Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think it matters that much. I think whether they play together or get along will depend much more on their personalities than on age gap.
I had a 3.5 age gap (I was aiming for 2.5 but two miscarriages killed that plan). I didn't think they would play together but they did, quite a bit. When they did not, I attribute mostly to them being different genders and having very different interests. They get along great and almost never fight -- but again, just luck of the draw and not much to do with spacing.
For you, I think 3 will be easier in the beginning because your older will be a little more independent. But later on life, 2 may be easier because there will more years they will be in the same school and they will generally be i the same stage of childhood at the same time.
OP here. I shoulda have been more specific. I’m not asking in the sense that they get along and play together. I’m asking if they think a 2 or 3 year age gap is easier? Some have said a 2 year gap is easier because oldest is still young and you can get through all the baby phases quicker, and others have said it’s hard because you oldest isn’t super independent and it’s hard to care for both of them. Some have said the 3 year age gap is good because oldest child is older and more aware and independent, and others have said the child being older means more rejection for baby and it can make for a tougher transition.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think it matters that much. I think whether they play together or get along will depend much more on their personalities than on age gap.
I had a 3.5 age gap (I was aiming for 2.5 but two miscarriages killed that plan). I didn't think they would play together but they did, quite a bit. When they did not, I attribute mostly to them being different genders and having very different interests. They get along great and almost never fight -- but again, just luck of the draw and not much to do with spacing.
For you, I think 3 will be easier in the beginning because your older will be a little more independent. But later on life, 2 may be easier because there will more years they will be in the same school and they will generally be i the same stage of childhood at the same time.
OP here. I shoulda have been more specific. I’m not asking in the sense that they get along and play together. I’m asking if they think a 2 or 3 year age gap is easier? Some have said a 2 year gap is easier because oldest is still young and you can get through all the baby phases quicker, and others have said it’s hard because you oldest isn’t super independent and it’s hard to care for both of them. Some have said the 3 year age gap is good because oldest child is older and more aware and independent, and others have said the child being older means more rejection for baby and it can make for a tougher transition.
Anonymous wrote:I don't think it matters that much. I think whether they play together or get along will depend much more on their personalities than on age gap.
I had a 3.5 age gap (I was aiming for 2.5 but two miscarriages killed that plan). I didn't think they would play together but they did, quite a bit. When they did not, I attribute mostly to them being different genders and having very different interests. They get along great and almost never fight -- but again, just luck of the draw and not much to do with spacing.
For you, I think 3 will be easier in the beginning because your older will be a little more independent. But later on life, 2 may be easier because there will more years they will be in the same school and they will generally be i the same stage of childhood at the same time.