Marketing Mistakes - arbitrary target group?

More great examples, Tessa.

You can buy a large bottle of "Molinard Homme II" for about half the price of a smaller bottle of "Habanita"

I think the point has been made, perfume cannot be assigned a gender. Historically perfume was genderless when it was the privilege of a special class of the society. Later on when it became an object for marketing the term "masculine scent" was created to attract the attention of masculine audiences. In short, if it makes you feel good, wear it, no matter how gender-bending or cheap.

Yes, and based on the oldest ones I've experienced (the Guerlains created a century ago), these genderless scents of yore weren't very sweet. But times change, everything evolves, and if I now find something feminine because it's sweet, so the F*#k what? If you're a man and you like sweet, just F*#king wear it. Me finding something feminine because it's sweet isn't stepping on anyone's personal or civil rights. Let's move on, please.

By the way, the perpetuation of the human race depends on the heterosexual, non-gender confused majority finding the opposite sex fascinating enough to want to bang and make more human beings. So, pardon me if I don't subscribe to the "gender-neutral is best" philosophy.

"HM" by Hanae Mori
"Blue Sugar" by Aquolina

Both are unisex to my nose.

"Halston"
"Truth"
"Boyfriend"

Once again, people enjoying 'masculine'/'feminine' is not an issue, but you seem intent on tilting at that windmill.

Asking people to move on while simultaneously posting something incendiary is not helpful.

Incendiary? Really? Which part?

I thought I was just stating the obvious.

MRoth,
By the way, it was your comments that introduced a political aspect to this topic, remember?

"I find the gender binary as tiresome in perfumery as everywhere else, but I'll play."

But I replied as I did because political correctness and the culture of inclusiveness often get taken to an illogical extreme (IMO), which I perceive as tiresome, and my opinionated self just can't keep my mouth shut.

My most well-read and insightful friend is a 60-something year old retired attorney and a gay man, who once said something to the effect that acceptance and inclusiveness aren't about pretending we're all the same, it's about acknowledging our differences and deciding when they are and aren't important. I couldn't agree more. So when young people start lecturing on the evils of gender oriented perceptions, it just rubs the wrong way. IMO, some things just ain't broke and don't need fixin'.

Do you really need me to point out what about your earlier post was offensive? Surely you know.
Is it the part that anyone not cisgendered is "confused"?
Or the "woe is the world, the transgenders won't breed" argument, which is plainly ridiculous in an overpopulated world?
Or, what I believe is the main issue here, that you seem to think that granting equality to some somehow infringes upon your own freedoms?

You seem to believe that since your own experience is A-ok, everyone else's is, and thus there's no need to progress. But not everyone is in an A-ok place like you are, and those people and allies of them feel a need to progress. A little bit of empathy goes a long way.

As for me starting the discussion, it was relevant for me regarding "marketing mistakes" and the marketing towards genders. The conversation from there was not just me. I don't just post to hear myself talk. I'm not being PC to be PC, this is an issue dear to me and others. If you no longer want to discuss it, that's fine, but again, asking for an end and then fanning the fire is not constructive.

As I suspected, "incendiary" is just shorthand for "I disagree."

You seem to be arguing against things I didn't say. That makes it difficult to respond.

At the very least, I don't think we are understanding each other, but I'll make one last attempt. After this I will agree to disagree.

In short, I disagree with the notion that the "gender binary" is inherently harmful (after all, the entire planet is male and female, the universe based on yin and yang, opposite but complementary forces) or that insisting on gender neutrality is good for anyone. The appreciation of differences between masculine and feminine works for the majority. Why should that change for us because a minority doesn't fit nicely into that dynamic? Why can't their dynamic live side-by-side with ours?
And "granting equality"? What does that even mean in this context? You're taking my comfort with the "gender binary" and trying to turn it into something wrong and unevolved. The natural world is not gender neutral.

And if the common perceptions of masculinity and femininity are so repugnant to you, why would you even join this discussion to begin with? You made what some might call an incendiary comment about the "gender binary" and now seem genuinely appalled that anyone might disagree with you. You're asking for a level of inclusiveness that you yourself don't seem willing to exend to others.

If you can't see how those comments are offensive to an entire group of people it's no use discussing this further, but I'll make one last attempt:

You keep putting forth the same idea that the gender binary is harmful to nobody and isn't worth bothering over, as if because you have no experience with it it's somehow invalid. Their 'dynamic' can't fit inside the binary because it has myriad legal and social entanglements. You're oversimplifying the issue, too, when you assume that everyone that doesn't fit into either 'male' or 'female' is somehow 'confused'. Please keep in mind that gender and sex are two very different concepts. The natural world may not be gender neutral, but it also isn't just a binary like our society has traditionally understood it. Previously (and to this day) intersex children have been surgically altered to be made to fit into this construct, forced into the closest box... and that's just the purely physical angle.
It's not really that hard to appreciate that a reality that deeply effects the lives of many (even if that many is, in comparison, a 'minority') should warrant some consideration, especially if that consideration does not impeach on the majority.
What does it even matter to you if these people are given equal recognition? Why is it such an uncomfortable idea? What do you lose from it?

It's like we're speaking different languages. And you continue to attribute POV's to me that I don't have.

Equal recognition how? By me teaching myself to see and smell feminine (to me) things as neutral instead and not identify these things as such to others? To what end? I enjoy experiencing femininity and masculinity in many forms. How does that negatively impact the legal rights of an intersex person? Should we paint everything green and red because some people are color-blind?

I think your heart is in the right place, but if you haven't understood me yet, you're not gonna. Dulce out.

That is one opinion, I rather believe the universe is based on quantum physics and the entire planet is divided on most issues including gender - you advocate a binary, I advocate a vast number of continua so everyone is between ascribed genders - on some scales more masculine, on some more feminine. But I'm sure our complimentary opinions can coexist and the truth is somewhere in between


That depends on the species you take into consideration (and why the focus on biology? ). From androgynous slugs to homosexual dogs you find lots of examples against a gender binary and the heterosexuality paradigm.


The problem is that an exclusively binary perception of masculinity/femininity leads to a misapprehension of anyone not ready to identify completely with one or the other and leads to people showing unusual traits or combinations that were traditionally unusual (homosexual parents, "men" wearing dresses, women boasting crew cuts ...) tend to be met with skepticism towards the person because gender takes such a big role in our first apprehension. But admittedly this goes beyond the scale of the thread.

Oh man there's nothing like some casual transmisogyny ja heterosupremacy to spice up a perfectly good thread on how perfume houses assign gender to their products. And by spice up I mean turn to shit.

A short PSA:
- People identifying outside of the binary are not "confused".
- The gender binary is inherently white supremacist and has been imposed to erase non-binary gender identities across the globe through colonization and genocide. (Side note: If you are a white resident in the former or current Euro colonies, this means you are directly implicit in this ongoing erasure.)
- Erasure and "misapprehension" as aeo called it has real-life consequences for trans and non-binary people, up to and including extremely high murder rates, unemployment, homelessness. So do not pretend this is just a matter of opinion. By dismissing non-binary identities as make-believe or confusion the people living those identities are discarded into the "lesser" pile and treated as sub-human as a consequence. Do NOT come and claim it's just an opinion.
- Communities recognizing more than one gender without a binary structure or obsession with heterosexuality have been surviving and reproducing just fine for millennia. White Westerners seem to have trouble with birth rates, though. Funny, that.

If this is how these topics are handled here, I can do just fine somewhere else.

OMG, this has reached a level of absurdity I could not have imagined. "Inherently white supremacist"??? Are you out of your mind???

Yes my dear that IS definitely an opinion and if my pointing that out compels you to take your toys and go home, I guess you do what you gotta do.

By the way, I had an intersex co-worker in college who was extremely confused about his identity. He had very supportive friends and family, but still struggled within himself. One of the words he used about himself was "confused."

Perhaps the dictionary may be of assistance. In this context, confuse means "to perplex or disconcert; to throw off." So yeah, confused by one's body, that's very accurate.

I am not actually out of my mind -- even Wikipedia knows something on the subject. Here, a link!

Your behaviour is WAY out of order and you need to calm down & maybe think what did you even expect bringing your reductive views on gender into this topic. And no, I am actually not going to "take my toys and go home". You, on the other hand, can take your opinion on other people's minds and bodies somewhere else.

Further reading:

Policing Native Women & Native Two Spirit and Trans People - See more at: www.incite-national.org/page/policing-native-w omen-native-two-spirit-and-trans-people#sthash .gSmL1aU6.dpuf

Transgender Identities in an Age of Globalization and Colonialism (Part One) www.genderacrossborders.com/2012/02/28/transge nder-identities-in-an-age-of-globalization-and -colonialism-part-one/

Globalization, Structural Violence, and LGBT Health: A Cross-Cultural Perspective — Mark B. Padilla, Ernesto Vásquez del Aguila, and Richard G. Parker elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCH IATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/The%20Health% 20of%20Sexual%20Minorities%201st%20ed%202007%2 0Springer.pdf#page=223

TRANSGENDER ISSUES: A FACT SHEET - www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/transfactshee t.pdf

Are the two of you ladies secretly the same person? You're both equally good at missing the point altogether. For all of your intelligence and knowledge of non-cisgender issues and posting of links, you continue to respond to things I did not say, or even imply, and ignore the things I have said. And have yet to offer any semblance of an answer to the simplest of questions (above). Good luck to both of you. And please have the last word (she says facetiously).

Stop here, all of you!

I understand that some topics touch us rather deeply, and so we find it hard to accept that somebody else might have a different approach or even an opposing opinion. Dulcemio, MRoth and Sweetgrass, as far as I have understood what has been said so far I very much doubt that you are really worlds apart from each other. I don't really see a reason for you to be at odds with each other.

But if I cannot attenuate your anger maybe you can have a go at me instead?

Roughly said, the difference between men's colognes and ladies' fragrances is that between good and bad perfume. (I would exclude some classic style florals that unfortuately only few women have the guts to wear).

Mango juice, peach jam, orange marmalade, chocolate, rose water, jasmine tea, almond milk, cotton candy and vanilla custard - what would you think about such a diet? Vanilla ice cream is nice but if it was the only food you would soon dream about a decent steak. For some reason, women are supposed to wear all day long as a perfume what nobody could stand for long if it was something to eat.

Perfumery is not about women's lib but very much about men's lib. Perfumes for men came a long way from Paul Parquet's classic fougère to today's diversity. I think the classic fougère accord is sharp, not really pleasant and it really hurts. It perfectly fits to the generation of misguided, neurotic and guilty feeling men who enthusiastically slaughtered each other in WWI. Today, we have all kinds of gents' colognes to chose from. No matter how sweetish some of them are - even Gaultier's Le Mâle and Fleur du Mâle contain some "steak".

IMHO, the question whether one should refer to a perfume as masculine or feminine and if so, could this possibly discriminate against some people or support very questionable traditional gender roles - falls short of this topic. I suppose most ladies who prefer gents' or unisex colognes don't bother much about gender policy. They simply want some "steak". The way that the idea of femininity is expressed in so many ladies' perfumes is nauseating.

It's a man's world, also in perfumery!

I don't know what makes a scent feminine or masculine to my nose but I swear I can smell a perfume blind (don't know the brand/name etc.) and I am 95% right in appointing a gender specific quality to what I am smelling. So perhaps there's something to the feminine vs masculine distinctions in scents. For example, gas stations, gyms, mechanic shops, carpentry shops distinctly smell masculine to me. Whereas places like the kitchen, a female's vanity, most shampoos, bakeries, detergents smells, restaurants smell feminine to me. I'm not bothered by it if something smells masculine to some or not. The way I see it is that the world is made up of both the feminine and the masculine elements wrapped up together. Think Yin/Yang concept. We all have both elements wrapped up in ourselves. It would be easy to see, coming from that stand point, why gender neutrality would be valid. Some peeps see that and some peeps don't. Neither group is blind or does it have perception problems. Both ideas are very refreshing.

No one mentioned "Jicky" yet, really?

Although some say it was named after a girl Aimé Guerlain once met, many historians believe the composition was actually meant to be marketed to men, noting the style of the original bottle and the fact that Jicky was also the nickname of Jacques, Aimé's nephew.

Apparently men of the time were slow to accept new trends in perfumery. Philippe Guerlain was quoted as saying “When they realized that Jicky was too modern for men, they decided to target it towards women”. In 1912, first adverts for "Jicky" started to appear in women's magazines, according to monsieurguerlain's web site.

This probably makes "Jicky" the first marketing mistake of the type the OP mentions.

I enjoy these informative posts of yours, Epimedes.

I need to try Jicky. For some reason I had in my head that it contained civet, so I've never tried it, but apparently it doesn't.

My pleasure, Dulcemio

I personally only had a brief affair with Jicky, but I think it is definitely worth trying. A nice lady, who I was once trading with, sent me a few samples from her vintage collection. There was one particular extrait, if I remember correctly, that was different and very lovely (she only sent me a couple of drops, can't blame her though!) My girlfriend didn't find it offensive on me, and she has low tolerance for civet in general. Granted, I had already learned my lesson at that time and didn't let her smell directly from the vial! The only thing, with all these different variations, and the fact that new versions are being constantly tweaked by the companies, you never know if there is a better variation out there, I often find it frustrating.

Oh, there IS civet in it? That would explain why I haven't tried it. I had looked at the notes over at F, since they tend to be more complete, and it isn't listed. And I could swear it wasn't listed here either, but today I see it is there. Can we assume the current formulation contains the synthetic? I'd have no problem with that.

Kind of strange they don't list civet in the notes at F, it's pretty prominent to my nose. Jicky is one of those perfumes I wouldn't smell directly from the flacon or even from my wrist. Patou's Joy is another one. Maybe the note in the modern stuff is not as strong as it used to be, I don't know. What I've learned though is that civet was used in the formulas of practically all french classics (including Chanel No 5, Shalimar etc), just in small doses. It's a fixative and also makes florals to develop better. But everyone seems to agree that companies use synthetic these days.