Please let me shamelessly brag here: I am so happy I only have 1 child!

[Anonymous]

Ahh, DCUM, never change. These threads always end up like this:

1) I have X number of kids, and it's the best!
2) No, Y number is the best!
3) God, I feel so bad for anyone with X number.
4) Everyone I know with Y number is miserable.
5) I have 10 kids and am super-rich, so I have no problems. You should be rich like me.

[Anonymous]

Yea PP is spot on. If folks would just say, "i can only handle one, but I'm sure others can handle more than one and do just as good a job" we'd all be good. Because that's the real answer. Be confident in your choices, and know yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this thread. I think, OP, that you are actually articulating that you are happy that you have enough money to support your kid(s) (not that you only have one kid).

Meaning, we all have different amounts of money, and it's nice to have enough money to support however many kids we have. For OP, that number is 1.

Op here: I think it’s not just about money, but also effort, health and such.
Every new child is a risk to your modus vivendi I guess.

Interesting.

Do you mean more kids = more effort/work? True. I’ve often felt that many families stop at one or two because it’s easier. Those parents tend to be the ones who require a lot of “me” time. By contrast, parents with more kids tend to be more kid/family oriented.

Health? Whose health?

This is not true. Like, at all. Also, your smugness is showing and it's not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yea PP is spot on. If folks would just say, "i can only handle one, but I'm sure others can handle more than one and do just as good a job" we'd all be good. Because that's the real answer. Be confident in your choices, and know yourself.

Actually, your post reeks of judgment. How about, I only WANT one. Others want more, and that's ok. It's insulting to say that people of only children are somehow less capable of handling being parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yea PP is spot on. If folks would just say, "i can only handle one, but I'm sure others can handle more than one and do just as good a job" we'd all be good. Because that's the real answer. Be confident in your choices, and know yourself.

Actually, your post reeks of judgment. How about, I only WANT one. Others want more, and that's ok. It's insulting to say that people of only children are somehow less capable of handling being parents.

+1. Seriously, take a look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, DCUM, never change. These threads always end up like this:

1) I have X number of kids, and it's the best!
2) No, Y number is the best!
3) God, I feel so bad for anyone with X number.
4) Everyone I know with Y number is miserable.
5) I have 10 kids and am super-rich, so I have no problems. You should be rich like me.

Yes, thank you. So true. Loved that #5 PP earlier in the thread that indulged in some poor-shaming (what an entitled b).

No one could ever convince me that the number of kids I have is wrong. It's absolutely the right number for me. If someone here has a different number that works for you, great. Be secure in your choice. I'm happy for OP for loving her choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have three and am pregnant with #4. Congrats to you OP and I'm glad you're happy with your choice. I'm happy with mine also.

The only envious thing I have when it comes to people with one or no kids is the fact that their bodies are undamaged. I say this as someone who willingly planned and wanted all of my kids but they are the most damaging thing I have ever done to my body. If I had just one or didn't have any, my body would be banging

I have 3 and if looking good matters to you (it does to me) there is no shame in investing a little money in your body once you are done having baby. I was lucky that pregnancies did not change my body (except for wrinklier skin on my belly when I bend). My boobs are smaller than they used to be, but still perky. I worry about risks of breast cancer, otherwise I would absolutely get a boob job. I do take care of my face (lotion and Botox)

[Anonymous]

So why can’t different numbers work for different people? We are one and done, for a mix of reasons, and we are very happy. But that doesn’t mean someone with 2 or 3 can’t be happy. It’s just different. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this thread. I think, OP, that you are actually articulating that you are happy that you have enough money to support your kid(s) (not that you only have one kid).

Meaning, we all have different amounts of money, and it's nice to have enough money to support however many kids we have. For OP, that number is 1.

Op here: I think it’s not just about money, but also effort, health and such.
Every new child is a risk to your modus vivendi I guess.

Interesting.

Do you mean more kids = more effort/work? True. I’ve often felt that many families stop at one or two because it’s easier. Those parents tend to be the ones who require a lot of “me” time. By contrast, parents with more kids tend to be more kid/family oriented.

Health? Whose health?

This is not true. Like, at all. Also, your smugness is showing and it's not a good look.

Disagree.

Do you even know anyone with 3 or 4 kids? How often do they hire sitters for date night or girls night out? The parents I know with the most active social lives and me-time hobbies only have 1 of 2 kids...not that there’s anything wrong with that. I just think people who opt to have larger families tend to be more family-oriented...at least that’s my experience in Dcumlandia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why can’t different numbers work for different people? We are one and done, for a mix of reasons, and we are very happy. But that doesn’t mean someone with 2 or 3 can’t be happy. It’s just different. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

It isn’t a hard concept to understand.

It’s just very weird to be proud of avoiding airline fees and being able to afford fancy camps thanks to a singleton. That’s all.

[Anonymous]

As someone who went through infertility, it's pretty astounding how many posters here are assuming people's family size was a choice. If wanting and choosing to have kids was enough, then 1 in 8 couples wouldn't be dealing with infertility. Just my PSA for folks to perhaps be a more sensitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who went through infertility, it's pretty astounding how many posters here are assuming people's family size was a choice. If wanting and choosing to have kids was enough, then 1 in 8 couples wouldn't be dealing with infertility. Just my PSA for folks to perhaps be a more sensitive.

That includes the op, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this thread. I think, OP, that you are actually articulating that you are happy that you have enough money to support your kid(s) (not that you only have one kid).

Meaning, we all have different amounts of money, and it's nice to have enough money to support however many kids we have. For OP, that number is 1.

Op here: I think it’s not just about money, but also effort, health and such.
Every new child is a risk to your modus vivendi I guess.

Interesting.

Do you mean more kids = more effort/work? True. I’ve often felt that many families stop at one or two because it’s easier. Those parents tend to be the ones who require a lot of “me” time. By contrast, parents with more kids tend to be more kid/family oriented.

Health? Whose health?

This is not true. Like, at all. Also, your smugness is showing and it's not a good look.

Disagree.

Do you even know anyone with 3 or 4 kids? How often do they hire sitters for date night or girls night out? The parents I know with the most active social lives and me-time hobbies only have 1 of 2 kids...not that there’s anything wrong with that. I just think people who opt to have larger families tend to be more family-oriented...at least that’s my experience in Dcumlandia.

Haha they are most likely not avoiding date nights or hobbies/“me time” because they are more family oriented. It’s because they don’t have as much $$ or time because they have more kids!

I have 2 and we are very kid centered and family oriented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I disagree, PP. I've known enough families with 4-5 kids that had money, didn't have money, WOH, SAH, etc. Once you get to such a big family (unless there are large age gaps), you just don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe enough for you, but my DH grew up in that family (4 kids, SAHM, cleaners/nanny/chef) and still says he didn't get much one on one time with his parents. It's whether you like "group parenting" - if that's good for you, then cool, but it's not what I wanted.

Interesting.

I’m one of 4.

My SAHM volunteered at school, handled ballet lessons, and was always around. Dad coached sports for all of us and was around. I grew up in the 70s/80s, back when you mostly played with neighborhood kids in big groups outside or in houses. It would have been really weird to play alone with your parents rather than with kids.

One on one time obviously happened as a baby up until pre-K (my siblings and I were spaced 4 years apart). When we were older, one on one time happened driving to/from sports, pre/post games, driving to school (long drive to private HS), etc. as well as during evening conversations, watching tv, etc.

I feel like my parents were always around and available. I certainly never felt neglected or like they were too busy for me.

As a parent of 4, DH and I are always around. We prioritize one on one time with the kids (including special day trips as well as simple things like watching movies/playing cards).

I’m close with my siblings (and their spouses and kids), and I’m confident my kids will be, too.

+1. All it takes is time and commitment. Money buys the time, but you can't buy commitment. So when a poster complains about having a neglected husband despite being brought up in a wealthy family, it's pretty clear it's not the size of the family that was the problem. It was the lack of parental commitment.

Sure, but all of us with fewer kids know that the amount of time you can commit is just less when you have double the number of kids. You chose to have that many kids, of course it's right for your family. Others want more for our kids. More isn't always better and I'm sure your kids are perfectly fine, but a few hours around school and weekends only stretch so far.

See... this is offensive “some of us want more?!?!” More what? Alone time? I can promise you that having siblings is adding so much richness not only to your life, but to your child’s life too... so no... I had 3 BECAUSE I wanted to give my kids more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep forgetting how expensive it is with 2+.
Told my friend about a cheap camp for spring break - she reminded me she had to pay a lot for 2 kids.
Now I see a topic where parents won’t shell out money for assigned seats on airplane because the family is so large.
It is so, so easy to have only one, especially when they are 9+ yo.
I might of course get my karma when he is a teen but for now I just enjoy it so much.
Thank you for listening! I can’t say that in real life as my friends all have 2.

I'm glad you're happy, but it seems weird to focus on the money. I doubt on your deathbed you will care at all about how much money you saved on camps and airline seats.

And the only child will have to deal with aging parents and death and probate on their own.

That's what I always think when I meet families with one child. Sucks for that kid to have to shoulder aging parent issues alone.

Hopefully, we'll be a lot better off financially and can afford elder care provided by specialists so we don't have to burden our kid.

It’s not just elder care. It’s the stress and grief. My siblings and I debriefed daily when our mom was battling cancer and passed away. And now we’re struggling with comforting our dad. He doesn’t need elder care, he just needs company. Plus, emptying and selling a house, planning a funeral, etc. Siblings help you get through these things. And they help by simply having a shared history and memories. Family is typically a good thing.

What do people not understand about the fact that you can get the same type of support from a partner, a close friend, another family member? My best friend and my spouse are my sources of this kind of support, not my brother who lives in another state and calls a few times a year (and we were good friends who used to vacation together, from a close-knit and well-adjusted family).

Having multiple kids does not guarantee siblings will be close friends throughout their lives or a source of support. There's not even a high chance of it from what I've seen out of all the people I know that well.

And YES to getting a will that spells everything out, and purchase life insurance. My kid will be on the hook for nothing - sign the papers and done.

Your kid won’t have to clear out your house or apartment? Well your house or car? Deal with your household goods?

Plan a funeral and host a reception?

Nope, not unless I die unexpectedly before I can take care of all those things myself! I could care less about a funeral or reception. Toss my ashes in the atlantic if you want and call it a day.