Aubrey Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Twins or Irish twins (15-ish mos apt or less)? Just curious.:bigear: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I think what's hardest is being the person who has experienced both and can give us an accurate vote. ;) I found twins extremely challenging until they were about three years old, and then easier than a singleton after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Mine were 14 months apart and although it was hard in the beginning, we've really grown into it. And it seems to me that it would be less hard than "real" twins. When DS absolutely needed to nurse, I made him the priority because he was the baby. DD needed to nurse too but it was less of a priority because she was on solid foods as well, although she nursed like a newborn again for awhile there... :glare: One of my cutest memories of the two of them was when DD was about 16 months old and loving on her baby brother. She had him on her lap and she just grabbed his little face and looked deeply into his eyes while she said, "Bugum bugum bugum JAMBALAYA!" We have no idea what she she said obviously but she was trying so hard to convey something to her brother who looked frankly, a little terrified and/or surprised. DD also used to rub DS' head while they tandem nursed. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoVanGogh Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Well, my grandmother had twins, then an Irish twin. :lol: During WWII, before disposable diapers. I think that wins as the hardest. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitilin Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I had twins, then a 3 year break, then ds, a 20 month break, ds, a 20 month break, dd, a 4year break, then ds. For me the period when my middle kiddos were all in the infant/toddler stage was much harder, because it went on a LOT longer, than the 3 months or so before my twins slept through the night. I think this kind of thing depends so, so heavily on the personalities of the children and how they interact with your own. Infancy is a pretty easy stage for me, toddlers are harder, preschoolers about the same, and elementary ages are hardest. (I like teens the best--so far;)). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaT Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 My last two are 9 months and 1 day apart, due to one being adopted. I think it is harder that way, but I haven't experienced twins. The older one was just old enough to hurt the younger one without meaning to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Twins or Irish twins (15-ish mos apt or less)? Just curious.:bigear: Uhhhh...you must have missed the thread that deemed the term "Irish twins" offensive. :lol: Plus around here..."IT" means children born less than a year apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinmom Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I had semi-Irish twins (18 mo. part), then twins another 18 months later. I'm still recovering and the oldest is 12! They also all have special needs, which made them additionally challenging. Thank the Lord that someone else took the brunt of the pregnancies and deliveries or it might have killed me (my kids are adopted)! It is hard to say what was the hardest...probably the twins, but the whole thing remains quite the blur. My situation is unique due to the adoptions and special needs, but I guess I'd have to say that the twins were harder as babies but easier now than are the older two, who compete incessantly about everything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 IMO, twins are much harder. My kids #2 and #3 are twins. My kids #5 and #6 are 13 months apart, and while there were a lot of difficult moments, surely some that reminded me of my twins, it has been nowhere close to the level of difficulty of infant/toddler twins. (My twins are now 8, and the little ones are 2 and 3.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Uhhhh...you must have missed the thread that deemed the term "Irish twins" offensive. :lol: Plus around here..."IT" means children born less than a year apart. :iagree: Esp the :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellydon Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I always assumed twins were harder, but when I was out with my first two that were Irish twins, I frequently got comments saying "Having twins would have been easier!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creativish Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 um... I'll let ya know for sure in Feb:tongue_smilie: My first 2 are 13 months apart and #6 & 7 will be twins. But I'm expecting this next year of motherhood to be the hardest one yet.:eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I'd love to hear from anyone who has *both* for a real comparison. LOL There were many times when I wished I could have gone through pregnancy ONCE to have my oldest two, who are 11 months apart. People think they're twins all the time anyhow. LOL But I'm just saying that because of the difficulties *I* experienced. I'd imagine that moms of twins have it pretty hard for the first year or two and then the benefits start becoming apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 I think what's hardest is being the person who has experienced both and can give us an accurate vote. ;) I found twins extremely challenging until they were about three years old, and then easier than a singleton after that. Yup, I thought of that after posting! :lol: Mine are 14 or 15 mos apt, & I agree w/ your statement--challenging, WAY challenging to about 3yo, then things start getting easier. Which is what led me to the question in the first place. I've always assumed twins were harder, but...pulling a 1yo out of the trashcan while 9mos pg does have its own challenges! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 Uhhhh...you must have missed the thread that deemed the term "Irish twins" offensive. :lol: Plus around here..."IT" means children born less than a year apart. I can't tell if you're kidding--do I need to change it? I wondered about that after posting. Fwiw, my family's Irish. I didn't *mean* anything bad, but am happy to fix it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 IMO, twins are much harder. My kids #2 and #3 are twins. My kids #5 and #6 are 13 months apart, and while there were a lot of difficult moments, surely some that reminded me of my twins, it has been nowhere close to the level of difficulty of infant/toddler twins. (My twins are now 8, and the little ones are 2 and 3.) Were 5 & 6 easier because of the spacing or because you had bigger kids to help, do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 I always assumed twins were harder, but when I was out with my first two that were Irish twins, I frequently got comments saying "Having twins would have been easier!" That's funny--everybody assumes mine *are* twins! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellydon Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 That's funny--everybody assumes mine *are* twins! This was when one was a baby and one was a toddler. People often assume twins now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 In my case, twins were harder. It didn't help that my oldest is only 19 months older than the twins. Individually each twin was a hard, colicky, fussy baby. Together, they were very hard. I was VERY glad for the first year to be over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfect Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 My oldest two are 13 months apart, when they were 2.5 and 3.5 I had twins. Then when they were 2.5 I had my youngest. Having newborn twins was by far the hardest, once they were around 6 months it got easier. My oldest is now 18 and I wish I could go back and do it all over again- I love babies :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I only have twins, and I didn't read all the responses... I think there's not much harder than infant twins. I've mostly blocked out my kids' first year and a half for the sake of my sanity. But after about age 4 (and even maybe a little before...), twins is golden in my experience. Many of the issues we saw with their friends about sharing, competition, etc. we dealt with earlier. Not that it never rears its head, but my kids are pretty well ahead of their peers on that key stuff still as 7 yos. I think it must be harder to have Irish twins in the toddler and early elementary years than twins because of those sharing, developmental issues. But once you get into teens, my guess is that this depends too much on the personalities of the kids in question to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-rap Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I had several children, each 16 months apart from the next. But man oh man, I think twins would be harder!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paige Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) My friend has 2 sets of fraternal twins less than 1yr apart. She wins the "had it hardest" award for people I know! I think she has said twins by themselves are harder than 2 closely spaced children would be. I have twins and I think they are harder overall. My oldest was 2 when they were born, so I can't really speak to what it's like with closely spaced kids, but I think society is better adapted to people with closely spaced kids than twins and that makes a lot of things easier. Twins are harder because the pregnancy is so much harder and your risks of still birth, prematurity, and special needs with the children is so much higher. Having 2 healthy full term babies may be much easier, but with twins, your chances of that are lower than they are with closely spaced children. I know mine wouldn't have been premature if they had been singletons, and they most likely wouldn't have any of the daily struggles that we deal with. As they get older, you also continually have to balance their special needs and issues of how to dress them or allow them to dress- alike or not, how to foster independence, 2 classes or the same class in school if you ever send them, if you have identicals you have to figure out who is who and deal with the fact that in your memories, you may have no idea who did what. Once the kids are about 5, I think most fraternal twins and irish twins issues may be more similar, but I think balancing the needs of identicals and to some extent all twins is tricky their entire lives. Edited October 1, 2011 by Paige Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Were 5 & 6 easier because of the spacing or because you had bigger kids to help, do you think? The spacing was not easy in either case (my oldest is 22 mo older than the twins; the "middle child" is 2 years older than #5). And the "bigger kids" weren't big enough to help a whole lot when #6 was born, at which point the kids were 8, 6, 6, 3, 1 and 0. The challenge and experience of twins provided a lot of training in managing various situations, and so I had already been through a lot before #6 surprised us. However, I must reiterate my opinion that twins are MUCH harder than babies born close together. Much. harder. 24/7. It's not even a close call. The only other aspect that may influence my experience is that my twins were premies, did NICU time, and ended up staying on the every-3-hour (24 hrs/day) feeding schedule for a very long time (6 months), and the sleep deprivation did me in. But twin toddlers are still harder than toddlers a year apart in age. Edited October 1, 2011 by wapiti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFSinIL Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I had twins. Neighbor had Irish. We each think the other one had it easier. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Well, my grandmother had twins, then an Irish twin. :lol: During WWII, before disposable diapers. I think that wins as the hardest. :D My grandma can beat your grandma, lol. Twins, then 12 months later a singleton, then about a year later another set of twins. :willy_nilly: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I can't tell if you're kidding--do I need to change it? I wondered about that after posting. Fwiw, my family's Irish. I didn't *mean* anything bad, but am happy to fix it! There was a thread here about the terms Irish twins being offensive. So I am not kidding about that part. As for you changing it: that's up to you. I'm not the board police...other people around here do that quite nicely. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 um... I'll let ya know for sure in Feb:tongue_smilie: My first 2 are 13 months apart and #6 & 7 will be twins.But I'm expecting this next year of motherhood to be the hardest one yet.:eek: Ha! You can't compare the two because now you have older kids to either help or hinder with the new arrivals. I strongly suspect that will either make it much harder or much easier!:D:lol::lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Well, I have both. For me, the twins are harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I have two 17 months apart. I think twins would be MUCH harder. The older of the two is weaned, so I'm only nursing one baby. She's also sleeping through the night, so I'm only dealing with one child during the night. I think that just between nursing two babies, and dealing with two who were waking at night, twins would be much, much harder. A friend of mine had twins, and she doesn't remember doing much their first year except nursing them, and trying to get some sleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myfatherslily Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Well, I have both. For me, the twins are harder. Well, you had both at the same time, right?! I think that tops either one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I think what's hardest is being the person who has experienced both and can give us an accurate vote. ;) I found twins extremely challenging until they were about three years old, and then easier than a singleton after that. I had a couple of kids 18 months apart and they were incidentally not difficult. I have also a set of twins and I would say that the level of energy and involvement is higher with twins. Plus the twin pregnancy is a whole different chapter that is unlike a regular pregnancy. Heck, twins kicking in your tummy is a whole different experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 um... I'll let ya know for sure in Feb:tongue_smilie: My first 2 are 13 months apart and #6 & 7 will be twins.But I'm expecting this next year of motherhood to be the hardest one yet.:eek: Congratulations. It'll be hard, but so worth it. Prepare yourself now and the actual baby-time will be so much easier than your pregnancy!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creativish Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Congratulations. It'll be hard, but so worth it. Prepare yourself now and the actual baby-time will be so much easier than your pregnancy!!!! Thanks! :001_smile: Oddly enough, this pregnancy has been good to me (but I'm just halfway). I had no clue there were twins in there-- I had no more bouts of sickness than previous pregnancies-- if anything, maybe I was more exhausted-- but I've never been pregnant with 5 other kids too ;) My only inkling was that we were searching for a new (to us) vehicle and the minivans we were looking to purchase only held 1 more, so I wanted to wait until my ultrasound appt just to be sure... thank goodness we did!!:lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HayesW Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I've had several very close together, my third was born before my oldest turned 3. However, I think twins would be harder. Even at 16 months old, my bigger kid could wait for a second while I nursed the baby. I can't imagine having to handle TWO newborns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Well, to me key to being successful with the twins were that I kept them on the same schedule. Always woke them both up and always, always breastfed them at the same time (and late food at the same time). Changed them at the same time (and yes, once changed the same baby twice!!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 My friend has 2 sets of fraternal twins less than 1yr apart. She wins the "had it hardest" award for people I know! My grandma can beat your grandma, lol. Twins, then 12 months later a singleton, then about a year later another set of twins. :willy_nilly: :blink::svengo: ...and the sleep deprivation did me in... Same here. :closedeyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottakee Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 My friend has 2 sets of fraternal twins less than 1yr apart. She wins the "had it hardest" award for people I know! . I had friends in college whose mother had a little boy and then then 11 months later had them---identical TRIPLET girls. She had 4 under a year old and 3 of them looked so much alike that they can't tell who was who in pictures until they were old enough to remember the picture being taken and where they were in the picture. My girls are 14 months apart and that was hard when they were little but great as they got older. They are adopted though so I skipped the pregnancy and delievery part--but they are full bio siblings. We then had a foster boy 3 weeks older than the older for a year so I had 3 in 15 months time--all preschoolers. I also had a set of sisters that were 9 months and 13 days apart in age--same mom. They were 3 though when I got them so not hard. My hardest might have been when I had 10 months, 15 months, and 24 months at once. The other 2 were into everything and then I had a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeachingTwins Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I've only had twins, but the first two-and-a half months was the toughest physical thing I have ever dealt with in my life. I didn't get more than 2-and-a-half hours sleep in a row for that time period. They were premies and had to be awakened and fed ever 3 hours. I remember feeling like I was in a constant fog, and could barely function. So, I vote that twins are harder even though I can't really compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EJCMom Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I say, the hardest one is whichever one you're experiencing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaJo Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I think what's hardest is being the person who has experienced both and can give us an accurate vote. ;) I found twins extremely challenging until they were about three years old, and then easier than a singleton after that. LOL I would say Irish twin because there is an extended period of infancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieJ Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I know a family who were told they would not have any kids. When their son was born they were thankful and thought that was it. 15 months later twins. I dind't know her then, but I hear it was rough, really rough. But they are a wonderful wonderful family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I agree that to qualify as "Irish twins" they need to be born within a year of one another. That's GOT to be hard on your body. I'm a wimp, though, and spaced my kids 3 1/2 years apart :D I did know a homeschooler who had a daughter, then 15 months later a second daughter, then 15 months later . . . triplets. The triplets were a girl and identical twin boys. She always looked so put-together too. I don't know how she did it. That has GOT to be hard. Of course, that Table for Twelve family had it rough too. Wowza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I agree that to qualify as "Irish twins" they need to be born within a year of one another. That's GOT to be hard on your body. I'm a wimp, though, and spaced my kids 3 1/2 years apart :D I don't know about 12 months apart. I do think that would be hard. (I met a woman once who had two boys less than 11 months apart. She went in for her 6 week pp check up, and got a HUGE surprise.) But, my third pregnancy, which came about six months after I had my DD (she was 16-1/2 months old when the new baby was born), was my easiest by far. Until maybe the last month, when I was hot and huge and uncomfortable (although even then not as much as you might think given I was nine months pregnant in July), I often forgot I was pregnant. I was really pretty shocked at how easy the pregnancy was, especially since my first was really hard both emotionally and physically. But I think I was in denial about the fact that I was having another baby up until about, oh, transition, so that could have been part of it, too. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey Mom Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 My boys are 14 months apart. To avoid confusion, we no longer refer to them as "Irish Twins". They're both redheads...we're of Scandinavian descent. :tongue_smilie: It was harder for me to go from ONE child (12 at the time) who was pretty self-sufficient, to two little boys within a year and a half. I guess I got spoiled by the peace and quiet...oh, and sleeping in on weekends. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seraphina Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I don't have twins but my 3rd and 4th were 13 months apart. I imagine they were easier that twins because at least I was only nursing one at a time. I might be considered slightly crazy though since I think it's much easier to have kids close together. I had all five of mine in less than 6 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 2, 2011 Author Share Posted October 2, 2011 Well, to me key to being successful with the twins were that I kept them on the same schedule. Always woke them both up and always, always breastfed them at the same time (and late food at the same time). Changed them at the same time (and yes, once changed the same baby twice!!). This is what even made me ask--the fact that you *can* put a baby on a schedule, put him down & he'll be there when you get back (up to a certain age!), etc. But I bet a lot depends, too, on the health & personality of the babies involved & the #, age, & maturity of sibs. The double sleep loss is pretty compelling on the twins' side, though! :svengo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarfoot Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) Okay, to avoid offending anyone, I'll call ours Catholic twins.;) They're 14 mos. apart, and at just-turned-4 and just-turned-5, they are still so, so tiring. Every stage seems to last for...ev...er... I don't know, it could definitely be just my kids. DD 5 has SPD, which is just totally over the top and makes simple things turn into major ordeals. They've just been hard, though, way harder than the olders, who are 2.5 years apart, and not easy kids, either. My funny story about the "Catholic twins": We were heading back to our cruise ship in the Bahamas a couple of years ago, and an older woman who was walking near us said, "Oh, you've got Catholic twins!" and then started telling us about her children. A few minutes later, DD, then 10, whispered, "Mom, how did she know we were Catholic?":lol: ETA that DD 5 was born early in a very difficult situation, for her and me, so I don't think I'd really had enough time to recover from that before I was pregnant again with DS 4. That certainly didn't help the physical exhaustion. Both of them were C-Sections, also--DD, emergency, DS, planned. Edited October 2, 2011 by Sugarfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 2, 2011 Author Share Posted October 2, 2011 I don't have twins but my 3rd and 4th were 13 months apart. I imagine they were easier that twins because at least I was only nursing one at a time. I might be considered slightly crazy though since I think it's much easier to have kids close together. I had all five of mine in less than 6 years. You know what's funny? I was SO scared to have #2--that it would be too much, I wouldn't be a good enough mother, etc. And they were close enough (2 yrs, 3mos) that there were tears (mine) at first, but by the time #2 was...6mos? A year? I thought WOW! If I'd known how good this would be, I wouldn't have waited so long. Then we dealt w/ infertility, etc, finally had #3, & (we'd always planned 4) I told dh I didn't necessarily want 3 & 4 to be as far apart as 1 & 2. A year & a half to two years, maybe. You know...until just this moment, I hadn't realized that a year and a half is the same as 18mos when it comes to child spacing. :svengo: Because I spent the ENTIRE surprise pg of #4 saying, "I didn't mean THIS close!" :lol: #4 is 3yo now. I just recently looked at pics of the first yr of his life for the first time since they were taken. Yeah, I'd blocked a lot. :lol: I had a 7yo, a 5yo, & a 1yo who'd spent her entire life SCREAMING. Luckily, #4 was much easier than #3. Unluckily, #3 continued to be...challenging until...well...:lol: She's a great kid now, but "easy-going" will never be her dominant trait. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anneofalamo Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 my son and his sisters are adopted thru foster, same momma he is 11 months older than his sisters, for 19 days they are the 'same age' the girls are twins (identical) we got them when they were all 4 (the girls had just turned 4 and my son turned 5 a few days later) They are extremely close. But the girls are uncanny close. We weren't homeschoolers when they started school, but all three could have started the same year, yep, they made the cut off everyone said, how fun to have them in the same grade, I looked at the future and thought not fun all 3 graduating the same year...and kept the girls another year we have another older son 2 years older, so it is a close age group! We love it, and are in the process of adding more! :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.