2.5 year age gap or 3.5 year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 3-4 age is far worse than the "terrible twos". 3.5 years in between will save your sanity.

Then how would having a newborn at the height of what you consider the "worst" save your sanity??

[Anonymous]

I know this is old, but I now have a 17 month old and found this thread while searching this exact thought. Would love to hear some updated responses.

[Anonymous]

We got pregnant with #2 on #1's actual 3rd birthday....I absolutely couldn't imagine having them any closer in age! I would have gone bat shit crazy. DC1 was feeling like a big girl, mama's little helper with the baby, she was in preschool every morning (a freaking godsend those first few months of sleepless nights with baby). She never went through ANY jealousy or reverting to babyhood stage.
I would never consider having another until DC2 is at least 2.5 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having done 2.5, I would recommend 3.5 ?

this is such a "the grass is greener question."

Mine are 2.75 and i wish they were closer in age. I know it would have been harder those first 2 years, but it would be so nice to have them in the same school already. I am definitely glad they aren't further apart than they are.

[Anonymous]

If someone is open to either 2.5 or 3.5 I'd shoot for 2.5. I wanted 2.5, and we will be getting just over 4 years.

[Anonymous]

I conceived my first on the first try at 34 years old. The second time it took over a year and a couple of losses for a healthy pregnancy. We started trying again when our first was almost 2. Since you're mid-30s, I agree with the recommendations not to wait. That said, my kids will be almost 4 years apart and I think it'll be great. It's not what we planned for, but our first child is pretty independent and is so excited for the baby to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, if I were you, I wouldn't wait. The older I get, the harder the sleep disruption is physically. If I could rewrite time, I would have my kids earlier (requiring that I met DH earlier, etc.).[/quot

Me too! I would have loved to start at 28 but that was actually the age I met DH. We started at 32 and the advantage is that we knew each other well and the baby didn't disrupt our relationship too deeply but man. Younger age would have been nice for the physical part of pregnancy and parenting. That said, I don't know if a year will make a difference either way for the OP--I'm 36 with a 6 month old and it's been rough but I don't think it would have been any easier at 35.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[/b]We got pregnant with #2 on #1's actual 3rd birthday[b]....I absolutely couldn't imagine having them any closer in age! I would have gone bat shit crazy. DC1 was feeling like a big girl, mama's little helper with the baby, she was in preschool every morning (a freaking godsend those first few months of sleepless nights with baby). She never went through ANY jealousy or reverting to babyhood stage.
I would never consider having another until DC2 is at least 2.5 years old.

Weird and gross.

[Anonymous]

Why the .5?
I like them to have birthdays at least within a few months of each other. We planned for 2 years apart but if it was getting close to 2.5 we would have stopped trying and wait until it was an even three years apart,

[Anonymous]

I have a 2 year, 9 month age gap between my older DS and baby DD. DD is now 6 months, and I'd say the gap has worked well overall but my DS is pretty emotional and demanding, even defiant, the last few months and I think it definitely has to do with the arrival of DD. He's always been strongwilled, though. He is very sweet with DD but gets amped up trying to make her laugh (it works!) and trying to get them both ready for daycare is a total nightmare because of this. Hoping this stage passes real soon! But really, I think 2.5-3.5 gap is ideal and there will be equal pros and cons depending on if you go on the younger or older end. It's not worth stressing about in the end (though I did too, so I get it!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We aimed for 2, ended up with 3.5, and couldn't be happier. The first was out of diapers, in preschool, etc when our second was born.

PP - that's the thing. You might decide to go for 3.5 years and then it could take 1-1.5 years to conceive. You can't assume because it happened quickly with your first (if it did) that it will happen quickly with your second. It didn't for us. So, I say start trying as early as you feel you will be ready to handle another 9-months out. Both age gaps come with challenges (I have 3, and similar age gaps) so don't wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We aimed for 2, ended up with 3.5, and couldn't be happier. The first was out of diapers, in preschool, etc when our second was born.

PP - that's the thing. You might decide to go for 3.5 years and then it could take 1-1.5 years to conceive. You can't assume because it happened quickly with your first (if it did) that it will happen quickly with your second. It didn't for us. So, I say start trying as early as you feel you will be ready to handle another 9-months out. Both age gaps come with challenges (I have 3, and similar age gaps) so don't wait.

Meant OP.