View Message

Dylan f: I prefer it as a first name for boys, and generally think of it as a boys' name. But in my experience (regardless of its true history) it's a surname name (Bob), and I've seen it on a girl and remembered it (can't recall seeing it on a boy, but likely I have in passing). So I don't assume Dylan is a boy. And I don't mind if she's a girl, because the name itself isn't surnamey, and I personally don't feel like it has a distinctively masculine shape. I don't think it's a really great name for a woman - it's kind of like Daryl was, once upon a time. But it's not awful, and I can see why people like it.

---

Oakley: It's usable, but seems too trendy for me. Maybe this is more about me than anything, but I'm afraid I think exposure to the branding and image marketing seems like a subliminal true reason people like the name. It seems like a brand name people would hardly ever say out loud, a few might put an "O" sticker on the back of their sporty vehicle - but for a long time now it's been on the edges of awareness, it's on stuff in the background, recognizable but not really consciously "read." And by it, the person associated seems determined to appear like 1. they seem to have some money and 2. they seem "sporty" / outdoorsy and youthful. And as a name, Oakley has fashion galore, with its long vowel and its "nature word" reference and its desexed -ley ending, so add in the prefab marketing image and voila! A name of the moment, for a baby of either sex. At least, until we start seeing mere human Oakleys around ... children of the sort of people who like the name ... and then it will start to go the way of Lindsay and Kelsey because we've seen that on an ordinary person before, who maybe wasn't quite as sexy and fun and wealthy as his/her parents thought the name sounded.

---

- mirfak

This message was edited 3/4/2020, 1:20 PM