View Message

I don't think Dakota should be used as a name for white people, and Eden is more feminine to me.

I actually strongly prefer Dakota for a boy and Eden feels evenly unisex to me.

---

-----------

Eden seems very feminine to me, Dakota is ugly on either gender.

I prefer these for girls

Dakota is too ugly, and Eden is too feminine.

I don't know anyone by either name--and I have absolutely no gender or personal association with Dakota. I don't believe I've ever known an "Eden", save a fictitious character; though I understand some sort of "feminine" connotation to it, but I hold no greater merit to such connotations than cooties or other childish rants.

---

I actually have "tough" association with Dakota; I have a softer association with Eden, but not un-masculine in any way. It would bother me if a parent or guardian would chose NOT to use Eden due to gender. I would enjoy it if my name were Eden.

This message was edited 9/1/2019, 12:28 PM

I think they're nice enough names and I actually prefer them for boys.

Dakota works - it seems more masculine to me (although it's unisex and I'm fine with it as a girl name too).
I don't really like the name because it feels like a dog-name to me, kind of ... gimmicky?
Eden though, I've only ever known girl Edens. So it's unappealing to me as a name for a guy. Not that it doesn't "work" - I think it does. But I'd have to get used to it and probably wouldn't ever really love it. I like Eden on a girl very much.

This message was edited 9/1/2019, 11:27 AM

Eden’s ok, not my taste though.
Because of the etymology of Dakota I don’t consider it an appropriate choice for most people.