Most niche perfumes are unisex

    Most niche perfumes are unisex

    post #1 of 17
    Thread Starter 

    I do suspect with designer, the strict gender division, is part of the marketing demographics and the whole "sex appeal" thing.

    But why is niche unisex?

    1. Because perfumery is an art, and you can't let culturally defined gender associations color what is meant for who because a lot of perfumes are simply universal.

    2. Small companies will take practically anyone's money.

    post #2 of 17
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdrakkarView Post

    I do suspect with designer, the strict gender division, is part of the marketing demographics and the whole "sex appeal" thing.

    But why is niche unisex?

    1. Because perfumery is an art, and you can't let culturally defined gender associations color what is meant for who because a lot of perfumes are simply universal.

    2. Small companies will take practically anyone's money.
    I think it's partly both 1 and 2. I personally view every fragrance as unisex, and if I like it, I wear it.
    post #3 of 17
    The whole gender thing is just marketing. I think it's mostly 1. You create a scent to recreate an emotion, feeling, experience, etc. It can be worn by anyone. I also think genderizing fragrances was made mostly for men to make them feel more comfortable wearing perfume.
    post #4 of 17
    Most niche companies don't market to specific genders for reasons given already but some do.
    post #5 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by noirdrakkarView Post

    2. Small companies will take practically anyone's money.

    Practically?

    It's cool for niche to†state 'unisex' when it patently isn't imo.

    post #6 of 17

    all of the above

    post #7 of 17
    All perfume is unisex.
    post #8 of 17
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    All perfume is unisex.

    I have a hard time arguing with this...

    post #9 of 17
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    All perfume is unisex.

    I disagree. That's like saying all clothing is unisex, but just because a man can actually wear a lacy, frilly dress doesn't make it unisex. Some men might even look (and feel) great in dresses, but dresses are still considered feminine ...unless you're Marc Jacobs. Yes, all perfumes can be worn by either gender, but there are certain accords that are generally considered feminine by most people, and others that are considered masculine, and that doesn't change when the opposite gender wears them.†Insolence smells feminine, even on men, and Kouros smells masculine, even on women ...but it's comparable to putting Angelina Jolie in a suit and tie. The suit is masculine, but she's still a woman and wearing a suit and tie doesn't even begin to make her masculine. So sure, men certainly should be able to wear feminine fragrances and vice-versa, but they also should be able to discern and admit that they're feminine (when they clearly just are), and vice-versa, rather than sticking with the story that they're all the same. 'Cuz they're not. Personally, I like having two distinct genders with some ambiguity thrown in - it gives everyone more choices rather than attempting to make everyone the same. I really think we should all wear whatever we want regardless of gender, but without the gender-blinding. It's just not necessary.
    And I think most niche lines release "unisex" fragrances because they don't want to spend much time or money on marketing and advertising, and that's where most of the genderizing happens ...the bottle, the color of the jus, the model in the ad, are all ways to get the attention of a particular demographic, and that usually includes a specific gender. But many niche lines choose to have plain or uniform bottles with naturally-hued fragrance and no advertising so they can concentrate on the fragrance itself ...this is the nature of niche, and it's what supposedly makes these fragrances superior to the stuff churned out by the giants, where a much greater portion (almost all, that is) of the budget goes into marketing and advertising rather than into quality ingredients.
    post #10 of 17
    Evangeline, ideas about masculinity and femininity in perfume are culture based, and are thus subjective--and often arbitrary--classifications. Furthermore, gender cannot be so clearly demarcated as in fashion: a dress is a dress, but a floral is not exlusively for women (Insense). Why should a woman fear the fougere and men the floral? Perfume genres are types, not typecasts.
    post #11 of 17
    Thread Starter 

    Yes these are culturally set boundaries, but nonetheless there.

    What do you think decides our diet, religion, politics, or whats on tv. †same thing.

    post #12 of 17
    Right. But should we pay heed to cultural norms? That's up to you. Also note that perfume operates, unlike fashion, on a continuum: one may put on only a drop of perume, whereas one must wear an entire dress when wearing a dress. Thus a man who wears a "feminine" perfume may do so subtly.
    post #13 of 17
    Thread Starter 
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    Right. But should we pay heed to cultural norms? That's up to you. Also note that perfume operates, unlike fashion, on a continuum: one may put on only a drop of perume, whereas one must wear an entire dress when wearing a dress. Thus a man who wears a "feminine" perfume may do so subtly.

    Yeah, I'm not saying men shouldn't wear womens perfume or vice versa.

    I'm just saying that the healthy majority of people wouldn't want to.

    post #14 of 17
    I nominate myself ambassador of the sick minority, then.
    post #15 of 17
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    Evangeline, ideas about masculinity and femininity in perfume are culture based, and are thus subjective--and often arbitrary--classifications. Furthermore, gender cannot be so clearly demarcated as in fashion: a dress is a dress, but a floral is not exlusively for women (Insense). Why should a woman fear the fougere and men the floral? Perfume genres are types, not typecasts.
    But should we pay heed to cultural norms? That's up to you. Also note that perfume operates, unlike fashion, on a continuum: one may put on only a drop of perume, whereas one must wear an entire dress when wearing a dress. Thus a man who wears a "feminine" perfume may do so subtly.

    Of course they are culture-based - we all live in culture-based societies - but why does that matter? These notions exist, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging them, even if you don't let the norms determine your perfume wearing preferences. Denying they exist, ignoring them or mentally "neutering" everything won't make gender go away, and won't make a girly, feminine fragrance smell manly or even unisex just because a dude wants to "rock" it. It's not the individual notes or accords, btw, that might determine how a fragrance will be marketed or perceived - it's the overall composition. Feminine foug√®res exist, as do masculine florals.†But your statement about types and typecasts is exactly my point - perfume types (masc and fem) do most definitely exist, but we have choices,†and don't have to typecast ourselves as only feminine or masculine. We can wear what we want, whether it's more feminine, more masculine or equal measures of both ...or neither.†

    Your second point clarifies something for me - you can actually discern the difference between at least some "so-called" feminines and masculines. That's good to know! There are certainly vastly varying degrees of either, just like a dress can be ultra-feminine or tailored and streamlined (hence my Marc Jacobs remark - it wasn't frilly and overtly feminine, but he made a dress for a man, but he was still, oddly enough, a man in a dress.) I agree that a man can wear just a bit of something feminine ...however, no matter how subtle, it'll still be feminine. Wearing a lot of it may be more daring in some situations, but it doesn't make the fragrance any more feminine than if he just wears a drop. Imagine a cowboy, for instance, wearing a small cameo and pearl brooch - that's just a tiny bit of something rather feminine, right? The very true statement that "pearls are inherently unisex" won't make this dainty little brooch any less feminine, but wearing it won't make him any less of a macho cowboy. If he's man enough and truly open-minded enough to wear it without worrying what others think, then he shouldn't have a problem calling it "feminine," either.

    post #16 of 17
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EvangelineView Post

    I disagree. That's like saying all clothing is unisex, but just because a man can actually wear a lacy, frilly dress doesn't make it unisex. Some men might even look (and feel) great in dresses, but dresses are still considered feminine ...unless you're Marc Jacobs. Yes, all perfumes can be worn by either gender, but there are certain accords that are generally considered feminine by most people, and others that are considered masculine, and that doesn't change when the opposite gender wears them. Insolence smells feminine, even on men, and Kouros smells masculine, even on women ...but it's comparable to putting Angelina Jolie in a suit and tie. The suit is masculine, but she's still a woman and wearing a suit and tie doesn't even begin to make her masculine. So sure, men certainly should be able to wear feminine fragrances and vice-versa, but they also should be able to discern and admit that they're feminine (when they clearly just are), and vice-versa, rather than sticking with the story that they're all the same. 'Cuz they're not. Personally, I like having two distinct genders with some ambiguity thrown in - it gives everyone more choices rather than attempting to make everyone the same. I really think we should all wear whatever we want regardless of gender, but without the gender-blinding. It's just not necessary.

    And I think most niche lines release "unisex" fragrances because they don't want to spend much time or money on marketing and advertising, and that's where most of the genderizing happens ...the bottle, the color of the jus, the model in the ad, are all ways to get the attention of a particular demographic, and that usually includes a specific gender. But many niche lines choose to have plain or uniform bottles with naturally-hued fragrance and no advertising so they can concentrate on the fragrance itself ...this is the nature of niche, and it's what supposedly makes these fragrances superior to the stuff churned out by the giants, where a much greater portion (almost all, that is) of the budget goes into marketing and advertising rather than into quality ingredients.
    Thank you for this comment.

    7/28/13 at 6:36pm

    noirdrakkar said:



    I do suspect with designer, the strict gender division, is part of the marketing demographics and the whole "sex appeal" thing.

    But why is niche unisex?

    1. Because perfumery is an art, and you can't let culturally defined gender associations color what is meant for who because a lot of perfumes are simply universal.

    2. Small companies will take practically anyone's money.

    7/28/13 at 6:52pm

    williampaul1969 said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdrakkarView Post

    I do suspect with designer, the strict gender division, is part of the marketing demographics and the whole "sex appeal" thing.

    But why is niche unisex?

    1. Because perfumery is an art, and you can't let culturally defined gender associations color what is meant for who because a lot of perfumes are simply universal.

    2. Small companies will take practically anyone's money.
    I think it's partly both 1 and 2. I personally view every fragrance as unisex, and if I like it, I wear it.

    7/28/13 at 7:18pm

    ScentBound said:



    The whole gender thing is just marketing. I think it's mostly 1. You create a scent to recreate an emotion, feeling, experience, etc. It can be worn by anyone. I also think genderizing fragrances was made mostly for men to make them feel more comfortable wearing perfume.

    7/29/13 at 4:59am

    hednic said:



    Most niche companies don't market to specific genders for reasons given already but some do.

    7/29/13 at 6:56am

    Kaern said:



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by noirdrakkarView Post

    2. Small companies will take practically anyone's money.

    Practically?

    It's cool for niche to†state 'unisex' when it patently isn't imo.

    7/29/13 at 7:13am

    Tony T said:



    all of the above

    7/30/13 at 2:37pm

    treeman5823 said:



    All perfume is unisex.

    7/30/13 at 7:40pm

    naylor said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    All perfume is unisex.

    I have a hard time arguing with this...

    7/31/13 at 6:25am

    Evangeline said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    All perfume is unisex.

    I disagree. That's like saying all clothing is unisex, but just because a man can actually wear a lacy, frilly dress doesn't make it unisex. Some men might even look (and feel) great in dresses, but dresses are still considered feminine ...unless you're Marc Jacobs. Yes, all perfumes can be worn by either gender, but there are certain accords that are generally considered feminine by most people, and others that are considered masculine, and that doesn't change when the opposite gender wears them.†Insolence smells feminine, even on men, and Kouros smells masculine, even on women ...but it's comparable to putting Angelina Jolie in a suit and tie. The suit is masculine, but she's still a woman and wearing a suit and tie doesn't even begin to make her masculine. So sure, men certainly should be able to wear feminine fragrances and vice-versa, but they also should be able to discern and admit that they're feminine (when they clearly just are), and vice-versa, rather than sticking with the story that they're all the same. 'Cuz they're not. Personally, I like having two distinct genders with some ambiguity thrown in - it gives everyone more choices rather than attempting to make everyone the same. I really think we should all wear whatever we want regardless of gender, but without the gender-blinding. It's just not necessary.
    And I think most niche lines release "unisex" fragrances because they don't want to spend much time or money on marketing and advertising, and that's where most of the genderizing happens ...the bottle, the color of the jus, the model in the ad, are all ways to get the attention of a particular demographic, and that usually includes a specific gender. But many niche lines choose to have plain or uniform bottles with naturally-hued fragrance and no advertising so they can concentrate on the fragrance itself ...this is the nature of niche, and it's what supposedly makes these fragrances superior to the stuff churned out by the giants, where a much greater portion (almost all, that is) of the budget goes into marketing and advertising rather than into quality ingredients.

    7/31/13 at 9:20pm

    treeman5823 said:



    Evangeline, ideas about masculinity and femininity in perfume are culture based, and are thus subjective--and often arbitrary--classifications. Furthermore, gender cannot be so clearly demarcated as in fashion: a dress is a dress, but a floral is not exlusively for women (Insense). Why should a woman fear the fougere and men the floral? Perfume genres are types, not typecasts.

    7/31/13 at 9:44pm

    noirdrakkar said:



    Yes these are culturally set boundaries, but nonetheless there.

    What do you think decides our diet, religion, politics, or whats on tv. †same thing.

    7/31/13 at 10:06pm

    treeman5823 said:



    Right. But should we pay heed to cultural norms? That's up to you. Also note that perfume operates, unlike fashion, on a continuum: one may put on only a drop of perume, whereas one must wear an entire dress when wearing a dress. Thus a man who wears a "feminine" perfume may do so subtly.

    8/1/13 at 12:39am

    noirdrakkar said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    Right. But should we pay heed to cultural norms? That's up to you. Also note that perfume operates, unlike fashion, on a continuum: one may put on only a drop of perume, whereas one must wear an entire dress when wearing a dress. Thus a man who wears a "feminine" perfume may do so subtly.

    Yeah, I'm not saying men shouldn't wear womens perfume or vice versa.

    I'm just saying that the healthy majority of people wouldn't want to.

    8/1/13 at 7:07am

    treeman5823 said:



    I nominate myself ambassador of the sick minority, then.

    8/1/13 at 7:18am

    Evangeline said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treeman5823View Post

    Evangeline, ideas about masculinity and femininity in perfume are culture based, and are thus subjective--and often arbitrary--classifications. Furthermore, gender cannot be so clearly demarcated as in fashion: a dress is a dress, but a floral is not exlusively for women (Insense). Why should a woman fear the fougere and men the floral? Perfume genres are types, not typecasts.
    But should we pay heed to cultural norms? That's up to you. Also note that perfume operates, unlike fashion, on a continuum: one may put on only a drop of perume, whereas one must wear an entire dress when wearing a dress. Thus a man who wears a "feminine" perfume may do so subtly.

    Of course they are culture-based - we all live in culture-based societies - but why does that matter? These notions exist, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging them, even if you don't let the norms determine your perfume wearing preferences. Denying they exist, ignoring them or mentally "neutering" everything won't make gender go away, and won't make a girly, feminine fragrance smell manly or even unisex just because a dude wants to "rock" it. It's not the individual notes or accords, btw, that might determine how a fragrance will be marketed or perceived - it's the overall composition. Feminine foug√®res exist, as do masculine florals.†But your statement about types and typecasts is exactly my point - perfume types (masc and fem) do most definitely exist, but we have choices,†and don't have to typecast ourselves as only feminine or masculine. We can wear what we want, whether it's more feminine, more masculine or equal measures of both ...or neither.†

    Your second point clarifies something for me - you can actually discern the difference between at least some "so-called" feminines and masculines. That's good to know! There are certainly vastly varying degrees of either, just like a dress can be ultra-feminine or tailored and streamlined (hence my Marc Jacobs remark - it wasn't frilly and overtly feminine, but he made a dress for a man, but he was still, oddly enough, a man in a dress.) I agree that a man can wear just a bit of something feminine ...however, no matter how subtle, it'll still be feminine. Wearing a lot of it may be more daring in some situations, but it doesn't make the fragrance any more feminine than if he just wears a drop. Imagine a cowboy, for instance, wearing a small cameo and pearl brooch - that's just a tiny bit of something rather feminine, right? The very true statement that "pearls are inherently unisex" won't make this dainty little brooch any less feminine, but wearing it won't make him any less of a macho cowboy. If he's man enough and truly open-minded enough to wear it without worrying what others think, then he shouldn't have a problem calling it "feminine," either.

    8/1/13 at 12:10pm

    hednic said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EvangelineView Post

    I disagree. That's like saying all clothing is unisex, but just because a man can actually wear a lacy, frilly dress doesn't make it unisex. Some men might even look (and feel) great in dresses, but dresses are still considered feminine ...unless you're Marc Jacobs. Yes, all perfumes can be worn by either gender, but there are certain accords that are generally considered feminine by most people, and others that are considered masculine, and that doesn't change when the opposite gender wears them. Insolence smells feminine, even on men, and Kouros smells masculine, even on women ...but it's comparable to putting Angelina Jolie in a suit and tie. The suit is masculine, but she's still a woman and wearing a suit and tie doesn't even begin to make her masculine. So sure, men certainly should be able to wear feminine fragrances and vice-versa, but they also should be able to discern and admit that they're feminine (when they clearly just are), and vice-versa, rather than sticking with the story that they're all the same. 'Cuz they're not. Personally, I like having two distinct genders with some ambiguity thrown in - it gives everyone more choices rather than attempting to make everyone the same. I really think we should all wear whatever we want regardless of gender, but without the gender-blinding. It's just not necessary.

    And I think most niche lines release "unisex" fragrances because they don't want to spend much time or money on marketing and advertising, and that's where most of the genderizing happens ...the bottle, the color of the jus, the model in the ad, are all ways to get the attention of a particular demographic, and that usually includes a specific gender. But many niche lines choose to have plain or uniform bottles with naturally-hued fragrance and no advertising so they can concentrate on the fragrance itself ...this is the nature of niche, and it's what supposedly makes these fragrances superior to the stuff churned out by the giants, where a much greater portion (almost all, that is) of the budget goes into marketing and advertising rather than into quality ingredients.
    Thank you for this comment.