View Message

Definetly dated. I don't love it, yet I would choose it over the more trendy and "made-up" any day.

---

If you look up the top names for 1965 on the social security website, I believe Karen is the top name or close to the top.

Yes, I think it is. Keren is a bit better.

---

~~ Claire ~~

---

My ! are Alia, Eidel, Enola, Israel, Dudel, Yuri, Lina, Lorelei, Leilani, Owen, Julian, Glorinda, Mirinda
My ? are Hillel, Meshullam, Johnny, Ginny, Cordelia, Fiammetta, Yocheved
My ~ are Tehila, Tilda, Hailey, Gillian, Huldah
My / are Aglaia and July

I don't hate it, but I don't find it terribly attractive either. Though it's nice that it's uncommon.

---

I did know a toddler girl named Karen, named after her aunt that had passed away. So it was nice because her name honored a family member. But it was weird calling this tiny little girl "Karen" for some reason. And now, with the "Will & Grace" association, it seems even LESS appealing for a little child (though I do love the character, lol).

I like Karen. :)
I agree with everyone who says it's dated in a good way.

---

Shannon

Yes, it's dated, but in a nice way. Today, I think it's certainly more refreshing than another Michaela or Kayley or even Emily!

---

Miranda

---

Proud adopter of 15 PPs. See my profile for their names.

I hate it on a baby but I guess its ok for a woman in her 50's.

---

Nikki :)

---

---

Proud Mama! See My Profile!

I like the name Karen and it was one of my top few names but then I met a girl named Karen that I wasn't particularly fond of so I don't like it as much now. I also like the names Keren (Biblical name) and Karin (kuh-RIHN).

Its classic, not something you hear on every little girl, but isnt outdated like some other names. It ages nice as well, unlike a lot of names I think people are using these days for girls

I like it I can see it on a child or a woman.