Men's Fragrance, Women's Fragrance, and Other Historical Inaccuracies

It isn't everyday you meet a man who brags aboutperfume world into a womens only party.
wearing Chanel No. 5. Neil Morris is a BostonThe emergence of products like after-shave and
perfume-maker who delights in getting noticed for hismens cologne (note its never called mens
own scents but who is a big fan of the classics. "Iperfume) were studied attempts to try to
love it when people compliment me on the scent,capture the attention of modern men who somehow
and I can tell them it's Chanel No. 5." Like a lot ofgot the notion that fragrances were not for them.
perfume experts, he understands that the dividingThese first efforts to win men back to perfume (Old
line between men's and women's perfumes is largelySpice, Burma Shave, Aqua Velva, English Leather)
fictitious. In his own perfume line ( he labels hisembraced a utilitarian theme. These werent
products "shared scents," suitable for both men andfragrances, they were products related to shaving.
women.Eventually, mens colognes hit the market and more
While this may sound terribly modern, it is quite theand more scents appeared on the scene. Yet the
opposite. Back in Europes early perfume heyday (individing line was in place in that certain fragrances
the 18th century), there was no notion at all that anywere considered suitable for menand they were
scent might be reserved or more appropriate for onedefinitely not florals. Men wore scents that were
gender rather than another. The most powerful menspicy, leathery, woodsy, light and fresh, or even
wore perfume back then, including kings, dukes, andmusky.
generals. These were mostly heterosexuals and theyAgain, that is a modern notion, not some venerable
wore perfume at some of their most solemn officialold tradition. The scents that wowed the men of the
occasions.French court in the 18th century were florals and
The dividing line for perfume back then was basedcitrus brews.
more on social class and economic buying power: theMeanwhile, in our own day, the scents that were
rich and famous smelled better than the poor andreserved for men only found some resonance among
downtrodden. Among those who could affordfemales. In fact, most perfume manufacturers today
perfume, there were no masculine versusrecognize that women have an interest in a lot of
feminine fragrances.masculine types of scents and vice versa.
You can still see that in the worlds oldest cologne,The emergence of the so-called fresh scents
4711 made in Cologne, Germany. This ancientmay have been an attempt to try to harmonize
concoction is still on the market and claims to be thethose worlds. Many fragrance products today are
product that gave lighter cologne its name. Its adeliberately light and ambiguous, as if trying to woo
citrus scent; mild and strangely contemporary despitewomen who are not thrilled with the sometimes
the fact that its been around for centuries.more complex and/or flowery perfumes in the
Although Europeans, in particular Germans, considerwomens section.
4711 to be a bit old-fashioned, it is a gender-spanningA recent landmark in the notion of male-vs.-female
fragrance. Men use it for aftershave, little old ladiesfragrance occurred with Calvin Kleins CK One. CK
dab it behind their ears, and American girls in EuropeOne was created and sold as a single product for use
spray it in their hair.by men or women. It was marketed as the one
The notion of fragrances for gender gained tractionfragrance for both men and women. Because most
in the early 20th century as perfume and fashion, inof us really do not know very much about perfume,
lockstep, ceased being the private reserve of thewe thought this concept was delightfully
privileged few and became at least accessible to therevolutionary and modern. (By the way, CK One is a
middle classes. This is, not coincidentally, around thecitrus scentlike the original 4711 Cologne, likewise a
time that modern advertising started influencinggender-spanning fragrance, albeit from the 18th
consumer choices. As new fragrances came tocentury.)
market in the 1920s, advertisers identified women asThe perfume company Bond No. 9 in Manhattan
the target demographic rather than men.offers many eau-de-parfum products it labels simply
Coco Chanel marketed both her fashion line and herfor him or her. One of my favorite of their
signature fragrance to females. This was no differentboth-gender scents is Gramercy Park, a peppery
than other (but perhaps less well known) perfumesfresh fragrance. Most women like the scent but then
of the era were doing. Think of Joy by Jean Patou,ask cautiously, Is this for women? Its not a
My Sin by Lanvin, Nuit de Noel by Caron, or even thetypically girly-girl aroma. Fortunately, for the
Emeraude and Muguet de Bois from Coty.faint-hearted perfume-wearer, the manufacturer
Fragrance was promoted mostly by fashiongives permission for men and women to put on this
enterprises and the fashion world targeted femalescent.
customers. While there is nothing inherently masculineOf course, maybe what the manufacturer says
or feminine about products like sunglasses orshould not matter so much. After all, perfume
watches or clothing, Chanel and other big couturiersproducts are marketed by people interested in selling
quickly spun out a line of products exclusively forthem, not by the people who wear them. In other
females. Perfume just went along for the ride.words, marketers are always reaching out to a
These fragrances were largely cast in very femininetarget, but that target is not necessarily the
and elaborate containers, designed to fit well on theentire universe of people interested in the product.
dressing table of a chic woman. Chanel used the cleanApparently, it makes good marketing sense to keep
simplistic lines of the No. 5 bottle to pay homage tothe genders distinct in the perfume aisle. Right after
the classic, un-frilled female (which mirrors herCalvin Klein offered CK One, he came out with a
approach to clothing design). So whether the bottlescent called In2U which exists in two versions: one
was bejeweled or colored (like the glorious cobaltfor each gender. The idea here is that men and
blue bottle of Evening in Paris) or clean-lined, thewomen can wear the same fragrance family, but the
bottle was also part of the appeal to the modernproducts, of course, would have to be different.
woman.There is really no traditional or fashion-based reason
It was no coincidence that right after the greatfor doing that, other than the fact that it seems to
wave of fashion came the grand era of glamorousmake some of us feel more confident in our perfume
movie stars. Marilyn Monroe, who dominated thechoices.
cinema world in the 1950s, became an unpaidWhile urban dwellers, the tragically hip, and unbearable
spokeswoman for Chanel No. 5 when asked whatperfumistas may be deemed the most likely to cross
she wore to bed. (The answer, which is sometimesgender lines in perfume, the fact is the line we have
quoted as Two drops of Chanel No. 5 still ranksnow is not only moving and blurryit is largely
high on the famous quotation lists today.) Thus, it didartificial! There is no reason why women cant wear
not take long for perfume to be linked to fashion andfresh, woodsy, or leathery scents or why men need
glamour. (Even today, celebrities like to lend theirto shy away from some of the great classic
name to line of fragrance products but perhaps theperfumes.
interest nowadays is more mercantile than image.)A good deal depends on how well we like the
It would be hard for men to reach for that bottle offragrances were wearing and how the fragrance
Chanel No. 5 once Marilyn cooed over it. And yet theworks on our skin. Beyond that, most of the
idea of fragrances for one gender only was apeople around us cannot even begin to tell whether
relatively new concept.the scent weve put on was manufactured and
For centuries before that, kings and noblemen worelabeled for men or for women. Besides, that label
perfumes (including floral scents). But a couple ofdoesnt mean a thing anyway!
years worth of hardcore advertising turned the