from now, it looks a lot like hers did.
Interesting. This is not how I picture my life 20-30 years from now. I always picture DD living somewhere exotic as an adult, maybe working in the Foreign Service or something, and marrying later. So I see myself traveling to see her in Indonesia or wherever or meeting up for a mother-daughter yoga retreat in India when she's in her 30s and I'm in my 60s. I'm not sure what DS is doing with his life in this scenario since he's still too little for me to guess what he will be like as an adult.
I have brought this up before but curious if the environment / overpopulation plays into anyone's family plans. I feel a nagging guilt in that area, especially since we don't do that well on green living on the whole.
My grandma always said this is why she had only two. She wanted to replace her and my grandpa and that the earth didn't need anymore than that. I always remember her saying that.
We used to say three but both have discovered we are lazier than we thought. I think having more would pretty much kill my sitting on the couch drinking wine time. No thank you.
I have 4 and ideally want 5-7. We have free child care and live in a LCOL area. Good public schools and we also have really inexpensive housing costs. If we lived elsewhere our family size would not be possible unless I started working and DH tripled his salary.
I think at one point my ideal was 4 kids. We're most likely going to stop at 2 but may consider a 3rd if I am feeling breezy, lol. We want to provide a certain lifestyle for our kids and for ourselves, and I think two is where we will be most comfortable. Three might push it a little and four will just seem daunting, but who knows. Stranger things have happened. Ha.
Also my mom has told me multiple times that she feels the same as h 's hairdresser. Two kids 18 months apart felt like a total handful in the early years, but now that we're grown it doesn't feel like a big family at all.