View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Opinions] Re: Why do mid-20th century name category tend to not get a many fan?
I think once a name becomes severely dated, people not only consider it unfashionable, but forget to look for any beauty in it. Many mid-century names don't exactly fit the beauty standards of today, and because people are so used to hearing them, they brush them off without looking for their good qualities. A lot of names that might come as acquired tastes are popular today, but because they're "new and refreshing", people appreciate them and notice their best features. Personally, I found a lot of mid-century names ugly, but when I forgot how dated they were, I actually liked them. Some of my favourite mid-century names are Barbara, Phyllis, Beverly, Lois, Rita, Anita, Darla, Dianne, Carol, Judith, and Shirley.
60-70 years from now, Harper, Chloe, Evelyn, Gianna, Luna, Naomi, Kaylee, Taylor, Avery, Leilani, Kennedy, Madison, Addison, Brooklyn, Skylar, Parker, Eleanor, ect. may well be considered old lady-ish and dreadfully ugly.

This message was edited 5/12/2024, 7:07 AM

Replies

I like Dianna and Darla. Kennedy is no longer common for males, so it could very well get outdated for girls one day. I always thought Eleanor and Evelyn sounded older, but I will still like them if they drop from the charts. I like most of the other names, but they are a part of a trend that will eventually die down. I can totally see them becoming "old lady" names.
I like Darla and Judith.
Thank you.