Baby names are understandably a big deal, with parents spending months choosing the perfect moniker.
However, one Aussie journalist has come under serious fire for a ‘joke’ name which she announced live on air.
It’s unsurprising that when you hear an ABC presenter decided to give her newborn son a drug-related name, viewers were angry at the ‘appalling stunt’.
Advert
Take a look below:
Whilst most of us would opt for a traditional moniker like Will, Henry or Jay, the ABC presenter thought it would be a good idea to push the boundaries of legal baby names.
As part of her research for her WTFAQ show, Kirsten Drysdale submitted Methamphetamine Rules as her son’s name – which shockingly was approved by the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
Advert
The 38-year-old later announced the news on A Current Affair, but host Allison Langdon wasn’t exactly bowled over by the baby boy’s name.
She pointed told Drysdale: “Did the epidural block the brain? Why would you do this to your baby boy?”
To which, the WTFAQ journalist responded: “I did this in the name of journalism, Ally.”
Drysdale later explained that she’d done the ‘stunt’ to show the need for more rigorous checks about legal names.
Advert
“No. I would hope that there are no parents out there who would seriously call their child a name like that,” she told viewers, adding: “But if they are calling their child a questionable name, I think we’ve shown that there needs to be some better checks on it.”
Though viewers have reacted angrily to the mad moniker, the new mum revealed it wasn’t the only questionable baby name she’d thought of.
According to the ABC star, she’d planned to give her young son another drug-related name before settling on Class A drug.
Advert
When discussing the various options with her production team, Drysdale had even considered calling her newborn ‘Nangs Rule’.
For those not down with the illegal lingo, ‘nangs’ refers to nitrous oxide canisters which are often used as a party drug – with users getting a brief high from the laughing gas.
However, the journalist insisted that she and the researchers had assumed the names would be rejected by the registrar.
She explained: “We thought, what is the most outrageous name we can think of that will definitely not be accepted?
Advert
“Methamphetamine Rules we thought would surely get rejected, and then when it does, we can find out what name the Registrar chooses.”
Shockingly though, this soon backfired with the notorious name slipping through the system in what the Aussie Government called a ‘highly unusual event’.
UNILAD has reached out to Kirsten Drysdale at ABC publicity for comment.
Topics: Australia, Drugs, Film and TV, Parenting, Weird