# How many children constitutes a "large family"?



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

I'm asking because lately I'm getting a lot of comments, both positive and negative, about my "large family," and honestly I never would have regarded three children as a "large family." What do you think?


----------



## kathywiehl (Dec 9, 2003)

I'm due with #4 in a month, and I don't consider my family to be large unless we are discussing sleeping arrangements, travel, dining tables, etc....everything is built for families with 2 kids, 2 adults it seems. We do get a reaction from the parents of my teenager's friends. None of them have little ones, and when they see me with my big belly and small children I always hear how brave I am, lol, or how they shut down their baby factory years ago. I'm not offended. They are just at a different point in their lives

Anyway, to answer your question, I think 5 or more kids when I think of large families.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

Funny you should be posting this. In my sunday paper there was an article about these new homes being specially built with the "large family" in mind. Seeing as dh and I have 6 kids, we're always interested in the way homes are built with that in mind.
The article talks about these 2200 sft homes and how well they are built for the large family. "In this day and age where more people are deciding to have large families - 2 even 3 children - we felt it was time to design a house for them".
2? Even 3? I mean, of course, that may be large for some people, I understand that. But really now? 2? 3? I always thought that 3 and under was kinda the average, yk?
Btw, we live in a 1200sft home, 1 bath, comfortably.
A family of 4 children and up are a large family to me.


----------



## slymamato3 (Jan 16, 2008)

we are all done with 3 dd's. I feel like our family is just the right size. I think it is a very personal thing and to pass judgement on anothers choice as to how many kids to have is wrong. The only reason I think any more would make my family large is we wouldn't all fit in one car.


----------



## Iris' Mom (Aug 3, 2007)

I picked 5. Four is transitional to a large family (I don't know what I mean by that







). I don't think 3 is large.


----------



## kathywiehl (Dec 9, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slymamato3* 
we are all done with 3 dd's. I feel like our family is just the right size. I think it is a very personal thing and to pass judgement on anothers choice as to how many kids to have is wrong. The only reason I think any more would make my family large is we wouldn't all fit in one car.









Did I miss something? I don't see anyone in this thread passing judgement. The OP simply wanted to know what your thoughts are regarding what constitutes are large family. There is no magic number or rule saying that everyone should have the same number of children.


----------



## kathywiehl (Dec 9, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Iris' Mom* 
I picked 5. Four is transitional to a large family (I don't know what I mean by that







). I don't think 3 is large.

I don't know what you mean by that either, but I agree, lol!


----------



## mamadecuatro (Nov 16, 2006)

I have 4 and we get lots of comments (Are they all yours? Duh!). I think 4 is the breaking point to largeness. I am impressed by those who have 6 or more (One more than I have doesn't seem like a big deal, but 2 more...). I think with my family, people are more impressed that they are all close in age (4kids in 5 years) than that there are 4 of them.


----------



## momoftworedheads (Mar 6, 2003)

I think 5 or more kids is a large family, but this is just my opinion. I have three as well and people always comment about it. I have three under 7 and people say things like, "you have your hands full", or "wow, three boys, how did you do that?" It gets on my nerves but I do not think we have a large family. My Dh husband would like one more, I'd like 2, we'll see.

Take care and enjoy your family!


----------



## adtake (Feb 1, 2006)

I used to think 3 was. But now that I am pregnant with #4 I think peoples reaction is how I determine a 'large family'. When pregnant with #3 people would say "Oh, nice, congrats." now pregnant with #4 it more like "oh.......another baby.......was it planned......congrats."

So I guess 4 is a large family. I'm an only child, more than one is pretty big!!


----------



## vermonttaylors (May 17, 2005)

I put 6 or more because, while I consider 4-5 kids to be on the larger size, I wouldn't classify it as a big family. I have always wanted 4 kids. People think we are nuts. If one more person asks me if we are crazy because we are in the process of adopting #3 I am going to get really mad. Why do people think it is OK to say stuff like that? needless to say, I don't advertise that we probably aren't done with 3. I don't need peoples' opinions about my life thank you very much.

I see very few people with even 3 kids anymore. My SIL has 4 kids in NYC, and that is really rare these days. People there have been downright hostile to her.







: I don't get it. What is wrong with her having 4 lovely, smart and happy children?


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

For me:
1-2 = small
3-4 = medium
5-6 = large
7+ = huge

But given my family history, my Mom and two of her sisters have 4 kids, one brother has 7, her other sister 8 and her "weird" brother 2


----------



## mamadecuatro (Nov 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vermonttaylors* 
I put 6 or more because, while I consider 4-5 kids to be on the larger size, I wouldn't classify it as a big family. I have always wanted 4 kids. People think we are nuts. If one more person asks me if we are crazy because we are in the process of adopting #3 I am going to get really mad. Why do people think it is OK to say stuff like that? needless to say, I don't advertise that we probably aren't done with 3. I don't need peoples' opinions about my life thank you very much.

I see very few people with even 3 kids anymore. My SIL has 4 kids in NYC, and that is really rare these days. People there have been downright hostile to her.







: I don't get it. What is wrong with her having 4 lovely, smart and happy children?

Times sure have changed! I don't feel like having 4 is too much, yet we do get lots of comments. They say "I don't know how you do it" and the like. Jeez, how do you think the lady with 16 does it? We get positive comments from the older generations, though. After all, 4 was the average number of kids not so long ago!


----------



## Mama~Love (Dec 8, 2003)

I voted for 6+; anything over 6 is large, and I hope I can have that large family soon







. We do get a lot of looks when we are out, and we usually don't even have all of the kids with







.


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

I would say 5.

I have 3 little ones and am constantly getting comments about how my hands are full, my house is full of kids, etc. I really don't think 3 kids is a very large family...


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

I think anything 4 and over is a large family. Too much...no never....but deffinatly large!
When it comes to the 'times have changed' ascpect of it...money is probably a big factor in why people dont have many children anymore. (have you seen the house prices?!....I dont think we will ever afford anything over 3 bedrooms!) Also - our children arnt 'expected' to die of illness anymore. People may have had 16 children at one time, but it was sure that half would die very young.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

3 is very common. I think of 4 kids as a large family


----------



## Xoe (Oct 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quinalla* 
For me:
1-2 = small
3-4 = medium
5-6 = large
7+ = huge


I think Quinalla has hit it on the head. I don't think the OP has a large family because she has 4 kids. I have two...and unless I adopt, that will be it for me. But my small family doesn't make hers large, ya know? On a day to day basis-- I think a lot of people figure large (or too many) is one more than whatever they have. But if they thought about it, they'd realize how silly that that is. Too many people assume whatever they are doing is just right-- and any more than what they do is over the top, in every matter.

xoe


----------



## mamameg (Feb 10, 2004)

We have 3 children and while that seems to be a lot for the area we live in (most people have 1 or 2 children, although some do have 3, but I can't even think of any families around here with 4 children), I don't consider us a large family. I think 4 or more is "large".


----------



## treehugginmama (Apr 25, 2003)

I put 5. We always get comments about our "large" familiy. I'm just not feeling that 4 kids is large but maybe that is because I want a large family and 4 isn't cuttin' it. LOL


----------



## onlyzombiecat (Aug 15, 2004)

I would view 2-4 kids as pretty average family sizes.
I grew up in a family with 3 kids and we were not a large or small family.
5 or more kids is a large family IMO.


----------



## mumm (May 23, 2004)

I consider my family (4 kids) large when we want to use a pass to a museum (good for a family- up to 4 people) or stay at a hotel. ("You'll need two rooms to meet fire safety standards" even thought the babies sleep in my bed) etc.

Otherwise we are just medium.


----------



## TattooedMama (Aug 31, 2005)

I voted 4 kids because I have three and I think when we have 4 we will be a large family.








FWIW I know very few people that have more than 2 kids IRL.
nak


----------



## FancyPants (Dec 25, 2004)

For most of Canada and US it is 4 and more I think. Growing up the family next to me had 11 kids. So maybe my idea of a large family is skewed. I grew up one of 4 and that seems on the edge of being large.

When my mother remarried and I had 2 steps, that made 6 and that requires 2cars and I consider it large.

As a child, I would have said that 6 kids and up is a large family because you cannot fit them all in a then-normal station wagon (back in the day when station wagons had those 2 seat in the back). Unless, of course, you had the little mini seat between the parents in the front.









At the present time more than three is probably considered large given how cars and houses and clothes (don't last) seem to be designed.

Personally I voted 5kids.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I voted 6 or more. To me, 4-6 is "middling" and not that large (I'm one of 4 and would have loved a couple more sibs).

I have only three children and constantly get comments about "all those kids" and "how do you manage?" and "are you done?"


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

5. Four is bigger than average these days (I think 3 is, too), but I still don't consider it "large".


----------



## notneb (Aug 31, 2006)

My perception is probably colored by the fact that most of my friends when I was young were homeschooled and, in the area I grew up in, homeschooling families tended to be larger than average. I would say 1-3 children is a small family, 4 or 5 is medium and 6 or more is a large family. Of the families my family of origin (5 kids) interacted with on a regular basis, about 1/4 of the families were small, 1/2 were medium and 1/4 were large by my definition.

Now, most of the families I know have 1-3 children, and more than 5 or 6 is rare.


----------



## crittersmom (Mar 24, 2005)

I feel it starts at 4 kids.I didn't notice too much of a change for us until I had #4.We had to buy a new car,it costs more if we go out to eat, or travel,or go to a museum.Strollers for 3 are not cheap and not in stock everywhere.Shopping at the grocery store takes alot of planning too because most stores here do not have those wonderful car carts.When we go to friend's houses we are an instant party LOL.
I do get alot of the are those yours comments.ummm...yeah I pulled some random kids together and have this baby strapped to me to while shoe shopping for giggles.I also get you are so brave!No,I have no choice and I'm determined to do fun things and everyday things anyway.I really appreciate the little old men and ladies who tell me what blessings they are! Thanks!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I don't think three is large at all. Four is kinda big, but not really. I voted four because that when I'd accept people's stupid comments as normal.

I get a kick out of when I'm out with my kids and the kids I'm watching, because then when people ask if they're all mine I can say "No, I only have four"

Quote:

yeah I pulled some random kids together and have this baby strapped to me to while shoe shopping for giggles.
I can't wait to use that one. "No, they're not mine. Grocery shopping with four kids is just one of my many hobbies"


----------



## *clementine* (Oct 15, 2004)

When we go to friend's houses we are an instant party LOL.







[/QUOTE]

That made me laugh. It's so true.


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

I think 4 or more is a large family, but have as many as you want! I am jealous of large families. I only have one sibling, and would have loved to have another 1 or 2. Especially now as an adult I WISH I had a sister to talk to. My dh is 1 of 4. I am so jealous. He has two brothers to talk to and a sister. Lucky thing!


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

I choose 4, although I don't think feel that is a large family, but to most people now days, it is. Three is me is just average, but you don't see as many families with 4 DC.


----------



## Dov'sMom (Jan 24, 2007)

I say 6+. I was one of 6, and we seemed like a fairly normal family to me -- after all, I had friends with 10-13 siblings! (14 kids was the largest family I knew personally, though my sister used to help out a family with 18, including two sets of twins and one of triplets...).


----------



## slymamato3 (Jan 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathywiehl* 
Did I miss something? I don't see anyone in this thread passing judgement. The OP simply wanted to know what your thoughts are regarding what constitutes are large family. There is no magic number or rule saying that everyone should have the same number of children.

I didn't mean that anyone in the thread was passing judgement I was simply refering to the op's saying she had recieved lots of comments recently. Maybe the comments were nonjudgemental and I was mis speaking. Sorry if I offended anyone with my post.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

I said 4, becauase that is in-between my two realities. Where I live now, anything over 2 kids is really big, but when I was growing up 2 was small average because we had lots of neighbors with 7,8 or 9 kids.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

I think 4 is where it starts to get more complicated due to society's present set-up and expectations.

We are too many for an ordinary car and too many to be invited out to lunch much. 'I have two more children' surprises people if I am out with just the younger children where maybe just one other child might not.


----------



## captivatedlife (Aug 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Iris' Mom* 
I picked 5. Four is transitional to a large family (I don't know what I mean by that







). I don't think 3 is large.

stole the words from my mouth!


----------



## lemurmommies (Jan 15, 2007)

I think that anything over 4 is large. I'd say families of four are perhaps larger than average, but not what I'd consider a "large family." 5 or more? Definitely large.

Of course, I'm an only child, so my views might be skewed. But my mom is from a family of 4 kids, and my dad a family of 9 kids.


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

I think things start to get busier with four kids, but I don't really consider that huge, just on the larger side of things. Once your family gets too big to fit in a mini-van, then I think you've hit the "large" point.







FWIW I don't get all this bias against large families at all. In fact, I love kids, and I would have at least two or three more if I knew my body could handle it.


----------



## amydawnsmommy (Mar 13, 2005)

I voted five.

I wanted five, six or seven kids too. *sigh*

Sometimes life just doesn't turn out the way you think it should. *sigh*

In the church I grew up in there were 3 very large families - one with 8 kids, one with 9 kids and one with 11 kids. After experiencing those families three or four kids seems like nothing.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

From reading the moms of many thread, I think there's a cultural difference between the US and UK here: I voted for three, but what I really mean is that over here, two is very normal. Three is an odd choice, why would you want to do that? Four is a big family, and you get offered congratulations or called a hero by total strangers







: I'm curious about five or more, I'd admit, but I can't imagine putting my body through another pregnancy right now (this last month is kicking my ass.)


----------



## Krystal323 (May 14, 2004)

i voted 5, but that's a very general feeling







my best friend has 4, and when i met her i was like "wow! big family!" but now i have 3 myself and it doesn't seem that different. FWIW i am an only


----------



## mntnmom (Sep 21, 2006)

I have a thought....why is it bad to have a large family? My DH and I always said we WANTED a large family. (Now that we have 3, we are reconsidering what is actually right for us). My MIL and my GM were always sad because they ONLY had 3 and 2 kids respectively.
Personally, I don't think its for anyone but a concerned friend/ family member to question someone's choice of family size. But many of the posts make it sound like "large family" is some sort of insult.
I love being around DH's LARGE extended family (he has in the ballpark of 100 first cousins;OK, yeah, they're Catholic







). And while we might not ever have #4, if our circumstances were different, we'd have a nice big, busy family of our own.


----------



## ErikaLeigh (Dec 24, 2006)

IMO, going from the 5th to the 6th kid trans you into a large family.


----------



## patronia (Nov 28, 2007)

For me, three is "normal sized" then when you get to five or six it becomes "big" and at say...17 kids it becomes slightly obsessive


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

Well, the government's definition of a large family is 4 kids (this from a military dependent). My husband is the youngest of four, I'm number two of either five or six, depending on how you count the halves and steps, though I grew up with three siblings. Now, all _I_ can handle is two, so to me anything above two is _enormous_









But my mom was one of four, and grandmother was a middle child out of eight (seven survived infancy) during the depression, so I think I'm odd for not having more in my family.









Maura


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mntnmom* 
But many of the posts make it sound like "large family" is some sort of insult.

Let's put it this way: you can find something insulting even if you don't agree with it. Yes, there is stigma attached to having "too many" children, depending on the time, the place and the community, and there's a lot of people getting a certain amount of hassle from total strangers because of their family sizing and spacing. And it STINKS.


----------



## annethcz (Apr 1, 2004)

I'm surprised to see that 4 kids is the most popular answer. I have 4 kids, and don't think that I have a large family.


----------



## mama_ani (Aug 2, 2007)

I think 8 children constitutes a "large" family.
I always get confused when people refer to my family as large when we only have four children & one on the way!


----------



## cking (Jul 27, 2005)

I put 6 or more.

I come from a family of 12. We used to chuckle at the suggestion that 6 kids was a large family. It's all relative, I guess.

What _I_ can handle is a different story. I always wanted to have 4 kids, maybe even 5. But I think in reality 2 or 3 may be all we can handle. _If_ we are so blessed.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quinalla* 
For me:
1-2 = small
3-4 = medium
5-6 = large
7+ = huge


sums it up for me too.

I voted five, we have four and other people tend to think of it as a large family, some days it does seem like a ton of kids... but to me it feels average


----------



## AloeVera (Jan 21, 2008)

I would say 4 or more kids is a large family. I grew up with 3 younger brothers, and it was always such a chore to go anywhere! I loved my large family, but I always knew as a kid I only wanted 2-3 kids. Much more manageable for me.


----------



## RubyWild (Apr 7, 2004)

Where I live, a family of 5 people, meaning 3 children, is a large family.


----------



## Mavournin (Jul 9, 2002)

I'd say 4+.

Where I live, only a few families have three (we're one of them) and it's considered large. Families with more are rare. I guess I also think of 4 kids as being a huge family because I'm an only. I would probably considered having one more if PPD wasn't an issue for me and if the cost of living here wasn't so freaking expensive.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathywiehl* 
Did I miss something? I don't see anyone in this thread passing judgement. The OP simply wanted to know what your thoughts are regarding what constitutes are large family. There is no magic number or rule saying that everyone should have the same number of children.

I think she meant IRL. I get tons of rude comments IRL about how many kids I have. I just had #4 but people tend to tell me that even 2 is "large". I come from a real large family-7 kids is totally normal, so I look at it a lot differently than I guess a lot of people in the US today.

And also the conotations that large=bad annoys the crap out of me.

I would have 10 kids if dh would be ok with it. And I don't consider that too big.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mntnmom* 
I have a thought....why is it bad to have a large family? My DH and I always said we WANTED a large family. (Now that we have 3, we are reconsidering what is actually right for us). My MIL and my GM were always sad because they ONLY had 3 and 2 kids respectively.
Personally, I don't think its for anyone but a concerned friend/ family member to question someone's choice of family size. But many of the posts make it sound like "large family" is some sort of insult.
I love being around DH's LARGE extended family (he has in the ballpark of 100 first cousins;OK, yeah, they're Catholic







). And while we might not ever have #4, if our circumstances were different, we'd have a nice big, busy family of our own.

I agree. I love large families. But my in-laws are from families of 3 kids TOPS and they think even having 3 is insane and should be a commitable offense. I don't understand how people can be so negative about it, but maybe that's because I love my large, insane family and never met anyone who wished they came from a smaller family.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

I think tables, homes, cars, etc are made for 2 children. 3 carseats don't fit in most cars. And children aren't expected to share rooms anymore so most homes aren't built for more than 2 kids.


----------



## mowilli3 (Jan 7, 2007)

I said 5 because I don't know anyone in my generation with 5 kids and it seems like a lot. But my grandmother's generation hd at least 5. I personally have my hands full and pockets empty with 2. My friend keeps talking to me about 3 and I get anxious about that. She's saying that it will be fun to have 3 and that 3 is a family. But I have a boy and a girl, so I feel pretty complete. If I had 2 boys I would really want a girl, though.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Megan~* 
I think tables, homes, cars, etc are made for 2 children. 3 carseats don't fit in most cars. And children aren't expected to share rooms anymore so most homes aren't built for more than 2 kids.

Good point. That has been a bit of a problem when shopping or looking for cars. I like my kids sharing rooms, so that's not much of an issue, but not many people agree with me.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

I voted 4. 4 or more is big in my opinion, yet small if you're the Duggars. Its all relative to your own experience I guess. I'm pregnant with our 3rd, and I would like to have 4 total. Physically I may or may not be able to handle a 4th pregnancy, DH and I have talked about adopting the 4th child. We'll see how I feel after this babe is born.


----------



## prairiemommy (Sep 25, 2003)

I voted 4 kids because it seems like nothing is built or made with that number in mind. At restaurants we get looks of exasperation when we ask for a table for 6 and mention that there is 4 kids. I think they expect our kids to be nuts and then are often quite surprised that they know how to behave in public. Like we're really raising wild animals or something.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Megan~* 
I think tables, homes, cars, etc are made for 2 children. 3 carseats don't fit in most cars. And children aren't expected to share rooms anymore so most homes aren't built for more than 2 kids.

So true. An ad came from a furniture store I like and they had some tables on sale. All of them only had 4 chairs. I'm thinking about buying benches for the sides of the table we have to maximize the space. Our house is back from the old days when people still had their WHOLE family living with them. In our instance this was literally the case. Our side of the house would have been the main living quarters, the apartments on the other side were for the man who built the house's mother and the upstairs likely for hired help. Our house, well our side of it at least, has 4 very large bedrooms. You could have three people sleeping comfortably in two of the rooms, two in the little one, and easily 4-5 people in the master suite if it was used for kids instead of the parents. Before we moved into the house, there was a family of 10 living here!
When we finally buy our own place someday, I plan on getting another big ole' turn of the century house like this one. They really knew how to build houses for families back then, and I can't imagine finding a modern house that would meet my needs and wants without having it custom-built.


----------



## Sage_SS (Jun 1, 2007)

I would define a large family as requiring a mini van to fit everyone in. All seats used of course.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Well, I'm one of six, so six seems normal to me, and anything above that counts as large. (It's like the question 'How long is long hair?' Longer than mine, of course!). People were definitely making comments about our 'huge' family by the time there were 5 of us... can't remember back to when there were only 4 (I'm number 3). I think we seemed a bit more dramatic than we were though, simply because we were all girls! Six young females _en masse_ can be a daunting sight.


----------



## christyc (Mar 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *notneb* 
I would say 1-3 children is a small family, 4 or 5 is medium and 6 or more is a large family.









:


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quinalla* 
For me:
1-2 = small
3-4 = medium
5-6 = large
7+ = huge









:

I think it's funny how many people in the world skip right from "small" to "large" with no real medium.

My mom was an only child (she had an older sister who died at the age of 2), and she only had my brother and me. She had a miscarriage between us, and I always wanted another sibling growing up. Dh has 2 younger sisters, and I've always envied him his extra sib!









4 was the right number for us. 2 was too small, and 3 is/was awkward. This way everyone will always have a partner of sorts (and if sitters/caregivers are overwhelmed by the idea of 4, it's easy enough to split them into groups of 2.







). It also works well for rides at amusement parks -- something Dh *really* finds important.









At any rate, it's a very personal choice, and I agree w/the sentiment that anything less than what you've chosen is "small" and anything more is "large". It's kind of funny, really.


----------



## monkeyscience (Feb 5, 2008)

Ah... this is a very touchy subject for me. But, in light of all the nice people who've posted so far, I will promise to be civil!

I come from a family of 5 kids. There's just under 8 years separating the oldest from the youngest. From that angle, 5 kids just ISN'T a big family. I realise that anything much past 2 is looked at sort of funny by the general population, but I refuse to concede that a family with less than 6 (and I'd probably say 7 or 8) kids is "large." Unusual, maybe, large, no.

My mum told me when they were wheeling her out of the hospital after I was born (I'm the second child), the volunteer told her, "Well, now you have a girl and a boy, so you can stop!" My mom was rather offended, although she didn't say anything... why stop just 'cause you have one of each? A few people have also assumed that my mum kept having kids because she was trying for another girl. (There are three boys after me.) If that's the case, I only wish she'd kept trying!









I personally want 4-6 kids, although I now wonder how my mom kept track of all her little ones. It never seemed to be a problem, as far as I could tell. I may have to revise my goal, though, based on when I actually manage to get sorted with the whole find-a-husband thing.


----------



## allegra (Aug 23, 2007)

Five or more.

Having five children is so unusual here in this day and age, that if I see a family with five or more children it looks like a whole football team. Up to four kids it's seen more like the norm (the average amount of kids here is 2.4).


----------

