Category: outrageous names
The just-released Social Security list includes over 1400 brand-new names, given for the very first time to five or more babies in the US.
As you might imagine, most of these names are pretty far out on the ledge. There are lots of kree8tiv spellings of more conventional names: Finlea and Massyn, Londonn and Karsan. There are names from around the world freshly introduced to America: Junhao and Mokshith and Motoki. There are original combo names — Charlotterose and Marcusjames — and there are new word names and place-names and surname-names — Revelation and Tokyo and Thoreau — and there are even a couple of wonderful old names revived for the modern world: Hypatia and Thisbe, Romilly and Calisto.
But all these newborn names look downright sedate compared to a handful of choices it’s hard to believe were given to even one baby, much less five….or ten….or 63.
I love the concept of Guilty Pleasure Names — names you love but know you shouldn’t, either because they’re too crazy or too tacky, too high falutin’ or maybe too trashy.
Nameberry hosts several forums devoted to the concept of Guilty Pleasure Names. Here’s one that focuses on GPNs for girls, while this one defines Guilty Pleasure Names as Names You Love But No One Seems To Like.
The writers of a new name book go out on a limb–and then some–to come up with some unusual baby names you never, ever, would have thought of.
People often ask us how the heck we, two colleagues who live on different continents, and with a total of zero children between us, came to write a baby name book.
It started with an office email about the names of our childhood pets—Miek gave all his tank pets outrageous names like ChunksOfLoveAndLikeAndStuff, A+ Nachos, and Wraaakkkk, while Kerry believed she had discovered the perfect name—July—and so whenever her fish died (which was often), she simply replaced it with a new one, but kept the same name.