True, although if it was called a Stinkweed people might be less inclined to give it a sniff in the first place.
In August I'm getting married, which obviously entails a lot of decision making (flowers, venues, guests, dresses, etc) but the hardest one is... names. Ever since I was about 14 I've been completely adamant that I would not take my (then theoretical) husband's name. Although, as an idealistic 14 year old, there were certain aspects of the situation that I didn't fully appreciate, such as the fact that I will be proud of being my fiance's wife, I fully stand by my decision. My name is my identity, and I've had it for 24 years, and I have both my parents' surnames (one as a middle name), and, well, I like it.
My fiance has no problem with this, so you'd think that would be the end of it.
It's not. Comments from friends, colleagues and relatives aside (ranging from 'I can understand why, it's a common name' to 'Don't you want people to know you're married?' to 'Are you marrying a lesbian?') the remaining problem is...
We want them one day, and they will have to have a surname. I'd like all our kids to have the same name as each other, and ideally the same as both of ours. Going double-barrelled is impractical (what about their kids?) and a bit pretentious; a brand new name means I still have to change my identity; having one of our names as a middle name and one as a surname might be the way to go. It's nicely Scandinavian too. Alternatively, I could go back in time and find a boyfriend with the same surname as me.
Seriously, why has no-one invented a practical solution to this problem? I'm going to revert to my usual method of decision making: putting it off.