I just read somewhere (perhaps in a comment on this blog, even) that the most efficient way to get yourself into a lower BMI category would be to grow a couple inches. That made me giggle, but fuck, it’s about as likely as losing all the weight it would take.

This is so me! I look at pictures from when I was a young diva to be and I am a good head and half taller than any of the boys and most of the girls– why was everyone so frickin’ worried I weighed more?!? I was this hugely tall Amazon girl- I was not fat, but seem in fairly decent proportion.

Then all the food shaming began and treats became evil, etc. SO OF COURSE I eventually became fat for real.

But I still hold out hope (at 41) for one final growth spurt to take me taller and stretch it all out. Except for the deep leg pains I had when growing… I’d rather skip that part.

I’m not saying, but i’m just saying, yanno.

Heh!

And I do hope you’ve discovered the new post about names, Kate in England.

There is a whole raft of names that are pretty much exclusively Stateside, in my book, too – Jamie, Brad, Erin (which I actually REALLY like, but I’ve never met a real live one), most things that end in i or y, ie anything that rhymes with Candy, Brandy, Shandy, that ilk… Randy – REALLY doesn’t work in the UK.

I don’t think Violet’s going to take off here because a) the current generation of thirtysomethings will remember the very obnoxious Violet Elizabeth in 70s kids’ show Just William, and the up-and-coming generation of parents will know her as a barmaid in Coronation St, not the most salubrious of soaps…

On a related note, I wish someone would be brave enough to bring Kermit and Grover back. I think they’re both awesome names, if you could separate them from Jim Henson, but I fear it can’t be done.

ANYWAY. What I was going to say is, I loved the name Sarah growing up, but it got obscenely popular here, starting… I don’t know, 15-20 years ago? And now it’s hit the saturation point. So, despite the name having a totally classic feel, it’s strongly pegged to the ’90s now. (Same thing that happened to Fillyjonk’s real name in the ’80s.) Interesting that that happened to Sarah 20 years earlier in the U.K.

And the recycling of old lady names is definitely happening here, too. I suspect that’s always been the case, that a few generations after a name is popular, it’s ripe for a comeback — that’s why it’s so fun to play with the Baby Name Wizard; you can see the hundred-year cycles, and for a lot of names, there are spikes on both ends. But while Lily and Rose have definitely exploded in the States (and I’m betting on Violet to go next, after the Garner/Affleck baby made it okay), Daisy hasn’t caught on the same way here. And Rose has gone crazy more as a filler middle name than a first name here; our generation had “Lynn,” this one has “Rose.” It’s really interesting to me to see where trends that are basically the same in the U.S. and the U.K. diverge. Because I’m a huge nerd.

Also, it’s definitely going beyond flower names — Emma, Emily, Sophie, Madeleine, Abigail, etc., all seemed really old-fashioned in the U.S. until every kindergarten was suddenly full of them. I can’t see Agnes or Bertha or Gertrude catching on again, but I’d bet you a nickel Agatha could make a comeback in the next 20 years; not a huge one, but I could see it getting back into the top 1000. If you divorce it from the old-lady associations — and the resemblance to Agnes — it’s not nearly as harsh-sounding as the others. Ditto Mathilda, btw. The explosion of Madisons and Madeleines seems to be because people love the nickname Maddie. Now those names are played, but “Mattie” would scratch the same itch.

Okay, fuck this, I’m doing a whole post about names.