Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 became the new 3 a few years ago. Now 5 is the new 4. It's certainly a "thing" in my Bethesda neighborhood, and yes everyone has nannies. Not everyone is in private though.

There's a reason a loaded Suburban is $85k and they can't keep them on the lots!

Four is the point at which your husband cannot reasonably suggest that you ought to get back to work and start bringing in the bacon. Everyone I know who had that fourth child did it when the third was in kindergarten. It's a pretty good way of continuing your SAHM life forever. Two or three, you can reasonably still have a career. Fourth feels like the point of no return.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain the environmental impact of a child. Thank you

Here's one explanation: http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis (The focus here is on carbon emissions.)

I don't particularly care about an extra child's impact on the environment. If the government or society has a problem with it then they should severely limit immigration (isn't natural birthrates lower than the replacement rates?).

Good luck in trying to persuade me it's wasteful to bring an extra person to this world.

It's not just wasteful it is so unnecessary. I see families with 5 or 6 kids and it just makes me think that the mother is some sort of broodmare who can't help but pump out more kids because that's how she defines her value and purpose in life. It's just grotesque and does no favor to the litter of kids fighting amongst themselves for their parent's attention.

That is just an incredibly unkind, hurtful thing to say.

+1 yeah, wow. What on earth has gone so wrong in your own life that you became such a rude, low class, bitter b*tch? Did you have fertility struggles?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sheer fantasy. We'd all look like her after popping out six kids in six years.

LMAO This is exactly what I thought. She had those kids? No way, Jose.

When I see families of 4-6 kids, I usually assume multiple marriages were involved (step-siblings).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sheer fantasy. We'd all look like her after popping out six kids in six years.

LMAO This is exactly what I thought. She had those kids? No way, Jose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Italians haven't been having children for a long while now. The government has been trying to get them to procreate.

Looks like Dolce & Gabana are trying to make it look glamorous as wel.

Though, frankly, with that guy in his "wife-beater" tee and all of those kids it reminds me of an Irish family during the potato famine.

same. probably because they're all in their underwear.

Idk but there is nothing glam or aspiration about that photo for me.

Maybe if they were all dressed up at the theater, like at a performance for the Nutcracker or something? That could be sweet.

And women who have given birth six times have a body like that. And boobies like that! Yeah, right!

After two kids, no chance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Italians haven't been having children for a long while now. The government has been trying to get them to procreate.

Looks like Dolce & Gabana are trying to make it look glamorous as wel.

Though, frankly, with that guy in his "wife-beater" tee and all of those kids it reminds me of an Irish family during the potato famine.

same. probably because they're all in their underwear.

Idk but there is nothing glam or aspiration about that photo for me.

Maybe if they were all dressed up at the theater, like at a performance for the Nutcracker or something? That could be sweet.

And women who have given birth six times have a body like that. And boobies like that! Yeah, right!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you should have seen my face when I pulled this photo up



lol. Fwiw I have 3 kids now and there is no way I would want 5 or 6 total! Four would be my absolute max! I don't see how I could give 5-6 kids the level of individual attention I give my 3 kids now.

Nanny, au pair, tutors, housekeeper ... kids off to boarding school in grade 9. Hence, signal of wealth.

But as the parent, I still want to be able to give each child a certain amount of my attention each day. And I want my H to do so as well. Maybe I am too much of a control freak but as it is now I don't trust babysitters to oversee hw and I like to put them to bed myself and give cuddles, go to their activities and games myself, etc.

We're pretty maxed out time wise with 3 kids. I could see adding a 4th but no more than that.

Agree. I only have two (and done) and I still feel pulled between them sometimes. I'm not great at multitasking so it's very hard for me to, say, cook dinner and supervise two kids' homework. We are fortunate that DH makes a high salary so the decision to stop at 2 was 0% financial and 100% emotional.

+1

That is because you actually care more about your children's well being and less about using your kids for your own personal gains.

Haha oh god. Spoiler alert: your overinvolved helicopter parenting is NOT doing your kids any favors. The kids who grow up in big families will be, by and large, more self-sufficient, better adjusted, and equipped with a range of social and adaptability skills that will serve them well as adults [/quote]

Depends on the parents. Usually such narcissistic parents become a problem in the child's upbringing. Do your research.

Depends on the parents. Usually such narcissitic parents become a problem int he child's upbringing. Do your research.

(...where are you getting narcissism? If anything parents with the most kids have the least time to think about themselves)

Parents keep reproducing because they can't get enough of little versions of them. EW.