I think we do stereotype people in many different ways and by name is the obvious one, so a [name]Destiny[/name] or a [name]Bunny[/name] would probably be taken less seriously than an [name]Agnes[/name] and a [name]William[/name].
I would rather be a staid [name]William[/name] than the butt of everyone’s jokes because my name was [name]Bunny[/name]. However, if the love of my life gave me the nn of [name]Bunny[/name] I imagine it would be the epitome of endearments to me.
disa- I know you weren’t really serious. (The doctor thing only caught my attention because I am one and I thought it was interesting how different things were in The States!) I think you are right. We all make assumptions about people based on their names, often before meeting them. I much prefer to have a classic name as people tend to make less assumptions and you can ‘fit into’ any role 
Classic names are not dated, that is why they are considered classic.
I agree that classics are the best name choices for neutrality and versatility but I appreciate what [name]Karen[/name] mentioned about classic names having their own trend cycles as well, and [name]Patricia[/name] was a great example of this. Along those lines, how are [name]Judith[/name], [name]Ida[/name], and [name]Bertha[/name] not classic names? They are certainly not neutral at this point in time, being extremely out of favor. [name]How[/name] many little boys are named [name]Randall[/name] lately? Classics are generally safe, respectable, and elegant, but are still subject to the trends of the times, so they can certainly date a baby, though likely not as much as newly popular names can.