Now I realize I might be opening a can of worms here, but I’m hoping to have a healthy, liberal discussion.
Today’s topic: Forbidden Names
I suppose the point is should these names really be forbidden? [name]Do[/name] meanings really matter? Should the associations? [name]How[/name] about visibility/sensitivity? There is a greater percentage of atheists in the world than there was 100 years ago, so can you now use [name]Lucifer[/name]? Or is it still culturally forbidden?
The world is becoming more globalized, names from different cultures are appreciated and accepted more than they were before. Yes some names can be quite alien to us due to language boundaries but we’re slowly moving past that mentality. Is it working the same for forbidden names?
[name]Cain[/name]
[name]Lucifer[/name]
[name]Jezebel[/name]
[name]Judas[/name]
[name]Bridget[/name]-I suppose this can used as an example that negative images about this name have nearly faded
[name]Sambo[/name]
[name]Adolf[/name]
[name]Royal[/name] Titles such as [name]Princess[/name]/[name]King[/name]
[name]Cohen[/name]
[name]Dick[/name]
[name]Lolita[/name]
[name]Jemima[/name]
Now I’m not advocating these names, rather opening up a discussion.
So what do you think? Is there anything good to say about these names, or must they be exiled forever?
[name]Cain[/name], [name]Bridget[/name], and [name]Jemima[/name] are okay for me.
[name]Adolf[/name] is a big fat no because of how close we still are in retrospect to WWII. And [name]Dick[/name] in this day and age is just ridiculous because of the enormous teasing potential.
[name]Cain[/name] - the mark of [name]Cain[/name] and all that, everyone knows this story. I think it’s a nice name, but he’s not very sympathetic. Although I’m sure [name]Abel[/name] was a real pain, and that’s why he did it.
[name]Lucifer[/name] - As much as I like a bad boy, I think [name]Lucifer[/name] is too bad. Why would anyone name their child after this dude? He’s kinda cool on South [name]Park[/name] though
[name]Jezebel[/name] - I love [name]Jezebel[/name]. She and [name]Vashti[/name] are the two only Biblical persons I like. I think it’s a shame her name is associated with adultery and treacherousness. Name needs to be reclaimed!
[name]Judas[/name] - I like [name]Judas[/name], he’s not that bad. I never got the big deal about this, BUT it is (as above) associated with treacherousness.
[name]Bridget[/name] - Not a problem at all. Quite common, and lovely. [name]Bridget[/name] [name]Jones[/name]’ Diary, and the goddess.
[name]Sambo[/name] - [name]Little[/name] [name]Black[/name] [name]Sambo[/name], oh how I loved that book when I was a child. It’s hilarious! I don’t think it’s a good name though.
[name]Adolf[/name] - No no no a thousand times no. Not because I’m Jewish, not because my mother’s country was invaded by the Nazis, because I’m a human being and this is still to fresh in mind for most people.
[name]Royal[/name] Titles such as [name]Princess[/name]/[name]King[/name] - Tacky. Especially in monarchies.
[name]Cohen[/name] - I find this strange, but not that bad. I would urge people not to use it, but I’d be more offended by [name]Lolita[/name].
[name]Dick[/name] - Why oh why? This is terrible.
[name]Lolita[/name] - I can’t believe anyone who’s read that book would ever name their child this. It’s so sad and heartbreaking.
[name]Jemima[/name] - I’m in [name]England[/name], and there are plenty of [name]Jemima[/name]'s here, and I don’t really know too much about why it’s taboo in [name]America[/name] (I know there’s something relating to racism).
I think [name]Bridget[/name] is fine. Everything else, why? There are literally thousands of other names, why use one of these? I see the appeal of some- [name]Jezebel[/name], for example, is lovely, but is actually in the DICTIONARY as a “shameless, wicked woman.” There’s just absolutely no reason to use one of these extremely problematic names when there are so many other better names to choose from.
As a [name]Christian[/name], I’m not advocating the name [name]Lucifer[/name], but I do want to point out that most modern translations of the Bible don’t have a single mention of the word “[name]Lucifer[/name]” as Satan’s name. [name]Lucifer[/name] is only ever mentioned in one verse of the [name]King[/name] [name]James[/name] Version of the Bible, [name]Isaiah[/name] 14:12, and that original Hebrew term is now translated simply literally as “[name]Morning[/name] [name]Star[/name]” or “[name]Day[/name] [name]Star[/name]” rather than as the name “[name]Lucifer[/name].” I understand that [name]Lucifer[/name] is now culturally associated with Satan and thus I would hate to see a child saddled with it, but the name is not, in fact, accepted by many Christians as a “proper name” for Satan. [name]Just[/name] a little trivia.
Thank you for the laugh :). As for this list, I can agree with many of them. It is funny to me that [name]Judas[/name] just won’t fly for so many Christians, but [name]Jude[/name] will. I get it, but it is funny that two names so close get completely different reactions. For myself, if it wasn’t [name]Jude[/name], it would be [name]Judah[/name]. [name]Both[/name] mine and my DH families are quite religious, so I know I would have been skewered if I’d suggested [name]Judas[/name], but again, they were swooning over [name]Jude[/name].
I’m showing some stupidity here, but what are the negative connotations with [name]Bridget[/name]. I’m guessing since I have no clue, it’s completely usable.
They are all just names. Unfortunately, they are names associated with things that are offensive or they were just horrible, horrible people ([name]Adolf[/name], for example). Many of the names ([name]Jezebel[/name], [name]Lucifer[/name], [name]Cain[/name], [name]Judas[/name]) may not be offensive if you are not [name]Christian[/name], but the people who would associate with a child with that name might get very offended or upset. A child would have to live with that. A teenager would have to apply to college with that name. As open-minded as people say they are, the reality is we all make judgements about people based on their name and other things. I wouldn’t want to do that to a child. As a PP said, there are so many other names to choose from. Why selfishly choose (imho) a name that you know would ruffle feathers? Besides, as the case with [name]Bridget[/name], maybe over time, the negative connotation will disappear, and the names will be used again.
[name]Cain[/name] - I say useable, there are lots of names that have historic or mythical namebearers that committed crimes - [name]Richard[/name] III for example supposedly murdered his nephews, but his name hasn’t carried the association, I don’t think the association is strong enough here.
[name]Lucifer[/name] - This is iffy, as a name so strongly associated with evil it would take a great deal to overcome the connotation.
[name]Jezebel[/name] - If [name]Scarlett[/name] and [name]Lolita[/name] can make it so can [name]Jezebel[/name].
[name]Judas[/name] - This ought to be in the same realm as [name]Cain[/name], but has a more notorious reputation, I’m a little curious why [name]Jude[/name] is ok but [name]Judas[/name] not. I suppose if you were religious or living in a religious community it might be best to leave this be.
[name]Bridget[/name] - I actually don’t know the negative connotation with this name which can only mean that this name has outlived its bad past and is now very useable.
[name]Sambo[/name] - Not racist in itself, but might be hard to shake off the way people think of it.
[name]Adolf[/name] - Not nearly enough time has passed for this to be useable yet, who knows though it a couple hundred years someone on the future nameberry may be talking about its bad past and how it shook it off but it does look unlikely.
[name]Royal[/name] Titles such as [name]Princess[/name]/[name]King[/name] - They’re useable, but tacky. I don’t see the point, if you’re not a [name]King[/name] or [name]Princess[/name] then you shouldn’t be wearing the title as a name. I make an except for [name]Kingston[/name] though which is more a place name than a title name.
[name]Cohen[/name] - fine for me, if you’re not Jewish then no problem. Lots of names have religious meanings or associations.
[name]Dick[/name] - I wouldn’t.
[name]Lolita[/name] - I think this is becoming more and more ok by the day, not a huge issue for me (and I have read the book).
[name]Jemima[/name] - I’m a britberry so [name]Jemima[/name] is of course from [name]Beatrix[/name] [name]Potter[/name] and not some maple syrup brand, maybe location is something worth considering.
What on earth is wrong with [name]Bridget[/name]? Lol. [name]Jemima[/name] is also fine here as [name]Ottilie[/name] mentioned. I can see [name]Judas[/name] and [name]Cain[/name] working too.
That’s pretty funny - especially because I know it would happen where I’m from as well.
The only one that I would truly feel comfortable using was [name]Bridget[/name] - as far as being “forbidden,” I’m assuming they’re referring to her character in The Maltese [name]Falcon[/name]? Or the fact that it was a very stereotypically Irish name? …Or am I just completely wrong about that?
I’d say the difference between [name]Jude[/name]/[name]Judas[/name] was comparable to the difference between [name]Adolph[/name]/[name]Randolph[/name] ie they sound similar bit are totally seperate names with very different associations.
I know both a [name]Dick[/name] (aged 70) and a [name]Lolita[/name] (aged 60), neither has a problem with their name but that might be generational. [name]Lolita[/name] is nn [name]Lolly[/name]. Hopefully [name]Bridget[/name] is OK as it’s my daughter’s middle name! I wouldn’t use any of the others though, as another poster said, so many other names out there…
I suppose no name is familiar but here are my opinions: IMO all of the biblical bad guy names are too big a burden to use. I would worry about people judging the child, associating it with negative things and giving them grief or mocking them behind their back. Iirc @dante knows a little lucifer and said the boy has no problems with his name so who knows.
Bridget - never heard anything bad about this name
Sambo - no way and hell and for what it’s worth, Sambo is not just a nickname for Samuel, the racist term comes from the word “Zambo” it’s origins are race related.
Adolf - too negative to be used but Adolph is not unheard of in Hispanic communities and was in the top 1000 until the 1970’s so I guess to some degree the name is acceptable since Adolph/Adolf sound the same.
Royal titles such as king and princess - tacky IMO but not forbidden
Cohen - imo not usable, I don’t understand how some peopl justify it knowing its offensive. It seems tacky and ignorant.
Dick and Lolita - technically usable but I wouldn’t because of the sexual imagery it brings up for a lot of people
Jemima - not usable in the states. I would definitely question an American who used the name, although it would be more for stupidity than racism. It’s a hurtful term towards Blacks, you’re not going to be able to reclaim it as a stylish name without looking foolish IMO. Plus it’s a syrup so there’s that.
I really think that it depends on your family heritage a lot. If you are [name]Kenyan[/name] and love [name]Adolf[/name]/[name]Adolph[/name] I think you’d get weird looks but could get away with it. For someone like me with strong [name]German[/name] heritage I think it would be akin to just political suicide.
But… and this is the one where I know I’m not only opening a can of worms but pouring them all over me.
I [name]LOVE[/name] [name]Lucifer[/name]. Always have, always will. I love the meaning the sound and yes, partially that it’s forbidden. I would never use it on a child though, mostly because even if we want to name our children in a vacuum we have to acknowledge that this is not possible.
[name]Bridget[/name] was at one point a derogatory slang term for an Irish immigrant/girl working as a servant. Many immigrants changed their name from [name]Bridget[/name] to escape the stereotype. I’d agree that this one has faded into obscurity enough that it’s useable.
[name]Cain[/name]–I think it could be one of the more useable ones on this list. [name]Just[/name] not with a brother [name]Abel[/name].
[name]Lucifer[/name]–The association is enough to shy away from it [name]IMO[/name].
[name]Jezebel[/name]–It’s a pretty name, but the fact that it has entered the vocab is enough to scare me off from actually using it.
[name]Judas[/name]–I’d use [name]Judas[/name] over [name]Lucifer[/name]? [name]Jude[/name] is getting use, but [name]Judas[/name] might still get some raised eyebrows.
[name]Bridget[/name]–See above/For the most part rehabbed
[name]Sambo[/name]–[name]Just[/name] ugly, no.
[name]Adolf[/name]–Big no, if it does “recover” it will take a lot longer.
[name]Royal[/name] Titles such as [name]Princess[/name]/[name]King[/name]-- Eh, tacky maybe, but not offensive
[name]Cohen[/name]–Offensive to too many people for my liking
[name]Dick[/name]–Not offensive per say, but a bit mean to do to a child today. Especially when [name]Richard[/name] could easily honor a [name]Dick[/name] (oh cringe).
[name]Lolita[/name]–Another one like [name]Jezebel[/name], so pretty, but so much baggage
[name]Jemima[/name]–In the US, I’d shy away from it. Another one that’s a gorgeous name with terrible baggage. Honestly, if [name]Adolf[/name] is “too soon” which it undoubtedly is, the sad truth is, “[name]Jemima[/name]” wasn’t that long ago either. There are plenty of older people today who will remember the term with a lot of pain, and that in itself feels like reason to avoid a lot of these for me.
[name]Cain[/name] - I would avoid [name]Cain[/name] and use [name]Kane[/name] instead because it has less baggage. I can’t imagine [name]Cain[/name] actually offending anyone, but if it has a negative association to a lot of people, then the name loses its appeal for me.
[name]Lucifer[/name] - This has been a favorite of mine ever since I was a little girl. I would consider using it for a pet, but never a child. Again, too negative of an association.
[name]Jezebel[/name] - I still hear it used occasionally as a noun and I can’t seem to shake that association. It does have a pretty sound to it though.
[name]Judas[/name] - Not fan of of this name even without its negative associations.
[name]Bridget[/name] - I think [name]Bridget[/name] has been used enough now that it is fine. I prefer the french spelling.
[name]Sambo[/name] - I wouldn’t consider using this name anyways. I knew a black doberman named [name]Sambo[/name]. I am not sure if the people who named him were racist or not, but it is all dog name to me now anyway.
[name]Adolf[/name] - Another name I like. Not usable.
[name]Royal[/name] Titles such as [name]Princess[/name]/[name]King[/name] - I think they are lame and wouldn’t use them.
[name]Cohen[/name] - I don’t like this name to begin with and it is very popular where I live, along with Cowan, [name]Owen[/name], [name]Koen[/name]. I wouldn’t use it.
[name]Dick[/name] - Uhhh? No!
[name]Lolita[/name] - Not usable.
[name]Jemima[/name] - Not usable in the States, seems fine everywhere else. I am in [name]Canada[/name] and it would probably be fine.
While there are more atheists around, that doesn’t mean that we don’t still attach cultural associations to [name]Judas[/name], [name]Lucifer[/name], and [name]Cain[/name]. If you read fantasy and SciFi and/or watch action movies, these (or some name alluding to these) show up all the time on bad guys just to reinforce the obviousness of their bad guy status. [name]Cain[/name], especially.
And, as I see it, the difference between [name]Richard[/name] and [name]Cain[/name] is that there were (and still are) many, MANY [name]Richards[/name] (the one in question was, after all, the third), but [name]Cain[/name] is an archetype from an important creation story.
This is all too bad, because I do love [name]Lucifer[/name] as a name.
They are two completely different biblical persons. [name]Judas[/name] betrayed [name]Jesus[/name]. [name]Jude[/name] wrote one of the epistles.
Oh, and the account of [name]Jezebel[/name] in the bible is not one of adultery, but treachery and murder. Definitely not something to saddle a daughter with. I think the biblical name Athaliah is beautiful and has a lovely meaning, but it’s only namesake is a [name]Queen[/name] who murdered her own children and grandchildren. [name]Will[/name] everyone your daughter meets know this? Probably not. But, since it’s her name, there’s a good chance that she’ll eventually find out, and that cannot be good for one’s self-image.
