New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Huntley.
I just came across this name on Wikipedia, in the article about English actor Huntley Wright (1868-1941). Though Huntley was not his real first name, I rather like it and I think it would be a more sophisticated and 'softer' alternative to the wildly popular name Hunter.
What is your take on the name? Also, I think this name could probably be viewed as a unisex name (like Ashley), as I can picture it on both men and women. I prefer it on men, however - what is your preference?
What is your take on the name? Also, I think this name could probably be viewed as a unisex name (like Ashley), as I can picture it on both men and women. I prefer it on men, however - what is your preference?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
In theory it's OK, although surnames as first names are not my thing. However, it's pretty much unusable for me (in the UK) because of Ian Huntley who abducted and murdered two ten-year-old girls a few years ago. He's regularly in the news and I'm afraid that's who I think of now when I see that name.
1
I find it grotesque and comical and parodical, like a pug dressed in a tutu.
1
I actually kind of like it, but unfortunately all I can think of is Ian Huntley...
1
At first glance I liked it way better than Hunter - which doesn't appeal to me at all. And yet, when I say it again I wonder if it's too feminine. When I read it it could easily be a boy, but when I say it I might imagine "lee" or "leigh". Hmm. If I had to choose I'd probably put it on a girl, but I'm not sold either way. Better than Hunter though.
1
One of my friends was going to be named Huntley, but a family member mentioned that she may be teased (by saying the name begining with C instead of H), so this is what I immediately think of.
Just as an aside, her parents went with Kara.
Just as an aside, her parents went with Kara.
1
I love Hunter, have for years and years. It used to be my first pick for a boy before so many of them were born, especially girls. I find it very masculine, which I happen to think is a wonderful thing when naming a male. I realize many folks see it as "too masculine" or even violent. I don't understand this mindset at all.
I agree that Huntley is not quite as masculine-sounding as Hunter, but I still see it entirely as a male name...and unfortunately as one likely to to be stolen by the girls.
I agree that Huntley is not quite as masculine-sounding as Hunter, but I still see it entirely as a male name...and unfortunately as one likely to to be stolen by the girls.
1
I'm curious as to how you are unable to see Hunter as violent. Could you perhaps elaborate?
1
I'm a very practical girl.
I realize in today's world it's convenient to live as a vegetarian...you head to your corner market where a wide variety of nutient-rich foods, grown in various climates 'round the world, awaits you. Keep in mind that, when not consuming animal flesh, one MUST have a HUGE variety of food available on a regular basis to get all the necessary amino acids required for proper health.
It's also very easy to live as a carnivore these days. You head to your corner market where bits and pieces are packaged up nicely for your convience, and you don't have to stop to think about that animal in it's natural habitat. No blood and gore. No plucking or gutting. No cleanup. Nothing to make you stop and think and to cause you to take personal responsibility for the death of that animal, the taking of that life. (I am not a vegetarian, by the way; I eat fish and poultry sparingly.)
Our early ancestors did not have these modern conveniences. They were nomadic peoples, following the herds, foraging and cultivating as they could. Food was limited to what grew in a particular area and season, availability entirely dependent on weather. Survival, particularly in winter, was dependent upon the hunt...and the best hunters were revered members of these early communities.
I do not consider hunting, for the sake of feeding one's family, a "violent" act. I respect the animals. I also respect that man is here on this planet too and must eat to survive. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who *does* consider hunting a violent act must also consider shopping at the meat counter to be every bit as violent.
Hunting is a valuable skill, and one which may be needed in future, should a major calamity, natural or man-made, deprive us of our modern conveniences. Should such a thing happen, very quickly, the skilled hunters among us again will become the revered of our society.
I have respect for those who head out in deer or bear or duck or turkey season to practice and hone those valuable skills (which incidentally are very similar to the skills required to defend one's family in an attack or combat situation), provided those hunters do so with respect.
I realize in today's world it's convenient to live as a vegetarian...you head to your corner market where a wide variety of nutient-rich foods, grown in various climates 'round the world, awaits you. Keep in mind that, when not consuming animal flesh, one MUST have a HUGE variety of food available on a regular basis to get all the necessary amino acids required for proper health.
It's also very easy to live as a carnivore these days. You head to your corner market where bits and pieces are packaged up nicely for your convience, and you don't have to stop to think about that animal in it's natural habitat. No blood and gore. No plucking or gutting. No cleanup. Nothing to make you stop and think and to cause you to take personal responsibility for the death of that animal, the taking of that life. (I am not a vegetarian, by the way; I eat fish and poultry sparingly.)
Our early ancestors did not have these modern conveniences. They were nomadic peoples, following the herds, foraging and cultivating as they could. Food was limited to what grew in a particular area and season, availability entirely dependent on weather. Survival, particularly in winter, was dependent upon the hunt...and the best hunters were revered members of these early communities.
I do not consider hunting, for the sake of feeding one's family, a "violent" act. I respect the animals. I also respect that man is here on this planet too and must eat to survive. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who *does* consider hunting a violent act must also consider shopping at the meat counter to be every bit as violent.
Hunting is a valuable skill, and one which may be needed in future, should a major calamity, natural or man-made, deprive us of our modern conveniences. Should such a thing happen, very quickly, the skilled hunters among us again will become the revered of our society.
I have respect for those who head out in deer or bear or duck or turkey season to practice and hone those valuable skills (which incidentally are very similar to the skills required to defend one's family in an attack or combat situation), provided those hunters do so with respect.
1
My friend's mom isn't a hunter, but she's always said that she feels one has to be willing to hunt in order to eat meat. She says that if you wouldn't be willing to hunt yourself, you shouldn't be eating meat.
I pretty much agree with her.
I pretty much agree with her.
1
Hmm yes
I agree with you here mostly, I think. The difference is that I don't consider hunting that is noble or whatevz any less violent than sport hunting. I think all consumption is violent on some level, that that's what happens once one is out of the garden of eden, man must sin to survive. I think this is a really important and profound truth and that it's impractical to ignore it, as people often like to do with names which mean things like Light and Sky and Neverfarts. There is something more honest about the name Hunter, at least abstractly. And abstractly I do not hate the name Hunter either. Same goes for Clay, which is a much more honest substance than Sky or Poet or whatever. But I do think of hunting as violent and don't find it puzzling that most people see it that way.
I agree with you here mostly, I think. The difference is that I don't consider hunting that is noble or whatevz any less violent than sport hunting. I think all consumption is violent on some level, that that's what happens once one is out of the garden of eden, man must sin to survive. I think this is a really important and profound truth and that it's impractical to ignore it, as people often like to do with names which mean things like Light and Sky and Neverfarts. There is something more honest about the name Hunter, at least abstractly. And abstractly I do not hate the name Hunter either. Same goes for Clay, which is a much more honest substance than Sky or Poet or whatever. But I do think of hunting as violent and don't find it puzzling that most people see it that way.
1
Okay, in strict observance of the definition of the word "violence", I can see your point that all consumption is to some degree violent. But you'd have to throw eating a carrot in there too, as pulling it out of the ground deprived it of its life. Even doctors would have to be considered violent at times, as they are called upon to perform proceedures which injure or even cause "death" to one part of the body for the better good of the whole. While, technically a violent procedure, I would not consider the amputation of a wounded Civil War soldier's leg in the field, with no anesthetic, to be an act of violence by the doctor.
For me, a hunter working as humanely as possible to feed loved ones is no more violent than that field doc sawing through bone with a hand saw, even though the field doc caused much more suffering than does a responsible hunter. People are also animals who have to eat; it's the way things are designed here on our planet. By strict definition, it's violent, sure, but not in practical application to my way of thinking. At least the hunted animal had quality of life in its natural environment before it was taken. That can't be said for the industrially-raised animals that provided my package of chicken breasts, yet the same folks who find hunting and the name, Hunter, to be too violent will pick up a package of chicken without a second thought.
For me, a hunter working as humanely as possible to feed loved ones is no more violent than that field doc sawing through bone with a hand saw, even though the field doc caused much more suffering than does a responsible hunter. People are also animals who have to eat; it's the way things are designed here on our planet. By strict definition, it's violent, sure, but not in practical application to my way of thinking. At least the hunted animal had quality of life in its natural environment before it was taken. That can't be said for the industrially-raised animals that provided my package of chicken breasts, yet the same folks who find hunting and the name, Hunter, to be too violent will pick up a package of chicken without a second thought.
1
Right, I would qualify eating a carrot as violent. I think it's very meaningful that organisms require acts of violence to sustain their own lives and to create any of the beauty that comes from being alive. I agree with you about hunting vs industrial farming.
I'm curious what you think of the name Huntress for girls. (I hope it's clear that I'm not arguing! ¡ust curious)
I'm curious what you think of the name Huntress for girls. (I hope it's clear that I'm not arguing! ¡ust curious)
1
Oh no, I didn't think you were arguing. I'm not either, just discussing. :)
I don't think of hunting as an inately unfeminine activity, but I don't care for Huntress at all. Adding the feminine ending doesn't "fix" the very masculine sound of "Hunt" where a name is concerned. It's no better than Elliottess to my ear. Women can be fletchers or coopers or thatchers or whatever else they care to be, but the corresponding occupation names look and sound purely masculine to me. No Fletcherina or Cooperette or Thatcheress for me. Just doesn't work. :)
I don't think of hunting as an inately unfeminine activity, but I don't care for Huntress at all. Adding the feminine ending doesn't "fix" the very masculine sound of "Hunt" where a name is concerned. It's no better than Elliottess to my ear. Women can be fletchers or coopers or thatchers or whatever else they care to be, but the corresponding occupation names look and sound purely masculine to me. No Fletcherina or Cooperette or Thatcheress for me. Just doesn't work. :)
1
As if Hunter wasn't bad enough... :\
1
I don't really like it. I remember seeing it here a while ago because someone met a lady with the name
1
I know of a girl named Huntley... she kind of has a reputation as being promiscuous and I unfortunately think of. I find it kind of clunky, though I agree it does have a more sophisticated feel than Hunter. I think I'd like it better on a boy.
1