I think the answer is pretty simple: a lot of the way people distinguish "masculine smells" from "feminine smells" or vice versa is directly related to perfume marketing that we've all been exposed to.
For example, most people take it for granted that Brut, and all of the fragrance notes it contains, is a masculine scent. That's how Faberge wanted to market it: as a machoman scent. Consequently, other perfumes that have similar notes as Brut will often be regarded as "masculine".
Now what if they decided to market Brut as a woman's fragrance? If it turned out that women wore Brut, it would have become a hit, and I believe our ideas of what a "feminine" scent is could have been turned on its head.
Again, I picked Brut as just one example.
I don't think it's a matter of what we play with or are drawn to, as much as WHAT WE DO WITH THEM that develops the associations. How we act with those those things (wood, flowers, tobacco were mentioned), are certainly socially driven by both gender and personal propensities. I'm not totally against genderizing perfumes (that's a marketing strategy), but I AM against genderizing fragrances or scents themselves.
Here is what is "sensible" - Wear what you want to wear, and don't worry/care about what someone else wants to wear - because it ain't none of your f'ing business.
Young men these days should want to smell like video game controllers. :tongue:
I'm going to play the resident contrarian for a bit, okidoki?
That's fine & good, but in that case, please provide working definitions. I can guarantee you we'll be arguing until the cows come home otherwise.Quote:
if we start with the idea that words have meaning and that we actually can communicate something of significance to each other by respecting those meanings...
That does emphatically not follow. The only thing it illustrates is the human desire to neatly categorize. To see patterns. To designate value, meaning and yes: gender to genderless objects/concepts.Quote:
then the fact that words such as "masculine" and "feminine" even exist implies that there are real differences between the sexes
To put it differently: the existence of a philosophical concept does not necessitate the indisputable physical existence of the concept. (Not to go all religion-and-politics, just an illustration of the afore-mentioned: supernatural beings do not necessarily exist simply because we have a philosphical concept of them)
Eh, that's just short-sighted.Quote:
and that these words describe characteristics and preferences associated with gender that are almost universally perceived across many cultures.
Actually, I don't really disagree (much) with this, it's just the arguments leading up to this one that get my goat.Quote:
So....it follows then that some notes, some fragrances, must bring to mind aspects of masculine and feminine in ways that other fragrances do not...and much more readily. Some notes must resonate more with masculine sensibilities than others; and some more strongly with the feminine.
Where we differ, I think, is that I very much doubt the existence of the objective standard that you seem to be arguing exists. Then again, here you seem to acknowledge it's not the same for everyone:
For me, I associate wood and metal and smoke and leather and whisky (no "e") with the masculine; and food smells, flowers, and to a lesser extent, citrus, with the feminine.
Oopsie, math is *hard*. Lemme go file my nails. :cheesy:
..Did you really just go there?
I think the original poster has already spoken his views on this before and in numerous threads, so I will say again (as some other posters) that scents, IMHO, do not really have a gender. It's all marketing.
Some aromatherapists call jasmine masculine and rose feminine. Go figure. Some will say jasmine is extremely feminine, being a flower. Tell that to a man from history who was a formidable duellist (both pistol and sword, thank you) and bare-knuckles boxer--who happened to be 6'3" and over 200 pounds--the Comte d'Orsay. He covered himself in jasmine.
In the early part of the 20th century, many scents marketed to women were leathery chypres and some had tobacco notes. Think about Chanel's Cuir de Russie and Caron's Tabac Blond.
The nature of women and men never changes (and vive la difference, I say), however, the promoting of fragrance does.
The "genderfied" marketing of perfumes is really a late 19th and 20th century phenomenon. :rolleyesold:
This conversation is getting old here on Basenotes, but let's show new members some respect, and look at it one more time.
Let's see... how do we make this clear?
There are differences between the sexes. Some are inborn, and some are learned.
Our bodies and our hormones are what we've come into the world with. Sex roles and preferences in perfumes are conditioned responses to cultural stimuli.
The perfume stereotypes you mention are inculcated by the industry for their exclusive profit. They take common cultural stereotypes and use them in advertising to manipulate the market. If you want to be part of that, fine for you. Many of us don't like that game, however, and so we don't play by those rules.
It seems that many people need to reinforce their gender identity by seeking social validation through conformity to sex role stereotypes. If that makes them comfortable, I suppose there's no harm in that... until people assume that it's the only truth and beat others over the head with it.
If you're convinced you're right, and that there's only one way to be a man, be happy there. That universe is just too small for me.
Commercial, big business perfumery is an abstract, irrational, emotional invention, that reflects the conventions of its time. A clear cut division of masculine and feminine traits is also an abstract, irrational and emotional invention. I think many here know that Old Spice was originally created and marketed as a women's fragrance.
Canoe by Dana was also originally marketed to women, but it didn't sell well. When men started to buy it, the sales took off and it was then formally marketed to men.
When was the last time that you or any of your male friends were going out on a date, or it was your birthday, and the girlfirends, wives showed up with a nice big bunch of flowers as a gift for you?
Just think of the conditioning that would be involved in setting up another trillion dollar industry - the hardware industry.
When was the last time you or any of your male friends were going out on a date, or it was her birthday, and you showed up with a power saw (or any other hardware item) as a gift for her?
Just think of all those flower arranging classes, all over flowing with men, right?
Or of all those woodworking classes, over flowing with women students, correct?
Anyhow, that's why I think some things are innate, and that flow across to scents and some scent components. Manufacturers and marketers stand to lose a lot of money if they fight against the ingrained flow.
Stereotyping--that strikes me as one of those old bugaboos used to scare small children and uncertain personalities. I don't prefer "masculine" scents because I lean toward one stereotype or another. I prefer them because I prefer them. Evidence? I'm 64 years old. I've been working with leather all my adult life. It doesn't pay...not enough for me to gratify a stereotype. I do it because I love the smell, the feel, the sensuousness of leather. (I also was a florists apprentice for several years...I like flowers and I like natural science but arranging and the constant suffocating perfume didn't inspire).
I have been turning wood for 15 years. I work with pewter a bit and silver and ivory.
I drink Laphroig Quarter Cask--one of the peatiest, smokiest whiskys in the world and I damn sure don't like it because it's necessarily smooth or fits a stereotype.
Question...Which comes first the hat or the cows? Answer...it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
I suspect that one of the reasons this question gets so much resistance...and a careful reading of my original post might suggest that I didn't intend for it to take this course...is that down deep we all know that there are hard, objective, scientifically validatable differences in the sexes. The way we think; the way we make decisions; the impulses that motivate us. And that knowledge makes a lot of people uncomfortable if for no other reason that it's not a popular point of view.
This is the "Male Fragrance Discussion." Why make the distinction at all if there is not some resonance? If this question keeps coming up it is because no one wants to deal with it squarely. If it keeps coming up and it keeps getting put down with politically correct cant, it only serves to diminish the credibility of those posting here.
Bottom line...I don't give a damn if a person wears feminine fragrances...not my cup of tea...I don't give a damn if a woman would, in her deepest heart, rather be "one of the boys" or if a man feels more comfortable in the presence of other men. That's the joy of being human...variety and the ability to transcend even (some) genetic programming. I do, however, see it as a bit disingenuous to assert that such differences and fundamental sensibilities do not exist.
It's "spitting" into the wind.
Yes, there are differences between the sexes, but it's a little bit conditioned, forced contemplation to say that notes are associated with sexes. This happens because fragrance has lost it's luxury and art side and has become a commodity, something that one uses, but not really understand. I think that saying that some notes are more masculine or feminine is like saying that some colors can only be used by boys and some colors can only be used by girls, which is insane and fossil. We must stop thinking fragrance as a gender guided and start to interpret it as an art, and art hasn't sex. A proof that your association doesn't make sense is there is a lot of 80's feminine fragrances very leathery and fierce, fragrances with smoky accents that were very famous between girls - like Tabac Blond for Caron. I'm not saying that you have to use fragrances marketed, but I don't think is clever approach separating fragrances by their accords. Espeacially because a great fragrance uses great materials in a manner that breaks this commercial non-sense approach. If you are just a fragrance user, the gender approach is fine to you. But if you really like and wants go beyond, this is something that only hinders you on your perceptions.
I'd love to receive flowers by a woman, it'd shows that she commited to buy something different and took risks.
Would it be possible to bracket the stuff about the role of biology itself in preference, agree that for whatever reason there are smells we love--for the sake of argument--because we are men, and go ahead and do some speculating about which those are? There's a lot of interesting and useful stuff to be said about perfume and identity, even if we can't agree about the causes of identity or the most meaningful ways of categorizing identity.
Gotta say, the frags that make me feel most like a man aren't the frags that feel most earthy or dirty but the frags that I associate with masculine elegance. I really love wearing AdP Colonia, for instance--the rosemary/rose accord against the dry, restrained lemon/moss accord suggests a very restrained but powerful form of masculine consciousness. Makes me feel like the man I want to be. As I think about it that way, Colonia doesn't seem masculine to me because of any one note but more because of a set of tensions. To me it says something about the constant sense of wanting to be very physical and active and having to rethink, wait, restrain. I associate that with being a man, and specifically being a good man. Or at least, for the time being, a domesticated one. Not saying anything about biology here, just sharing.
Anyone else want to play?
Are the majority of fragrances discussed in the "Male Fragrance Discussion" board those that are marketed to men? I think so. To read these gender threads you would think that the majority of scents discussed here are Joy and L'air du Temps. I'm not trying to be argumentative at all, it just surprises me that this is such a common topic on these boards, and usually it's brought up by men who don't like to wear fragrances marketed to women (not necessarily this case in this particular thread by the way). I'm not being critical at all, just observant.
But on topic to your original question, it's not only notes, but combinations of notes and fragrance styles that are often considered "masculine" For instance the fougere category and the lavender category have been very popular "masculine" scent categories throughout the 20th century. It is in the Chypre and Oriental categories that the gender lines started getting crossed the most frequently.
Citrus and EDC type scents have been considered unisex for quite a long time.
Those are my 2 little ole cents for what they are worth.
I'm not settled about how I see my masculinity but it is important to me, and it's useful to talk about it. I very much like that the emphasis on Basenotes is on expanding and blurring notions of gender--I'm from a background that defined masculinity in really constricting ways. But I still find 'masculine' a good and useful word, maybe in part because--like 'beautiful' and 'good'-- it's an evolving question for me.
Conversationally here on the forum, I'm ready to say things like YSL Pour Homme Haute Concentration is so macho it'll grow hair on your chest, and that musk scents are Travolta Saturday Night Fever dance heel macho scents, but really when I say those things I'm playing a game--grafting an image onto an odor, or talking about an image that odor grafts into my brain. In each case it doesn't seem at all anchored between the two (the scent and the image I associate with it), it seems like a game of the odor trying to wear the scent and as a game, effectively, and thereby "play" the macho role. Such associations and choices seem like so much pretension to me. Conversationally I'll indulge in using such associations, but I don't ultimately believe they have meaning. No more meaning than advertising images.
I'll make another post as I can get the thoughts together in my brain.
But I'm going to think some more.
I think a much more interesting discussion regarding scent and gender has to do with how the gender roles in fragrance have changed and morphed through the years. Just like clothing styles have changed quite a bit. What was marketed to men as "masculine" in the 70s doesn't sell as well today. Why? because sensibilities change over time. Historically there was a time when all perfumes were fairly gender neutral. Look to the scents in the 18th and 19th century. Nobility and aristocracy were really the only ones who could afford such precious luxuries. They didn't have masculine and feminine notes. In the 20th century things started changing due to how things were marketed. Long gone were the days when men wore wigs and fancy buttons (a very distant memory, yes but things moved much more slowly in centuries gone by than they do now). Gender identity and fashion started to become very fixed, and the fragrance industry was just starting to really grow with the advent of so many new synthetic fragrance molecules and aroma chemicals which made fragrance much more affordable to the masses. But even then the gender associations with fragrance were quite different than they are today. Both Jicky and Mitsouko could easily out butch Dior Homme. Things change, but studying the trends of fashion do in fact give a great deal of insight into any given culture at any given time. I don't think that history however supports the notion that "flowers are for girls, and woods are for boys." Even a very cursory study of the history of perfumes, or the study of perfumes of cultures other than the west, don't support such statements in my humble opinion.
Yeah, you make a really good point, Chris. What does it mean to love a smell "as man" as opposed to some other way? I wouldn't want to push too hard on this notion that in some way we experience the world with different aspects of identity.
On the other hand, there are things that I love as a songwriter that I don't always love as a reader or a listener. I've been really preoccupied with Moby-Dick in the last year. At times it drives me crazy as a reader and a thinker, but as a writer myself I'm really inspired by the bigness and newness of the project, how much of himself he's able to access and catalog as he assembles the novel. Makes me feel like a great deal is possible, even though there are days when I really don't want to actually read the book.
Similarly when I notice a particular perfume while considering myself as a man--which maybe a more free or evolved person wouldn't much do, but which I do--then the perfume becomes a way of finding certain kinds of possibilities and margins. Lately I've learned some stuff (that it would probably be really tedious to hear me try to explain) about masculinity from L'Heure Bleue.
[I have to point out, because this thread mentions that this is a Male Fragrances Discussion forum, and a thread that was similar to this one that we had last week did also, that it's also a forum where Fragrances Worn by Men are discussed. The forum is for male fragrance discussion and the discussion of fragrances worn by men.
Just so all readers are aware, there isn't a failure, a tangential deviation, or a diminution of purpose, or a loss of focus, because, for lack of a better way of putting it, fragrances that don't include "for men," "uomo," or "homme" on their labels are discussed.]
[I use brackets because I want to make background comment, not derail the already present direction of the thread.]
Yeah, mrclmind, it does seem true that a lot of stuff connecting gender to smell is culturally constructed. I'm just saying that however we got to this historico-exististential-olfactory moment, here we is.
Edit: But for me it makes a big difference that we talk as individuals. Seems to me that most anything we might say about men or women as a class will be as false as it is true.
Men are more about strength and power, hence many smells but not all them will be more masculine. Masculine in my eyes is a fragrance with strong notes like leather, tobacco, woods. Women are more about delicacy, daintiness and are more inclined to have a sweet tooth. Hence many frags for women are floral and sweet/fruity because they are more feminine smells. Many women will admit this, though I think smelling fresh and clean are unisex smells and there is middle ground. If you notice the sweet/ floral frags for men usually are either stronger and have some sort of masculine smell in it ( woods, leather, tobaco) or unisex smell so it can pass for masculine. Don't get me wrong I have certain colognes that could easily pass for unisex or even female frags. Nonetheless, in frags I believe there are many that either gender could wear but if they fall heavily into the aforementioned well you know how it is. Men and women are distinct in many ways, women have more sensitive noses than men do when it comes to smell so in many cases they can pick up in smells better not to mention with them being more emotional creatures than men they will tie these smells to specific things and remember smells with images in my opinion better than us. Bois du portugal for example to me is very masculine and no middle ground involved it is a man's frag. Sticking to gender roles whether it be natural or not (i think some is and some is not) in this case is not the point the point is it makes things much easier and there is no questioning as to who does what and who is who. I am a man, masculine and a strong protector which usually equals to a strong and manly frag like Fahrenheit, a woman bring more dainty and delicate would equal something more subtle and feminine like a fragrance predominantly floral or sweet. Just my opinion.
Nice, Galamb. Yr last point is particularly interesting to me.
I hypothesize that these questions about a definable link between masculinity and perfume are hard for many of to thoroughly define because we are already living well outside the stereotypical "masculine" norm just by being this interested in and open-minded about fragrance.
I would be interested to hear what someone who barely wears fragrance (and unlike many of us, would never ever wear a woman's perfume) thinks about what notes are masculine and why. I'm sure there are some subconscious male/female preferences, but for most people the answer would probably boil down to learned cultural values:
"What do you think about floral scents?"
"Flowers are for girls"
"Why are flowers for girls?"
"Because girls like flowers"
"Why do girls like flowers?"
"Because they are expected to"
"Does liking flowers correlate with liking the scent of flowers?"
"You lost me"
Gender studies are very interesting, DWFII, and shed light on the difference between "gender" and "sex". It's a great foundational resource for forming arguments related to marketing versus biology! I recommend the books of Bell Hooks, Sandy Stone, and Germaine Greer if it's a subject you'd care to explore.
Firstly, I, for one, wholeheartedly agree that boys do "boy things" and girls do "girl things", and that it's almost humorously irrepressible. It's not by any means universal (I, myself was always an "boyish" adventurer-type, and I love to play with wood.), but I have seen some compelling literature (especially supporting chromosomal assignment for hermaphroditic babies, rather than random assignment) and had the most profound experience of raising a total "boy" -- cue "VROOOOMM!!" "POW, You are dead, Mommy!" -- despite my more pacifistic, more "free-form" parenting.
However, I have grown to understand what other things societies on this earth (not just marketing, mind you) have ascribed to one gender or another, that do not necessarily bear upon chromosomal distinctions. In fact, sociologists observe many gender codes indeed seem almost "universal" (especially with the modern "global canopy" effect). That is not to say they are indelible, timeless, or grounded in "solid" biological reasoning. E.g., "manly" men from many modern cultures worldwide may claim to love a hard, rough whiskey (without acknowledging any marketing or societal influences), but that is not to say that the same whiskey would strike any male-identified Yanomami Indian or African Bushman as appealing, "hearty", tough... or particularly gender-specific for that matter.
Gender-versus-biology becomes "hairy", to be sure :), but two things are certain: gender training is universal, and gender perceptions are extremely powerful...
With regard to "the senses", I agree wholeheartedly with Ruggles.... That the senses don't innately veer towards particular preferences with regard to SEX. And that liberation from that sort-of thinking is gorgeous! However, the gender issue (Primrose, I'd argue that marketing mirrors society with regard to gender attribution.) is CLEARLY another matter. And in 20th century Western Societies gender-attributions became a key element in marketing. And savvy merchandisers looked to already extant delineations that would or could support their products' claims of a "natural" gender bias! And DWFIII, you are totally right! Leathers and bourbons and rough-hewn, "forester" smells (These mirrored the modern societies' gender roles.) were very quickly applied to a new, very-divided fragrance market! And for several decades certain associations to notes as well as formulae (Florals were for women and Fougeres were for men.) informed generations of fragrance buyers and comfortably reflected our all-important gender ideals.
For reference: another sense-related example, which is strictly the product of gender training: Hungry Man soups for men and chocolate-covered cherries for women... It's true that the custom of Western men is to gift women chocolates and that many working class men are poor and eat soup, but how does this unequivocally imply that persons with vaginae don't like stewed beef or that persons with penises don't enjoy chocolates? We must be careful!
It is important to observe, as a newcomer to fragrance, too, that gender associations are rapidly shifting in prasens... And that a lot of the knowledgeable connoisseurs here at bn as well as the more exciting perfumers today are at the forefront of these changes! What's old is new, and what was butch is femme! It's such an interesting time to study scent! And it's even very delightful for some of us to "look back", with the awareness of more diffuse gender lines, at the silliness of past "rigid gender-attributions that are --sometimes-- almost anachronistic-seeming to their fusty, old claims!
With this in mind, I also agree with you, DWFII, that some of us folks here can be indeed a tad "disingenuous" in response to many gentleman who are simply looking for fragrances that "fit" into gender categories -- however old-fashioned -- that we for the most part, damned well understand...deeply understand.
Because gender is such a POWERFUL experience as well as social reality, and because we ALL --each one of us -- have defined ourselves somewhere within it's myriad gamuts. And I'd further argue we all understand even the most mainstream attributions and marketing trends as they relate to gender very intimately (whether we reject them, detest them, or digest them) because we as humans are naturally very aware of others gender identities as well as eager to define ourselves! And for those people who have comfortably defined themselves within the auspices of convenient, mainstream guidelines, I'd argue the smell of a aromatic fougere (Sure, folks, a few women's scents were also fougere-like, but we know Quorum does not smell like Joy.) is as comforting and untroubling as a plaid flannel button-down. And that's not crime, however frustrating it is for us more adventurous, unfettered sensualists!
Finally, I for one, try to be heedful of the requests of gentleman who care to stick to -- however passe -- strict, fragrance gender ascriptions. And if I do suggest the occasional women's fragrance to fellows I perceive thusly, you can be sure it's one I honestly, actually think smells pretty "masculine", like Cabochard. I have even seen some guys grow into an "easiness" experimenting with broader ranges as their love of the scent world expands, btw. It frustrates me to some degree, but I don't actually feel compelled to "shove" my dogma down their "throats".
Hope that helps. :)
JaimeB's excellent post on that subject ), and the more I experience of the same accords being used across men's, women's and unisex, the less I "get" it.
I also put disingenuous in quotes, as I understand it more as willfully progressive'' and a GOOD thing. I may have not come across properly. I have a tongue-in-cheek style that sometimes seems literal when I least hope so.:smiley:
As for women not voicing these concerns so often, PM me that I might direct you to a different, female-dominated site that will open your eyes to that fallacy. In fact I removed my reviews from there after several hate mails that disparaged my presumed-sexuality, based solely on my vocal adoration of men's fragrances. The small group of women who tune into to scent here at BN are blessedly-brilliant and enlightened, and by no stretch a microcosm of the fragrance loving female population. I PROMISE!
Jaime's post WAS excellent. As I have said before, he's my favorite writer here.
For me, it seems to be about notes. For instance, I wore Kenzo Amour EdP yesterday and really enjoyed it. At no point did I think of any gender aspect to it. I really dislike floral notes, with the exception of powdery iris/orris and small amounts of common notes sometimes found in "men's" frags, but I wish I could enjoy them. In my "theory" of human smell appreciation, most floral notes are too "horizontal," and so should be used in small amounts but others like this quality to a greater degree than I do, while others wear the frag for others and don't care about this. Men's frags often have a "rough" edge, such as leather, wood, and herbs as dominant notes, but there are plenty that do not (or it's so minor that many women would wear it if it were marketed to them). Women's frags tend to be "rounded" and "smooth."
I should think that the stereotype today is to insist that there are no inherent differences.
I believe there are, but as much as I enjoy reading books on sociobiology,--as they can excuse anything I care to do--well I just feel it's not masculine nor honorable to do some of them; Oh, say anything that involves stealing an old lady's purse, for example.
( Even if one had an irresistible urge to smell Dior Pour Homme at the moment )
Then it's hard to think of a man's fragrance a woman could not wear. Some quite feminine ladies have posted on how much they enjoy Azarro PH, Vintage Tabarome, Givenchy Gentleman, etc. On the other hand, the reverse does not appear to be true. Perhaps because many women's scents are so overpoweringly floral that it reminds me of the old Rita Rudner joke: " Why smell like a flower if you want to attract men? I got a great perfume. It's called new car leather interior."
Quorum to me is in the same category as Bandit for women----why on earth anyone would want to wear these caricatures of macho is beyond me. But, live and let live. Not all men who wear Brut sport leisure suits and gold chains either---I think. Even if Disco Stu is conjured up in my mind.
I must say that I disagree with Renato on two points, though. I always craved an AK-47 over a Daisy BB gun, even as a child. (Well, it was de rigueur in Cuba ) And as far as camping--my idea of "roughing it" is a black and white TV or a martini without olives.
Yes, I've been to Yellowstone, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon and so forth, and thank whatever gods may be for 5 star hotels and the money I had back then. Where did it all go?
I agree this it is all Oliver Creed's fault.
Give me some time and I'll work out the syllogism.
stronger because they are made with eau de parfum instead of eau de toilette. Angel to me is more subtle than azzaro ph which is way stronger but remember they have changed things recent. Angel is a newer frag and it might have strength but what does it have? Chocolate, vanilla, honey most of these scents even though i personally love them ( a*men, and other gourmands i own) are still more feminine smells than masculine not to say a man would lose his masculinity wearing them ( like i said i own many, like le male ,etc) but they arent blatantly masculine. Nonetheless one can appreciate and even wear sometimes opposite sex frags if it suits them ( i like the dreamer and i think it is more suited for a woman,same as prada amber).
There seems to be a spectrum of orientation: on one extreme exists the belief that no gender associations to fragrances exist, while on the other extreme lies the belief that very clear cut gender associations to fragrances exist (much like the old Kinsey scale IMO). Few of us here seem to actually live in either of the hard-core extremes. Trying to get someone else to join us on our exact piece of this rainbow is fruitless at best. If and only if a person is inspired to move to another point on this spectrum, it is something that I believe occurs internally as a natural process in becoming more educated in what fragrance is and studying it more extensively; trying to force the issue does none of us any good.
I think there should be a "Guys wearing women's frags" sticky that the mods can graft all of these conversations on to when they come up.
For what its worth, this http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/e...gendersex.html
may prove stimulating to some. Butler is much too convoluted, so I'd advise against confronting her work directly. The aforementioned bell hooks is an easier read.
Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, Anne Moir, David Jessel
Here's four pages or so by way of introduction...
Finally rather than bore anyone further...
This seems a bit like trying to define "good." By trying to define it, you place constrains on that beg to be argued. But we all know it exists.