I'm with foetidus on this one, in that there is a combination of notes that adds up to crudeness, with no "redeeming qualities." I also don't understand the name. I would name this one "cologne guy," not "sexy guy," that's for sure. I can't imagine not being able to find a better fragrance than this one, even if you like the general idea of it. And it doesn't sell for very low prices. Strike three, and this batter is out !
I disliked this from the first sniff – it smells too much like Eternity, which I dislike. “Sexual” is not what I was expecting at all. This is blunt and unsubtle with aggressively generic accords that makes even Eternity seem subtle. The opening of Sexual presents the top and the heart levels of the fragrance all at once. This opening combination is just plain horrid: Basil, citrus, petitgrain, and lavender make for an opening of excessively heavy clumsiness. The melon and gardenia that are claimed to be there might have mitigated the abrupt crudeness of the opening, but they are overwhelmed by the generic lavender. That lavender also extends into the base where it mixes with the vanilla and tonka to form another unpleasant accord.
With its name, Sexual should have something signaling some sort of sensuality or passion… nothing of the sort.
19th January, 2010 (last edited: 15th January, 2011)
Sexual is an awful, sleazy fragrance. It lacks depth, and taste. The market campaign really compounds this; they market it as an aphrodisiac that is made to mimic sexual elixirs used ages ago. What a joke!!!!