Your (apparently) intrepid indie perfumer Michael Storer here...
This subject is infinitely fascinating to me, for it lies at the crux of perfumery, IMHO.
Why some women find being queried about what sorts of aromas "turns them on" offensive, whereas I believe men rarely do, is some kind of sexual dichotomy I don't grasp. I'm only taking this from the statement above, mind you.
Regardless of gender, every human who has a healthy sex drive is curious to know what "works" and what is a waste of time. Let the sexism go, whoever you souls are who find this a bother. It's a known fact that fantasizing about sex takes up of a lot of time with BOTH genders, whether admitted or not.
I've designed a fragrance for men which captures some of the virile elements described by many women and some men who love the smell of men as attractive. However, I don't think I or anyone else has the entire story.
Men and women present distinct blends of their bodies' sex steroid hormone breakdown products on their skin and especially in their secondary hair, which is nature's way of wicking them off of ourselves and into the noses of those in our proximity. These odorants, or in some cases, "unsmellable" odorants, give the receiver information about the sexual maturity, testosterone , estrogen and likely progesterone levels as well as, it seems now, the state of ovulation, in the case of women.
These basic aromatic morsels of information were apparently sufficient for more primitive creatures to track down and engage a mate. However, as we developed bigger brains, we found other even more useful means for making unconscious decisions about what we found sexually hot. I'm talking about compatible personality traits, perception of honesty, strength of character, responsibility, suitability for parenthood, and so forth.
There is yet another factor which is highly relevant for the betterment of our species which I believe our biology has managed to utilize as a turn "on" or "off" switch for perceived desirability. Histiocomplimentation. I coin this word because histiocompatibility actually refers to the degree of allele sameness. But we don't (typically) find close allele relatives an irresistible "turn-on" the way we do with certain other individuals for inexplicable reasons.
Genetically speaking, a species fares far better in the long haul with a larger gene pool rather than a small or dwindling one. It's in Mother Nature's best interest for us to be drawn to individuals who "smell different", as, for example, a Swede is often attracted to an Italian, to skin which smells one way to be attracted to certain oils which smell differently. These are subtle chemical cues which go far beyond but are combined with the several steroid components we wick off via our secondary hair a reason one should leave it intact instead of razoring smooth like a prepubescent. I digress and surely will raise someone's itchy stubble with that intimate statement. Do what you will, but it's meant to serve you erotically and not be merely an inconvenience or ape-man vestige.
The upshot IMHO, is that the variants of unique signature aroma each of our bodies produces are so diverse that attempting to capture them in a row of spray bottles would prove to be a massive feat.
Not to mention the fact that we could easily find ourselves espoused to a goose instead of a rabbit, just because our object of pursuit had been aromatically disguised as something he or she was not.
Once the knot had been secured and the charade had grown tiresome, we'd suddenly find ourself bound at the hip with a horse of a different color and not at all with what we thought we had wooed.