- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Stay at Home Moms
I don't understand this special/quality/alone time with your first LO
When my best friend visited us, she said, "your DS1 will never know what he missed out on," meaning he hardly hard any time as just an only child. I've seen this type of thinking elsewhere too including the bump. So my question is, just how many years alone are first borns entitled to? And what happens when you have twins first? Everyone is SOL? And does it bother anyone that only first borns are entitled to this? No subsequent children get the specialness. Bummer for DH who was a fourth born.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
This discussion has been closed.
Re: I don't understand this special/quality/alone time with your first LO
entitled to? nadda. That is a ridiculous statement
My twins are 5! My baby is 3!
DS#2 - Allergic to Cashew, Pistachio, Kiwi
DS#3 - Allergic to Milk, Egg, Peanut, Tree Nuts and Sesame
I used to see this a lot on the 2U2 board and never really got it. It never even occurred to me that I should be worried about DS getting "cheated" because we had DD.
FWIW, I am the youngest of 7
DS 3.12.08
DD 7.11.09
DD 8.01.13
I don't have twins but I am a twin, first born. When I got pg w/ Rowan my pedi mentioned that Parker might have times she resents the fact that we decided to have another kid- like throughout her lifetime! I was appalled and thought I messed everything up for her and how lucky my mom was to have twins first thing so there wasn't any sibling rivalry, etc. Now, Parker is a completely functional and well-adjusted big sister I know how stupid the comment her pedi made is.
The way I've always interpreted this is that, the younger the firstborn is when the second is born, the less they will realize that someone is coming in and taking time away from them. Even though it will be a transition at any age, it is sometimes easier the younger they are because they don't "know what they're missing". It isn't ever mentioned with subsequent kids because they are born into divided attention.
This doesn't seem to be how your friend intended it, but I haven't heard many people with her view.
I think 1 on 1 time is important for all children, but I think it's just as important for them to learn to share attention (whether they have siblings or not).
I do think my second kind of gets the shaft. My first had 3 years of undivided time. I could do a lot more with her, since I only had her schedule to consider. On the other hand DS gets a sister and that is a huge benefit, maybe bigger than going to every museum, playgroup, and playing all day with mommy 1 on 1.
I think the one-on-one time is almost as great for the mom as it is for the child. My girls are almost 18 months apart, and I'm glad I got to experience over a year of time with just one baby. But, like a pp said, I'm also glad they are close together so DD#1 doesn't think the world revolves around her. Well, she's two, so she actually does think the world revolves around her, but you know what I mean. LOL Also, I love that they are both girls and are close in age so they will hopefully be close friends as they grow up.
There are positives and negatives to every way of spacing out and raising kids, and everyone likes to toss around their opinions. I wouldn't take offense if someone said that to me.
I don't get it either. I remember after DS was born, people would always ask me when I was having another and I would mention I intended to have my children close together. People would always try to talk me out of it, as if I was somehow robbing my first born out of a childhood if I had another child close in age to him. Like I was going to make him get a job because he had a sibling or something at the ripe old age of 1. LOL
I think 1 on 1 time with their parents is more for the parent's benefit, not the child's IMO. Kids go to daycare, sacrifice 1 on 1 attention and survive and thrive all the time. There are certainly benefits to the kids in those circumstances.
I had twins first so my girls are so SOL!
I was first born but my mom worked while I was a baby/toddler and became a SAHM when my sister was born. I started school the following year so SHE got the special alone tme with my mom. So in reailty, the firstborn in my family (me) was SOL too
This is so true. When my girls were really small I felt regret that we hadn't waited and spaced them further apart. But now that they're older I wouldn't have it any other way and I'm so glad they're close in age. There are advantages and disadvantages in everything, but what's important is to make the most of what you're given. Sounds like you're comfortable with your family and that's what counts.
I guess I know what people mean when they say it, but the mentality doesn't make much sense to me.
There was a time several months ago that DH and I looked at each other, realized that DS was wrapping us around his finger with his ability to get both parents to ask "how high" when he said jump.... and we realized we had to have another child, STAT.... so DS didn't grow up thinking to world revolved around him.
I'm half kidding, but really.... I would much rather have my child grow up with siblings than feel any regret that my second (or third, etc.) child somehow got shafted.
I don't think you are understanding the comment, which was, they think it's a shame for people to have a second so close to the first, because it's robbing the first of this one-on-one time as a baby. Which is absurd, because obviously, no subsequent kids even get one-on-one time at all, so why is the first entitled to it?
When a friend found out that I was pregnant again she said, "Well, we are spacing our kids out more so XXXX doesn't have his time as a baby stolen from him." I actually laughed at her comment because I just imagined me putting DD to work as soon as LO#2 arrived like our own little Cinderella.
To answer your questions:
Firstborns are entitled to as much time as the parents want to give.
When you have twins first yes, they are just SOL.
I am a firstborn and I don't remember a time before my brother (4 years younger) so I think it is all BS anyways.
Eleanor 9.30.13