Are unisex perfumes just better?

Am i the only one who gets more compliments with unisex perfumes? It seems when I use a very feminine perfume, while it smells pretty it doesn't appeal to the men. But when I use a unisex or even a slightly masculine leaning scent I always get compliments and asked what I'm wearing by both men and women. 

Then I realized that with my unisex fragrances, during intimate encounters where I can smell myself because of how strong it is, I actually think "god I smell sexy. Its as if my scent is rubbing off onto him too" But when I use my very female floral fruity sweet fragrances I never get those thoughts. I just think ok i smell pretty and thats it.

thoughts?

All perfumes are unisex. Smells don't belong to any gender, marketing is just marketing. What smells an individual considers to be "masculine", "feminine" or "unisex" depends totally on the individual's personal view, cultural background etc. So I don't think there could be a difference in compliments depending on which gender the perfume is marketed because how could people even know that if they don't know the fragrance. Instead I think it might be a fragrance genre thing probably? You said your fragrances that are marketed for women are floral fruity sweet and seems that your fragrances marketed unisex are some other genre so maybe just there where you live people tend to compliment something else than floral fruity sweet..?

I'm with @Lempi on this. I think it is more about scent-profile than about gender. And sillage and projection are relevant too ofcourse. Chypres, for instance, are often being perceived as 'more unisex' and often also have stronger sillage and longevity. 

Sometimes it is interesting to see in the scent rating section who rated a scent high or low, it is interesting to see if men or women rated a scent higher or lower (or alike) and how/if that relates to the scent-profile

Hmmm i gotta disagree with that. I cannot see for example, dior poison or delina from parfum de marly ever being worn on a guy. Those are far too feminine fragrances to be considered unisex. 

For me masculine fragrances tend to be the very dark musky and woody ones which I feel is too "heavy" for women. I cant think of any off the top of my head because I dont wear men's perfumes but ive definitely smelt them before.

The xerjoff ones I find are very unisex since they tend to sit in the gender neutral territory. Good examples are tony iommi and cruz del sur 2. Same with many montale ones even the more floral fragrances when it dries down it becomes rather neutral.

Interesting.

I’m with @Pengola on this one. Some perfumes are just too feminine or too masculine. But what makes them precisely that? Just as with clothes, of course a man can walk in a pink skirt, you be you. But it isn’t masculine where I come from (Mars that is, heheh).

I find it to become only more confusing now that almost everthing seems to be marketed unisex. 

Well yeah, this exactly here is the point. Masculine where you come from. Which makes it a personal opinion and an association, not a fact. If you personally associate pink and roses and skirts with femininity and black and woods and trousers with masculinity, that doesn't mean we should label those things feminine or masculine because it's not an universal truth, it's depending on personal associations and cultural backgrounds. Also originally all ancient perfumes were unisex, it's just the modern marketing (and Western culture in general) that has made them to be associated to a certain gender.

Hmmmm interesting because I, for example, know several masculine super confident men who are wearing Poison Esprit de Parfum. Just if you can't see something, it doesn't mean it's a fact. It is, again, just an opinion based on your personal associations and your personal cultural background.

I get what ideology you're adhering to and yes standards change throughout history but it is a universal truth in modern society though. Like no where in the world right now would a long frilly ball gown be considered masculine as a norm. When it comes to perfumes in particular i wouldnt say pink and roses to be exclusively associated with femininity. It depends on the other accords that was mixed in with them, which is stronger and what is the overall end product leaning towards. A masculine scent with roses would tend to have a dark woody musk as the dominant scent with a slight hint of rose as opposed to the other way around. In terms of clothing a men's blazer might be pink but the CUT and FIT of the blazer would be for the male frame. Even my gay friends when they wear a pink blazer its still masculine because it was designed to be V shaped. Whereas my pink blazers have an hourglass cut where the waist is cinched inwards.

I believe that having this clear understanding and vision of what is masculine and what is feminine, brings a bit of spice to life. What’s more exciting? Isn’t it exciting that a man can wear a pink blazer even though the color is associated with women? What if everything was pink and there were no such associations?

A guy wearing Poison Girl Eau de Parfum with confidence, there you go. What fun would it be if that was just a unisex fragrance?

Youre right I never thought of it like that. I was at a fancy dress party 2 months ago and my gay besties came dressed in their blazers with gold floral embroidery. Its very obviously a man's outfit with the fit the cut and what not but there's an element of flamboyantness to it. Its definitely not unisex just because it has floral embroidery because the fit and cut very much framed their male gym bodies. But I could tell they were proud to confidently pull off such an outfit. So yeah I agree with you, it be boring if everything in life were considered unisex

Unisex perfumes are the death of perfumery. There, I said it.

Actually, you go back to the early 20th Century and you'll find that boys were dressed in pink and girls were dressed in blue. You can find it discussed in an old column by David Brooks in the NY Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/br...

Egads! A woman wearing fougeres! The horror!

I think perfumery has bigger problems than divestment from overly-gendered marketing. The quarterly release of newer and lazier flanker scents has done far more damage to the artistry in perfumery than whether or not an M or an F gets stamped on the bottle.

Flankers are a result of everything being unisex, likeable and thus easy to market.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman rocking a fougère.

@Pengola I read that Snoop Dog's signature scent is Delina

I'm more on the everything is for everyone bandwagon

what is a flanker?

You will always have some eccentric outliers tho. Just because a guy likes to wear ball gowns doesn't mean ball gowns are made for men. But it also doesnt mean a guy can't wear a ball gown if he wants to

In modern Western society maybe. Check certain Middle Eastern, African and Asian cultures for example and you might be really surprised what kind of clothes and fragrances people are wearing in 2025 (and have worn throughout the history). Again, what's true in your personal bubble is not an universal truth. For example my ex husband was South Asian and he had very different views of masculinity and femininity than an average Western culture person. What I'm still trying to say here is that smells are not originally belonging to any gender, instead we learn to associate smells to a certain gender through our culture and through the marketing. Thus, all smells are unisex, but we can have personal and cultural associations regarding to their gender.

Interesting. I would say that perfumes are returning to their roots because originally everything was unisex. My personal opinion is that modern western marketing is the death of perfumery. It's basically saying that perfumes are "sexy" or "seductive" or belonging to a certain gender or that you should wear perfumes for other people instead of enjoying the smell yourself, I think these associations are ruining the perfumery.

Well said.

That's what I meant, modern "unisex" perfumery and marketing. You can't put a gender on a scent, but I wish either side of the perfumery spectrum was explored further instead of everything falling into the same pot full of dull, inoffensive and easy to market slop.

Can I make the drydown mossier? Nah, have to think about the female audience. More pronounced florals in the opening would be great in this one? Eh, have to think about the male audience, a faint hint of rose it is.

If perfumery indeed returns to the likes of Mitsuoko, I'm all for it! I don't care what gender label they put on it, as long as they compose something even remotely thought-provoking.

I largely agree with this, but I think that the true "culprit" of this perfumery brain-drain is gendered marketing as a whole (The entire spectrum, masculine, feminine, AND unisex.) If you indicate a perfume as either masculine or feminine, you're inherently limiting your own creativity and selection of materials rather than exploring a "side." Limiting your options can be a useful creative exercise sometimes, but not when an entire industry is using the same limitations.

Unisex perfumes try too hard to be "inbetween" because marketing agents (mostly designer fragrances imo, but there are a few niche perfumers as well of course) are considering it a third category rather than a transcendence of categories. The problems you're describing simply wouldn't exist if the marketing was never gendered to begin with. Saying unisex, specifically, is the problem is akin to saying a bruise is the cause of the broken bone underneath of the skin

Couldn't agree more with everything said here. And in my head it's completely insane to label smells to a specific gender. When I am smelling a nice perfume on someone, I'm thinking "oh what a great smell and how wonderful that somebody is interested in fragrances". Wouldn't even cross my mind to start assuming the gender of the person and thinking if the fragrance is masculine or feminine. I would probably try to guess what notes could be in that perfume or which genre it is but why should I bother thinking which gender those notes or that genre is mostly associated, I simply can't get what's the point in that, why should I be interested in genders when I'm interested in fragrances?

Definitely not asia or middle east but I dont know much about african cultures so i cant say. But I do agree with you that scent originally didnt belong to a certain gender. The norms were different back then

It’s an interesting discussion! I think a lot of what people perceive as “masculine” or “feminine” in fragrance has more to do with cultural associations and personal preferences than any inherent gender in scent itself. Unisex fragrances often play in a middle ground that appeals to a broader range of people, which might explain why they get more compliments—especially since they tend to have a balanced blend of fresh, woody, spicy, or floral notes without leaning too far in one direction.

At the end of the day, confidence and how you feel wearing a fragrance probably play a huge role too. If a scent makes you feel sexy, empowered, or just good in your own skin, that energy is going to translate, and people around you will pick up on it. Whether it’s Delina, a smoky oud, or a fresh citrus cologne, wear what makes you feel amazing.

You’re not alone! Many people find unisex perfumes more appealing because they offer a balanced, versatile scent that appeals to both men and women. These fragrances often combine fresh, woody, and floral notes, making them universally attractive. Plus, wearing a scent that feels more personal and sexy can boost your confidence and help you feel more connected to the fragrance. If unisex perfumes make you feel good and get you more compliments, that’s a great sign that they suit your style!