View Message

Laura or Lauren?
^

This message was edited 7/8/2018, 9:20 PM

Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

Lauren, sounds better
vote up1
The only reason I've never used Laura is because it would be silly with Beatrice. I love it for its classic elegance and light-heartedness. Lauren, Lauryn etc ... not so much. Trendy and flimsy.
vote up1
Lauren. Laura seems classic and quiet and bland. Lauren seems loud and fun... and bland. I really love Lauren. -a names don't really do it for me I guess.
vote up1
LauraThey're both nice names, actually. But there are way too many Laurens in my generation (born late 80s, early 90s). Laura is far less dated.
vote up1
nt.
vote up1
LauraLauren is ok, but Laura just feels so much less fussy. Laura feels simpler and prettier. Clean cut. Lauren just feels so bland.
vote up1
LauraLaura feels timeless and classic, Lauren feels very 80's.
vote up1
Well, Laura feels less dated but more overused.
vote up1
I'd rather you were Lauren, but I'd be a Laura.
vote up1
Laura seems like the feminine equivalent of Larry (boorish, redneck) or Stephen (classic but very dull, and I don't like saying it) to me. I slightly prefer the non-English pronunciation. Lauren was in the top 10 the year I was born, and it seems bland for that reason, but I definitely like it more than Laura; it's more concise and energetic imo.
vote up1
Lauren. Every single Laura I have met has been awful, so I'm Team Lauren, all the way. Plus, I genuinely like the name. Makes me think of Lauren Bacall, so I get this sophisticated, classy feeling from it.
vote up1
Both are nice. I see a Laura as being a bit more studious, and a Lauren as a bit more athletic, but both would be all around great people.
vote up1
I prefer the sound of Lauren, but Laura gets points for reminding me of the excellent film noir of the same name. On a related note - look at that huge popularity leap for Lauren in 1945! People must have really loved Bacall in To Have and Have Not..
vote up1
I think I prefer Laura. I find it more classic and it will come back before Lauren does because Laura was mostly common in the 70s whereas Lauren seems more 90s and more dated. I also like the sound of Laura much better.
vote up1
Until you mentioned it I didn't realize that Lauren was so popular in the early 90's. Strangely I was born in '87 and my sister in '90 and I only knew one Lauren but I knew like 4 or 5 Laura's. Looking at the US numbers in '87 Laura was just barely below Lauren in popularity and both were popular. Maybe Lauren was just less popular than Laura around where I grew up.
---------
vote up1
I looked up the state data and Laura was more popular than Lauren in my state in '87 the year I was born.
----------

This message was edited 7/9/2018, 2:08 PM

vote up1
Laura is a lovely name. Lauren is pretty too, but I find Laura more timeless. :)
vote up1
Laura is a lovely name. Lauren is pretty too, but I find Laura more timeless. :)
vote up1
I really like them both ...Laura is the more classic, but even more contemporary Lauren isn't likely to ever really go out of fashion or become dated.
I think I'll pick Lauren, it's just a touch more interesting.
vote up1
LauraLess faddish than Lauren. As faddish names go though, Lauren is a good one and I like it, although not as much as Laura.
vote up1
Laura
vote up1
Laura. I've always preferred the sound of Laura over Lauren.
vote up1
I was talking to a friend a while back and I can't exactly remember the conversation, but his initial comment was something like "we better meet for brunch early tomorrow to beat all the Emilys." He was, of course, suggesting that Emily is the most basic of white girl names, so bland that it could be used as a term for the archetypical basic ass white girl obsessed with brunch. I was thrilled with this, but I suggested that Lauren was actually a better name to use than Emily. Everyone agreed instantly. All this to say, while I like the sound of Lauren, it is so basic, so insipid, that it could be anybody (in an American context at least).This is why I prefer Laura. It feels slightly out of fashion and lacks Lauren's polish, but it's spunkier, less generic... more dignified almost?

This message was edited 7/9/2018, 2:47 AM

vote up1
For me the most basic "generic seeming" white girl's I've known have been named Julia or Caitlin/ Caitlyn or Britney/ Brittney/ Brittany.Allison, Ashley, Emily, Kristina/ Christina, Jess/ Jessica, and Samantha are the next names I'd put on that list but most of them have been a bit more quirky.Even though I know a lot of Laura's, Amanda's, Melissa's, and Nicole's/ Nikki's about half of them have been black.The only Lauren I knew was white and she was a bit of a "generic white girl" although she was a really good ballerina rather than someone who just dabbled in ballet. As a kid she got to be in the professional Pacific Northwest Ballet Company's performances of The Nutcracker each year at the McCaw Hall.
----------

This message was edited 7/9/2018, 2:09 PM

vote up1
For me, it’s Amber.
vote up1
the "basic" girl to me ....Would be more likely to be Jen. Not Jennifer, and very possibly Jenn and she has to make a big point that she's "Jenn with two n's."
Or Sarah.
vote up1
Jen is definitely basic, but Lauren is almost more so. Jen is like 80's basic and Lauren is more 90's basic IMO. I think Sarah is so neutral that it's not even basic.
vote up1
Heh...I joke around with one of my friends about being a basic, white girl named Jen. It's a character we play with, sometimes. It's amusing to me that someone else feels this way about that name.
vote up1
It's funny ...Because I don't feel quite the same way about Jenny or Jennifer. Even though both those names are pretty "basic" too, Jennifer seems to have more personality than Jen does, and Jenny seems more friendly.
vote up1
This is how I picture a Jen:
vote up1
I picture Jen's to have dark brown almost black hair. I picture them being fairly reserved.
--------
vote up1
I agree with Sarah but must Jens I know are not at all basic so that's colored my view of the name. I actually do like the name Lauren but I've known such boring ones.
vote up1
LaurenI've always preferred Lauren, the main reason being that I know a lot of Laura's but I've known very few Lauren's.I had both a friend named Laura and a friend named Lauren. Laura is still like family to me and Lauren moved away in 4th or 5th grade. I grew up looking up to Laura Ingalls Wilder. My mother's name is the fairly similar Loretta. There were many Laura's at school and I have run across many right around my age so Laura has alwaya felt a bit more bland to me.Also I do like that Lauren is a little less feminine and a bit more unisex than Laura. Something about Lauren also seems cool and a bit sexy maybe because of Lauren Bacall. Laura will always seem like a spunky frontier girl name which I do like the image of. Really if Laura was less popular I'd probably care for it just as much as Lauren.
---------

This message was edited 7/9/2018, 1:58 AM

vote up1
Yes - Lauren has an almost tangible softness to it.Yes - Lauren has an almost tangible softness to it; and it is always easy to shorten it to Laura or any other (spelling?) variation.
vote up1
I enjoy both names; and I am hesitant to participate in comparisons - but I am rather fond of Lauren of late, yet this does not lessen my likeness or disparage Laura in any way. Lauren bears an enduring softness.
vote up1