Hot Takes? 🤭

oh, I knew that! sorry, should’ve clarified. I just don’t think it’s a negative association, which is where my confusion is coming from.
I wouldn’t personally use [name_f]Sappho[/name_f], but if I did, I think it’d be simple to tell my child: “Sappho was a poet, lots of people associate her with lesbians and queer women. I thought the name was really beautiful, and loved Sappho’s poems, which is why I chose the name for you.”
I wouldn’t be using the name as some sort of “social statement”, or to push some sort of message or anything. It’d be the same as using any other sort of name, especially another name from history.
I’d agree if it were a negative association, or trying to push political views on your child (as previously said, names like Biden or Trump, for example), but I just don’t see any issue when it comes to [name_f]Sappho[/name_f], personally.
Maybe I’m not explaining this properly, but hopefully it makes sense.

5 Likes

EDIT to add: I’m leaving this up for others to learn as I did, but I apologize for this statement and do not stand by my accusation of homophobia towards OP.

——

I find the suggestion that a historic poet is “a loaded message” simply because she was a lesbian to be homophobic. Whether you are gay yourself or not, we can all internalize homophobic messages.

If you don’t find names like Edgar Allen, William, Eliot or Sylvia to be loaded, then there is no reason ( other than homophobia ) to find Sapphos to be. Sapphos also isn’t typically known by most people anyways. What “message” do gay people send? What load do you think the children of gay parents are carrying?

There’s simply no way to rationalize that statement IMO.

8 Likes

To be fair, [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] and [name_f]Lolita[/name_f] are normal names in certain cultures, so I wouldn’t necessarily make assumptions about why a person is called either of them. A heterosexual Greek couple using the name [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] almost certainly aren’t trying to make some kind of social statement.

11 Likes

Yes! I love the name [name_f]Lolita[/name_f]. I wouldn’t use it as I live in [name_u]North[/name_u] [name_u]America[/name_u] and the association is just too strong here, but it’s such a beautiful name.

2 Likes

I was trying to get at something similar to this, but my migraine prevented me from explaining properly :sweat_smile: thank you for putting some of my thoughts into words more clearly!

4 Likes

if you genuinely think that a name meaning “lucifer is king” is at all comparable to a name meaning “beautiful sapphic love,” i’m not sure i have a lot more to say to you here.

5 Likes

I am gay and I love the name Sappho/have it in my combos, but I don’t think it’s homophobic to be wary about giving your child a name that is so strongly associated with one person (at least in English) who is also very strongly associated with one “theme” by the majority of people. It doesn’t give your child a lot of room for their own identity, and I don’t mean sexuality-wise but just in general - I would feel the same about a child named, I don’t know, Gothica [name_u]Shadow[/name_u] Eldritch. All of which are coolish names on their own actually, which I also think is being lost in the conversation here - OP never said [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] on its own was a negative association. But if my name was [name_f]Bella[/name_f] [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] [name_u]Love[/name_u] for example, I might feel like my name is making a statement - and even if that is a positive statement, it might not actually reflect me as a person, which would be a shame as it’s my name and I should be able to forge my own identity within that. I like trees, but a child named [name_u]Elm[/name_u] Tree Lover might grow up and think, actually, maybe that is a bit much, maybe something like [name_u]Henry[/name_u] [name_u]Elm[/name_u] or [name_f]Joanna[/name_f] [name_u]Elm[/name_u] would have been a suitable nod to my parents’ beliefs/interests/hobbies and left me the space to make the name my own as well.

27 Likes

Well there is the fact that Sappho is not even in the same league of popularity as all those other names. It is heavily associated with lesbians, and again, giving yourself that name is one thing, bestowing a combo like Bella Sappho Love is an entirely different thing. And I didn’t say anything about the person doing it being gay. Again, giving that name to yourself is fine, but it’s a lot to put on a literal infant. Agreeing with/liking the message is irrelevant.

4 Likes

I didn’t say they were the same, I said they were a lot to put on a child. And if you don’t want to talk to me, that’s fine.

2 Likes

I understand this explanation much more. I think the wording confused me a bit, so I do apologize for the original poster for suggesting homophobia as a reasoning! Hopefully they see this!

Though, I do still think [name_f]Bella[/name_f] [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] [name_u]Love[/name_u] is much more subtle than [name_u]Elm[/name_u] Tree Lover. Names like [name_m]Abdiel[/name_m], for example, mean Gods servant. This certainly isn’t a bad thing, but the child may not necessarily identify with that — it reflects the parents beliefs more. However, it’s not so much of an issue because it doesn’t read as a real statement, like your example does.

But I do see what you’re saying. It’s sort of in line of why I dislike the name [name_m]Elvis[/name_m] for boys — it just feels like someone else’s identity, not the child’s.

3 Likes

I understand more now why the full name [name_f]Bella[/name_f] [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] [name_u]Love[/name_u] isn’t a great idea! I honestly didn’t read into the meaning of the name [name_f]Bella[/name_f] at first. I appreciate most names for their sounds, so I forget about that aspect and that’s my fault. However I do still think the name [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] itself is a perfectly fine option, and recognize that you never said it wasn’t now! [name_f]My[/name_f] apologies.

5 Likes

No worries, nuance can sometimes get lost in a conversation like this, with so very many statements being made. I appreciate the apology.

2 Likes

This may be time for my own hot take, since the name [name_m]Lucifer[/name_m] was mentioned. I love the name [name_m]Lucifer[/name_m] and I love the meaning light bearer! It’s such a positive meaning and beautiful sounding name. I really wish it didn’t have the bible connection, the negativity of that character is too much for me. Especially since my (or any) child may follow religion one day.

[name_f]Lilith[/name_f] for me is the complete opposite — hate the negative meaning, love the sound and the biblical character! There’s no winning.

7 Likes

I absolutely agree with giving your children names that they can make their own rather than ones that are already loaded with very specific associations. It’s the same as using the name [name_m]Sherlock[/name_m], Einstein or [name_m]Shakespeare[/name_m] or [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] (w/ the [name_f]English[/name_f] pronunciations) to me. They make an impression on whoever that person meets before they get to say a single word; they come with such strong associations that they will have turned into assumptions for many people, or maybe expectations.
That’s not to say that those are negative, but they are strong; of course some children/people could handle those names, could just shrug it off when somebody says “so are you like really smart / a good writer / can you heal people” either as a joke or seriously, but then there are also a lot of people who probably couldn’t and whom those comments would affect very negatively even if they were not meant to be that way.
A [name_m]Shakespeare[/name_m] getting low grades in [name_f]English[/name_f], a [name_m]Sherlock[/name_m] being slow to understand things, an Einstein who fails science class, a [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] who has a short temper and easily gets frustrated - I feel like that would be really difficult for people with those names.
And when names are linked to such personal things as one’s own identity, I feel like the possibility of the “failure” of a name becomes even bigger - I don’t see the name [name_u]Gay[/name_u] coming back in style, for example, even if 50s names will become trendy again at some point.

16 Likes

I was speaking only about the name [name_f]Sappho[/name_f], I agree with others that while more subtle, [name_f]Bella[/name_f] [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] [name_u]Love[/name_u] isn’t the best name to give a child.
I enjoyed this interesting conversation, thank you to everyone who put their own thoughts in! It’s always great hearing everyone’s opinions and feelings on a subject. I definitely appreciate getting to discuss topics like this with mature, understanding people!! I am also incredibly grateful that this conversation stayed about making sure a child has their own identity when giving them a name, instead of drifting into homophobic territory (which I’ve unfortunately seen happen on here too often than I’d like)!

also, just to be clear, @Inlakesh I never thought you were being homophobic! and I apologize if me starting this conversation lead to you, or anyone else, having any negative feelings. I was genuinely interested in this discussion, not trying to call anyone out or start an argument.

@OpheliaFlora I like your comparison to Einstein and [name_m]Sherlock[/name_m], that’s a good point when it comes to [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] and other names associated with someone so strongly. It’s definitely something to consider when actually using a name such as those!

8 Likes

I see things have cleared themselves up here so I don’t have a lot more to add. [name_m]Just[/name_m] this one though I had reading this: If I heard a girl being called [name_f]Sappho[/name_f] by her peers, I’d assume it was a nickname based on her sexuality and/or presentation. I’d probably spend a lot of time trying to figure if it was a way of mocking her or if she was actually ok with it before considering the possibility that it’s her name.

[name_f]Sappho[/name_f], [name_m]Adonis[/name_m], [name_m]Nimrod[/name_m], [name_f]Nemesis[/name_f], [name_u]Beau[/name_u], [name_f]Xanthippe[/name_f], Narciss and Tussi were all originally names, but their figurative meanings have taken over (not for everyone, and not all to the same degree) and that makes them a lot less usable as names. I wonder if we will witness something similar in our lifetimes with names like [name_u]Kyle[/name_u], [name_m]Chad[/name_m], [name_f]Karen[/name_f] or [name_m]Stan[/name_m] becoming so synonymous with their stereotypes that they stop being names. It might already have happened to [name_m]Dick[/name_m].

11 Likes

Beatristan

2 Likes

This is super late but just happened to remember and look this up, the only legit one I found was Viator which is technically the masc version of Beatrix and Viatrix but they’re all variants of Beatrice so it applies to that as well

3 Likes

This might be too hot of a take, but it’s been stewing in my head for forever and I just have to put it out there…

Combos don’t belong to any one person.

This whole “adopting combos” and “is this anyone’s combo” seems so silly to me, because it’s a name. [name_f]Do[/name_f] you honestly think that your child is going to be the only person in the world with that first and middle name? [name_m]Even[/name_m] if it is unique, it doesn’t make it yours.

(this is not meant to offend anyone! i genuinely apologize if it does! this just my own personal feelings on the matter!)

22 Likes

I feel like there was a convo about this here a while back that kinda ended in a flame war

6 Likes