Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, yes its young. My sister had her kids young (started at 26) and now she is late 40s with an empty nest. She is highly educated and she and her DH live in a wealthy area (not DC). The major downside, she says, is that they are so out of step with their friends from college in terms of life phases that they lost touch with most of them and she says they are always the youngest parents in any setting, in some cases by 10+ years. So she's found it difficult, at times, to connect with parents of other kids.

Should she have delayed having kids so she can connect better with other parents? That's lunacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty young in a social sense, if not biological. Nowadays most people in this area (educated professionals) seem to start around 32/33.

This. Most people haven't saved up a lot of money by 26.

So?

In my opinion, yes its young. My sister had her kids young (started at 26) and now she is late 40s with an empty nest. She is highly educated and she and her DH live in a wealthy area (not DC). The major downside, she says, is that they are so out of step with their friends from college in terms of life phases that they lost touch with most of them and she says they are always the youngest parents in any setting, in some cases by 10+ years. So she's found it difficult, at times, to connect with parents of other kids.

You're exactly average for a woman in the US:

"Fifteen years ago, the mean age of a woman when she first gave birth was 24.9 years old. In 2014, that age had risen to 26.3."

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/14/462816458/average-age-of-first-time-moms-keeps-climbing-in-the-u-s

However, you're young compared to the averages for educated women. This study is retroactive (as opposed to looking at births today), but it gives you an idea:

"Among women ages 40 to 50, the median age at which those with a master’s degree or more first became mothers now stands at 30, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data. In comparison, the median age at first birth for women with a high school diploma or less is just 24."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/15/for-most-highly-educated-women-motherhood-doesnt-start-until-the-30s/

I don't know about opinion, but with my peer group yes, it would be very young.

I have a group of about 20 women I stayed in touch with after college for trips, reunions. The first one had a baby at 30 and she was the only parent for a while. Most of the rest of us started in the 34-36 window. Most of us are in the DC, Philly, NYC, and a few scattered to SF.

But put us all back in the Midwest or some of our hometowns and we'd be older parents.

Here in DC if you stay in DC or the inner suburbs, you will be very young. If you move out further, you probably won't.

Perceptions are skewed around here because so many people went to graduate school. If I'd had my first at 26, I'd have been less than one year out of school, with a mountain of debt, just starting my career, and the sense of personal responsibility of a meth-addled Donald Trump. It would have been too young for me. But, if you are a high school graduate, or a college graduate, you've been working for 4-8 years, (hopefully) have some security and stability (both financial and otherwise), than it's great. I'm 44 now with a 10 year old. It's hard for me to imagine having her as a senior in high school, off to college next year. But it sure sounds great!

No young, the best time to have babies is age 23-33

Anonymous wrote:

Since I had my first at 25, no.

But you live in an area where women start having babies in their late 30s.

People thought I was a teen mother.

+1

Same experience and age, but I was in NYC.

For most of the country it's normal age but in some larger cities, mainly mid-atlantic and N.E., it's like we're the mythical unicorn.

Anonymous wrote:In the DC area, yes, 26 is young. Absolutely nothing wrong with it and not truly "young", but yeah I think some people will make that comment to you. Not our of malice, just that they more often see moms in their mid 30's around here.

I started at 35 - be glad your life lined up for you to do it younger! Trust me! Wishing you happy pregs and happy babe.

+1

If I had met the right guy at that age and we were married/settled then I would have happily had kids younger. Enjoy!

My parents had my sister and I in their early 20's. They were fantastic parents, my sister and I both have several post graduate degrees, and they were done raising us and started a whole new active chapter of their lives and relationship in their mid 40's.

In hindsight, I wish I had followed their example, because I have found having children in my mid to late 30's was very disruptive to my career.

I had my first at 26 and my second at 29. I'm 35 now and, in retrospect, it seems a smidge on the young side but I don't regret it in the least. I wouldn't think anything negative about someone else having a baby at 26.

Since I had my first at 25, no.

But you live in an area where women start having babies in their late 30s.

People thought I was a teen mother.

I had my first at 25 in grad school, took about 3 years until my next friend from college had kids. At 31 nearly all have babies and I'm glad to be out of that stage!

I had my first at 27. Finished grad school. Worked for 3 years. Married for 3 years. Lived in a much lower COL place than DC at the time. I'm 42 now and still get doubletakes and people saying "you're kidding" and acting like I was a teen mom when they find out my kids are 13 & 15. But whatever. I had tough pregnancies and may not have been able to have kids in my 30s and 40s. Kids are doing great, and the youngest one will graduate from college when I am 52. Lots of time to continue saving, retire early, travel, etc.

I was 26 when I had my first and only child and had been married for over 4 years. I was told by some that I was "too old" and others said "but you're still a baby yourself". Lol.

Can't please everyone. Congrats on the pregnancy!!