I happen to like 'soft' guys' names. Claiming that 'soft' = necessarily feminine (which I don't think you did, btw; just saying) is pretty much endorsing a sexist conception of both women
and men.
So I'm deeply uncomfortable with seeing names I adore on a boy -
Hilary,
Kelsey,
Shannon and the case of cases,
Alexis - now being regarded as exclusively female. Genuinely unisex (e.g.
Morgan) I can cope with. It's the fact that the ones above have made the move to being "girls' names" and are now pretty much unacceptable on boys as far as the non-namenerd population is concerned.
I would really, genuinely hate for
Tristan to go the same way. To me, it's one of the coolest, classiest male names out there, and the story behind the name is beautiful.
Tristan is one of the cases that really, really bugs me. Using it on a girl is just . . . wrong.
I think it's because I'm an English student and my area is pretty much medieval lit - to me,
Tristan will ALWAYS be the name of a Knight of the Round Table. It's about as feminine as
Arthur or
Lancelot, i.e. not in the slightest.
I've never seen
Tristan used on a girl, and frankly I'm glad of it.
This message was edited 4/30/2008, 3:35 AM