We have a theory here at Baby Bunching that if you are not pregnant again by the time your baby hits his first birthday, you will likely not be pregnant again until he is at least 2. We have lots of anecdotal (granted, none scientific) evidence in the form of our many, many friends who are Baby Bunchers and our many, many friends who have children who are around three years apart. We note that we have almost NO friends with children in the 2 1/2 year spacing pattern. This is because the baby stage from about 9 months to 2 years will kick. your. ass.
How many of us Baby Bunchers got pregnant when the baby was 9 months old, only to find ourselves saying at the one-year mark, "Holy S*%t, what have I done?" I personally experienced the feeling that if I were not already pregnant and unable to turn back the clock, there was no way in hell I would've PLANNED to be pregnant again with a 1-year old hanging off the side.
For those of you who are considering Baby Bunching but haven't taken the plunge yet, consider the following. From about the 5-month mark (when they start sleeping through the night) to about the 10-month mark (when they start crawling really, really fast), babies have a quiet period. Much like a dormant volcano, they delude you into thinking that this parenting gig isn't so hard after all. At this age, they are finally starting to reward your indentured servitude by smiling, giggling, and playing with you. They've started solid foods, so they are no longer the constant companion of your breasts. They're likely sleeping through the night, even in their own beds, allowing you and the hubby some quality time to rediscover each other. This would be a good time to remind you that "rediscovering each other" is how you got here in the first place, so be very, very careful.
And then along comes the first birthday and with it, toddlerhood. Toddlers are special, special little people. Active, curious, and opinionated, they will beat you into submission, much as they did as newborns. You will find yourself running all day long, constantly dashing to pluck them from harm's way and satisfy their (often unreasonable) demands. It's just the age, so don't worry - while your precious little tyrant will run you ragged, this too, shall pass.
As with many things in life, timing is everything when it comes to Baby Bunching, whether you got there by careful planning and plotting of timing, by lack of control over timing (like Linda) or reckless disregard for timing (like me), So for those of you who are still on the fence, consider yourselves warned and mind the clock!
LOL!!! SOOO TRUE!!!!!!!! I am a new bunching mom - with an 11-day-old and a 15 month old. I was a sucker for that dormant volcano. Life is certainly interesting now because of it - but I'm finding myself loving it despite all the fears I had just 1 1/2 weeks ago. Thanks for this blog - I'm enjoying it
Posted by: Kim | Nov 03, 2009 at 07:46 AM
So true, so true! Today my little guy is the exact same age (13 months, 4 days) that my daughter was when he was born. And all I can think is... how did I do it?? He is running me absolutely ragged and while I am so thankful that he is here in my world, I am also very thankful not to be pregnant or giving birth or caring for a newborn this year. Whew. Thirteen months and 26 months is running this mommy down!
Posted by: Emily Faulkner | Nov 03, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I'd take a free baby however I could get it, no matter the spacing! lol I would love, love, love to get pg (but likely won't) and I already have kids 29 and 22 months. Not the kids that wear us down here, it's the getting them! :)
Posted by: JessPond | Nov 03, 2009 at 01:52 PM
I guess I'm the exception to the rule :)
My second is due on my first's second birthday. Was that confusing? My little boys will be right at 2 years apart.
However, we had two losses between our two boys, so I can also support the 9 month theory as well.
Posted by: marty, @canape | Nov 03, 2009 at 02:50 PM
Oh dear....I just discovered I'm pregnant with our second, and our son is 9 months old. Hmmm, it's a little late to turn back now! Sounds like we're in for a party!
Posted by: Cheryl | Nov 05, 2009 at 03:29 PM
i completely agree with your theory--although it just takes my body awhile to figure out the spacing.
My kids are 22 and 26 months apart. (and yes, they are kicking my ass!)
Posted by: workout mommy | Nov 05, 2009 at 10:53 PM
This is hilarious and totally true! Right now my little one is 5 months and I am starting to want a third even though my big one is not two yet. My husband thinks I am crazy.
Glad to know this feeling will pass in about 4 months because I know in reality a third would knock me out. Didn't I learn my lesson the first time? :-)
Posted by: Susan | Nov 06, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Gotta give you an example of it not being true: my dear friend just had her third girl, has a 2.5yo and a 5.25 year old. And yes, she looks tired, but she's smiling! And homeschooling, too. I don't think I could manage that!
Posted by: Dr. MeCrazy-Happy | Nov 06, 2009 at 05:47 PM
Okay, Dr. - it's gotta be b/c she has girls! I'm a total Pollyanna and see the glass half full MOST of the time, but my boy Bunch tested me... : )
Posted by: Cara Fox | Nov 06, 2009 at 10:20 PM
We must have been late getting to the calm, easy part! I do remember at around 9 months being a little crazed as my son wanted to be held all the time and then started walking, completely bypassing crawling... His second birthday is right after Thanksgiving and his little sister will make her debut in time for New Year's this year, making them almost exactly 25 months apart.
Posted by: Janice | Nov 07, 2009 at 05:58 PM
that volcano comment KILLS me. so true. i always tell everyone had I more foresight, I'd have waited till my first was three to have another, though now I'm at peace with my 18 mos. apart bunch.
Posted by: jenni | Nov 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM