s/o Baby names so common now you don't know why people use them

[Anonymous]

They may be wonderful names, but unless there's a family connection I don't know why people continue to jump on these bandwagons.
Ex: Ava, Emily, Emma, Henry, Jacob, Matthew, Evan, Isabelle/a, Sophie/a, Grace.

There are so many wonderful names out there to use instead.

[Anonymous]

Is this simply a statement of your uniqueness or some kind of question?

[Anonymous]

Olivia. Lily. Zoe.

[Anonymous]

I think that what happens is that many people simply gravitate towards the familiar. So when you get pregnant and all of a sudden the name Stella pops into your head, you don't realize that your 2nd cousin had a baby last year named Stella and your mom mentioned it to you, or that a coworker's DD whose artwork you complimented is named Stella, and you've heard the name 40 times.

Or, another thing that happens is that Reese Witherspoon has always been one of your favorite actresses. Her DD's name is Ava. Then you get pregnant, and see a pic of Reese and Ava and you think "Oh, Ava!" and decide that's what you should name your baby.

[Anonymous]

Because they like the name and not everyone bases life decisions on what others might think or do.

Having a common name doesn't have an affect on your life in any material way. My son is Jack. He is my Jack and the name suits him. He has suffered no harm from being in the company of other Jacks.

In the scheme of things that are important to me as a parent, giving my kid a unique name doesn't even make the list.

[Anonymous]

What number of popularity are we allowed to choose below? And how should we announce to you that there is indeed a family connection?

[Anonymous]

Grr, self grammar policing. Effect.

I guess I do care what others think!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They may be wonderful names, but unless there's a family connection I don't know why people continue to jump on these bandwagons.
Ex: Ava, Emily, Emma, Henry, Jacob, Matthew, Evan, Isabelle/a, Sophie/a, Grace.

There are so many wonderful names out there to use instead.

Because they're lovely names and there's no award for the most unique baby name. Your child will be special even if they share a first name with another child.

[Anonymous]

Do the trendsetters get a dispensation? My daughter's name was virtually unheard-of in the under-80 set when she was born. Now, every time I call for her, I get mobbed by two-year-olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What number of popularity are we allowed to choose below? And how should we announce to you that there is indeed a family connection?

In the same vein, where's the sweet spot? Somewhere between 100 and 900? Because we all know how unspeakably trashy it is to "make up" a name. Poor Larla. Unique? Trashy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the trendsetters get a dispensation? My daughter's name was virtually unheard-of in the under-80 set when she was born. Now, every time I call for her, I get mobbed by two-year-olds.

lol. Good point. I have a Sophia (she goes by Sophie) from 2005, when it was below #10, but I guess still popular. But not #1 quite yet as it's been recently. Where is the cut-off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They may be wonderful names, but unless there's a family connection I don't know why people continue to jump on these bandwagons.
Ex: Ava, Emily, Emma, Henry, Jacob, Matthew, Evan, Isabelle/a, Sophie/a, Grace.

There are so many wonderful names out there to use instead.

Most people want common names. They are easy to spell, easily recognized, and generally chosen because they are pretty and popular.

So, I don't understand your point? You'd deliberately give your child an uncommon name? Why would you do that to a child?

[Anonymous]

I'm just going to start assigning numbers to my children. Problem solved!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

They like the names and don't base their choices on what others may or may not do. Why do you care?

Your list is random, also.