Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Thinking About Number 3, What's Wrong With Me?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thinking About Number 3, What's Wrong With Me? - Page 3

post #31 of 35
5/22/11 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post
I've heard that one is tough. And two is exponentially tougher. But three is easier, since the oldest can take care of the youngest and they all keep each other entertained. Not true?

If so, shouldn't the oldest be part of the decision making process?

Having kids and expecting the eldest sibling to provide for them is a dick move.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 35
5/22/11 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post
+1

+

Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post
I've heard that one is tough. And two is exponentially tougher. But three is easier, since the oldest can take care of the youngest and they all keep each other entertained. Not true?

quasi true, my oldest tries to to help out but sometimes its more of a bother. she means well though. also older girls are much more likely to help out than boys.

nyr, we were at girl age 7 boy age 4 and just had #3 (girl,this was a planned event) there are some definite hurdles but it is well worth it. once its too late there is no making it up. good luck with whatever you decide to do.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 35
5/23/11 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by unjung View Post
Ranger, do it, I think we are about the same size (based on your previous B&S threads), and I have been saving money in my "buy Ranger's wardrobe" fund for a long time.

I've always wanted three kids. Now if only I could convince a woman to sleep with me...

Well done.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 35
5/23/11 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post
I've heard that one is tough. And two is exponentially tougher. But three is easier, since the oldest can take care of the youngest and they all keep each other entertained. Not true?
Gets a lot easier once you get over 4 if they're close in age (it's a built in play group)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggs View Post
Having kids and expecting the eldest sibling to provide for them is a dick move.
Using your older kids as surrogate parents is total BS. Agreed. You still have to parent but you no longer have to micro-manage them like you have to do with onlies or two kids . I agree with some of the posters above that kids are a better choice than stuff/ free time/$ etc. You make your choices and adjust your life accordingly.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 35
5/25/11 at 6:57pm
I am sorry I did not have three kids. Coming from 2 it was always my intention. The 90s was like that. You got into your 40s and it did not feel feasible. You get into your 50s and regret it. You say you have more time to yourselves but when you have had a few kids and enjoy family life you miss having a younger one.

Three is a good number. I notice that from 2000 it has become the norm amongst the regular suburban middle class in Australia to have 3 kids. Working families usually had higher total kids. The well-to-do yuppies in many cases had one or none or 2 dogs.

The previous Coalition Government encouraged family size to grow. The Treasurer said have one for Mummy, one for Daddy and one for the country!

Now the country is full of locally produced kids. Then there is the migration program. The schools are full to capacity in my area. At the playgrounds on weekends the parents have to stand in line for their kids to use the play facilities.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Thinking About Number 3, What's Wrong With Me?