Help! My Sister Wants to Name Her Baby After Me. I Really Don’t Want the “Honor.

Classic Advice Column Letters Explore Family Naming Choices, Workplace Dynamics, and Intergenerational Conflicts

Slate’s Dear Prudence advice column periodically republishes selected letters from its archives. The June 8, 2026, installment presented three letters originally published in November 2022, along with the columnist’s responses. The letters addressed a proposed baby name, a reported workplace attraction during doctoral studies, and limited contact with grandchildren.

In the first letter, the writer described undergoing emergency surgery the previous year that resulted in the loss of fertility. The writer stated that, although single and previously uncertain about having children, the outcome was mourned. The writer’s sister, who was pregnant with a girl, proposed naming the child after the writer. The writer reported feeling the suggestion was unusual and preferred that the niece receive a distinct first name. The writer offered to accept the name as a middle name and expressed uncertainty about whether to raise the topic again. The proposed phrasing included an apology for the initial reaction, gratitude for the intent, and a request to use the name as a middle name.

The columnist responded that the suggested script was suitable and recommended emphasizing acceptance of the middle-name option without further elaboration on the reasons for the preference.

A second letter described a writer enrolled in a doctoral program who reported developing an attraction to a supervisor. The writer noted that the relationship had included friendly conversations and text messages outside academic matters, that an age difference existed but was not viewed as prohibitive, and that both parties appeared to recognize mutual interest through nonverbal cues. The writer stated that neither intended to pursue the matter during the program because of the supervisory role. The writer asked how to reduce ongoing thoughts about a possible relationship after program completion.

The columnist advised allowing the feelings to continue without active suppression, noting that such infatuations commonly involve idealized perceptions and that they typically diminish over time provided no boundary is crossed.

The third letter came from a writer whose son had married a woman described as Asian. The writer reported living at a distance, infrequent communication, and not being informed of one grandchild’s birth until the day prior. The writer stated that an invitation to meet the second grandchild, born three months earlier, had not been extended and asked how to increase involvement before the writer’s death.

The columnist observed that the phrasing “an Asian woman” appeared in the letter despite the query containing no other reference to race or ethnicity. The response suggested the writer consider whether past statements or actions could have been interpreted as biased or disrespectful toward the daughter-in-law or grandchildren. If such conduct had occurred, the columnist recommended a direct apology and commitment to changed behavior. If no such conduct came to mind, the columnist advised asking the son or daughter-in-law for clarification and listening to the response.

The column also included a previously published letter in which a writer reported that a mother-in-law repeatedly commented on the writer’s appearance by stating that the writer looked tired. The writer described attempts to address the remarks through humor, silence, cosmetic adjustments, and discussion with a spouse, all without change. The letter sought further suggestions.

The reprinted material contained no additional commentary beyond the letters and the published replies. The column noted that submissions should remain under 150 words, that duplicate submissions to multiple columns are discouraged, and that published questions may be edited or reused in other Slate features.