New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Love on a boy (m)
in reply to a message by Cake or Death
Out of curiosity, what are some male names that in your opinion have only sweet&gentle vibe? It's of course a matter of personal taste, I'm asking because I feel that many classic English male names, such as Matthew, William, Samuel, Nathan and James are very sweet and gentle (where as Andrew and Peter for example aren't).
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
It's hard for me to come up with them from off the top of my head. It's more of a "I know it when I hear it" thing. But:
Adrian ---- which I actually like but wouldn't use because it's only sweet and gentle.
Theodore --- In spite of Roosevelt
Arlo
Asa
Giles
Rowan ---- this is the King of them
Spencer
Tucker
Emory
Julian
Lucian
Caspar
But of course it's subjective.
Adrian ---- which I actually like but wouldn't use because it's only sweet and gentle.
Theodore --- In spite of Roosevelt
Arlo
Asa
Giles
Rowan ---- this is the King of them
Spencer
Tucker
Emory
Julian
Lucian
Caspar
But of course it's subjective.
This message was edited 8/3/2020, 10:32 AM
1
I agree with you about using names that seem "sweet and gentle" (or too "feminine") but not about which names are that!
It sure is subjective.
Some of these are favorite man names of mine and it's not at all because of them seeming sweet or gentle.
So I'm going to "defend" them, heh.
Adrian to me seems expansive and orderly (I'm not a poet ok... I mean, I think of stuff like ... oceangoing ships and travel, and officialness or the helpful/uplifting aspect of formal organization and ritual). Definitely masculine and I hate it spelled Adrian for women... it's so mannish.
Rowan is similar but more earthy, more of a mage with a staff and robes. I also think Rowan for a woman is mannish.
Julian only seems feminine because it's practically unisex and therefore de-masculinized from certain perspectives but I think it easily switches between genders and takes on masculinity very strongly when used for a masculine person. Great potential as a jock name.
I don't agree with you about Spencer, Tucker, Giles, or Caspar either. Not remotely. Caspar is positively butch. Almost martial.
Tucker's a little trivial/childish, though. And Lucian, kinda slick/vain (though I still like it for a guy, I don't feel like it has the masculine potential that Julian has).
I do agree though, about Theodore, Arlo, Emory, and Asa.
Sometimes it seems to me that younger women often prefer guy names that smack "sweet and gentle" because they evoke male characters who are less ... scary to them.
It sure is subjective.
Some of these are favorite man names of mine and it's not at all because of them seeming sweet or gentle.
So I'm going to "defend" them, heh.
Adrian to me seems expansive and orderly (I'm not a poet ok... I mean, I think of stuff like ... oceangoing ships and travel, and officialness or the helpful/uplifting aspect of formal organization and ritual). Definitely masculine and I hate it spelled Adrian for women... it's so mannish.
Rowan is similar but more earthy, more of a mage with a staff and robes. I also think Rowan for a woman is mannish.
Julian only seems feminine because it's practically unisex and therefore de-masculinized from certain perspectives but I think it easily switches between genders and takes on masculinity very strongly when used for a masculine person. Great potential as a jock name.
I don't agree with you about Spencer, Tucker, Giles, or Caspar either. Not remotely. Caspar is positively butch. Almost martial.
Tucker's a little trivial/childish, though. And Lucian, kinda slick/vain (though I still like it for a guy, I don't feel like it has the masculine potential that Julian has).
I do agree though, about Theodore, Arlo, Emory, and Asa.
Sometimes it seems to me that younger women often prefer guy names that smack "sweet and gentle" because they evoke male characters who are less ... scary to them.
This message was edited 8/3/2020, 11:29 AM
1
Theodore ...
It isn't a rough and tumble name, exactly, and I definitely can't ever picture it as even remotely unisex. But it does have a stuffy, pompous quality about it that's off-putting. I really like the nn Ted, which is so warm and friendly and down to earth; if I really wanted Ted as a nn I'd have Edward as the full fn.
It isn't a rough and tumble name, exactly, and I definitely can't ever picture it as even remotely unisex. But it does have a stuffy, pompous quality about it that's off-putting. I really like the nn Ted, which is so warm and friendly and down to earth; if I really wanted Ted as a nn I'd have Edward as the full fn.
1