Unisex vs Feminine vs Masculine

What do you use these terms for, and do you often consult the pie charts to see how others have described a fragrance?

Are there better, less antiquated ways to describe this in your opinion? I’ve never had a perfume ask for ID verification so everything is truly unisex, but our associations may not be. 

The way you are describing ID verification reminds me of one time I was in Macy's with a salesperson hounding me, I went across the aisle to check out the women's fragrances and she exclaimed in a packed voice, "no, no those are the WOMEN'S FRAGRANCES!" 😂😂

It definitely shouldn't be like that, where anyone is actively trying to control what someone else wears. Or even restricting oneself from trying what could be a great fragrance. For me, notes aren't feminine or masculine, but there are associations, especially with more popular women's fragrances, that make me not want to wear certain fragrances. And not necessarily so I don't get weird looks or judged by society, but because it makes me feel uncomfortable in my own skin, the same way I would feel if I was wearing a skirt or a dress. It's just not me.

A good example I have is with Baccarat Rouge 540 Eau de Parfum. I used to wear it sometimes (shared it with my wife) and I think it is a completely unisex fragrance. Equal parts sweet and mossy. However, a female family member I see often started wearing it, and I couldn't shake the association. Not to mention loads of women I came across in public. I eventually stopped wearing it because of these associations. I don't think it's a bad thing or should be mourned, it just doesn't feel right to me to wear it.

I don't use them. Scent does not have a sex and I refuse to be put into a box created by marketing. 

I think it's kind of silly, honestly. Any fragrance targeted to men, you'll see guys falling over themselves to assure you that this is the manliest mannest most masculine thing they've ever tried... It feels very performative and marketing-driven. (I'm not just dunking on the guys here, women do it too but to a much lesser extent, probably because just wearing perfume is seen as feminine to begin with. Haven't seen nonbinary people do it but I'm sure someone has).

But it really is just marketing. Yes, on average perfumes marketed towards women tend to be sweeter and more floral than those marketed to men, but come on, are we really going to say that Cabochard (2019) Eau de Parfum is sweeter than Stetson Original (1981) Cologne ? Insensé Eau de Toilette failed, supposedly because 'floral for men' was a tough sell, but I really don't see it as any girlier than Grey Flannel Eau de Toilette , which is beloved by plenty of guys. But Grey Flannel marketed itself as traditionally masculine, while Insensé didn't.

I have noticed an odd trend recently though. Niche perfumers are embracing unisex marketing, selling themselves on ingredients or concepts rather than sex appeal, but the mass-market world is going in the opposite direction. I can't imagine the slightly indolic growl of Joy Eau de Parfum sitting next to Delina Eau de Parfum and Sweet Tooth Eau de Parfum in the ladies fragrance section today.

At the end of the day, any fragrance is unisex if you're brave enough. I'm a woman, and when I wear a perfume, it's a woman's perfume. If you're a man and you're wearing a perfume, that's a man's perfume. Doesn't matter what it is.

Anyway, all that to say... I don't find the descriptors helpful. When people say "feminine" they usually mean: sweet, floral, fruity, powdery, while "masculine" means woody, animalic, herbal, or spicy, but all of those are much more specific and helpful descriptions.

Sorry for the wall lol

Maybe I am naive or don't read that much into these terms, but I always considered the scent profile itself to be labeled masculine or feminine or unisex when I am looking to sample. It isn't illegal to anyone to wear anything they like and I would encourage anyone to what whatever they see sit fit, despite what any marketing campaign or label or reviews say. 

I always understood masculine to be woody, spicy, leathery and feminine to be fruity, florally, powdery. These are just a few descriptors and it isn't black and white. There's a ton of grey. Especially as scents have been evolving. I googled what are the most masculine scents and they mostly are from the 70's and 80's. I do think there is validity to question these labels as the "gap" between the two terms is becoming smaller and smaller with modern perfumes. 

The funny thing is I love old school vintage style scents from that era and older. Half of the "masculine" scents today are much closer to the traditional term "feminine" than they are to those masculine bombs of the 70's and 80's.

So yes, these terms are probably antiquated. But do we just eliminate them at this point or replace them? I suspect many people just don't care about those terms and how it applies to a particular scent. 

I went into this question trying to play devil's advocate and say YES THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY but I can't. I typed my way through this post and changed my mind. I really think we'd be better off without these labels and take the scents for what they are based on notes. But as long as the marketing machine defines the scents to capture a target market, we can never escape it. We just have to chose to ignore it. 

I didn't really answer the question about the pie charts in my response, so I want to add that I use them, but mainly for more elucidation on what type of fragrance I'm looking at. For example, consider a fragrance with the following note breakdown:

Top:
Bergamot, Grapefruit

Mid:
Rose, Geranium

Base:
Sandalwood, Tonka Bean

Is this fragrance going to be a soapy fougere-esque like Casamorati - Mefisto or floral, powdery and sweet like Coco Noir Eau de Parfum? Both have similar note breakdowns, but they smell entirely different. If you just showed me Coco Noir's note pyramid, I'd have no idea what direction it leaned. Of course you can sometimes look at the "main accords," Mefisto's is citrus-y/fresh while Coco Noir is floral/oriental, but sometimes even that can be misleading.

Unisex - When it's not overly floral. When it's similar to the unisex perfumes that are generally sold.

Feminine - Floral and sweet scent. Cosmetic scent.

Masculine - Less sweet scent. Ambroxan. Sweaty scent.

I've never seen a pie chart.

Oh, it's the same as "oriental notes".

LUSH, where I used to work, has always had a liberal approach to gender, so all the perfumes came in black bottles with the same design. It was inconvenient because you couldn't tell how much was left.

I tried to think of a better way to say it, but if more people start thinking of everything as unisex, this expression may gradually die out.

There was an article on fragrantica that said "It's weird for men to wear vanilla," and some men agreed with it (probably to raise their masculinity by doing so), but if you say that, perfume was originally only worn by aristocrats, so the definition changes over time.

Some people in the reviews of L'Homme Idéal Eau de Parfum said that it was not masculine, and I also thought, "Is this for men?", but the point is that the words are just benchmarks.

You can see what it's like by looking at notes normally, so I think it's fine not to label it as for men or women. Shouldn't it be up to the user to decide? I think people will gradually stop getting angry and saying, "This is not for men or women!" White shirts were originally underwear for the nobility, but everyone started wearing them, and now it's common for women to wear them too.I don't see what's weird about wearing vanilla now being the norm in a man.

Hahaha, I read everyone's answers and it's interesting. I've never been to Macy's, but I wonder what I should wear. lol

I know what you're saying. When I wear perfumes that are mainly black bottles from major designer brands, have a sophisticated design, and are full of ambroxan, I feel like I'm wearing a chic suit. Or when I wear men's perfumes from the 90s, I feel like I'm wearing a football helmet. Also, many Chanel perfumes for women make me feel like I'm wearing a Chanel suit from head to toe.

as a non-binary person, I do stick to stuff marketed to women for the most part, just because all my experiences with "for men" fragrances so far have been negative. perhaps there's some out there that don't have that same weird base smell that I cannot stand, but I've not been in the mood to try more in ages. I've got one on my interested list... I should see if I can get a decant.
I suppose there are some associations I make, but it's become less and less as I smell more and more. like, for example, there's really nothing particularly femme about Moves for Her or Cool Water Street Fighter Champion Edition for Her. anyone could wear these. no one's gonna know they're marketed to women. they could be marketed as unisex and it wouldn't matter. and if Soft Eau de Parfum and "Choco Musk (Eau de Parfum) | Al Rehab" are considered unisex perfumes... I feel it just proves the gendering in the fragrance realm is silly. if I use the terms, I am solely using them because of marketing. I do it for other people, not for myself. the lines blur too much for it to ever feel truly definitive. I prefer to specify that it's labeled or marketed for/to men/women than really say masc/femme. or if I do, I will be explicit about the association. I'm getting wordy LOL but I think I've covered it all. maybe. Probably.
as a nb person, I highly appreciate people that will wear whatever. I wish it could be me too.

editing to say that I don't ever look at the charts on here. my ADHD brain must have kinda glossed over that part of the OP lol

We’re talking about scent profiles a lot, but have you considered the bottles? I can imagine some bottles looking amazing in a woman’s cabinet. Bottles can be real ornaments and carry a masculine or feminine vibe too. Or completely neutral and unisex of course.

I kind of like how Amouage does it where their men's bottles are the same, just with a more vertical profile. Usually I feel like the guys get cheated out of fun bottle designs lol.

My brother pointed out to me once that since men's fashion is so restrictive about what's permissible, the small details matter a lot more, and I think something similar is true with the bottles. Like, Encre Noire Eau de Toilette is about as pared-down and masculine as you can get, it's literally just a black cube, but it manages to be beautiful anyway.

I use pie charts pretty often for a simple reason – which is that I adore pie charts. And charts in general, and numbers, and percentages... If I wasn't already taken, I could see myself marrying an Excel sheet someday, lol. But if it's a question of whether I use pie charts to decide if a particular perfume is for me – no, I do not.

At the end of the day, it's all other people's opinions. They're interesting as a point of comparison once I've already formed my own, but I'm a very particular and highly critical person, so they're not something I can safely rely on. The only reliable way to know for sure what something smells like – is to spray it on my skin and see how it goes.

I do live in a society, so I understand the wider concept of human gender expression and how particular types of scents tend to align with that. But personally I consider all perfumes unisex (and also have a pretty heated opinion on how our society views and treats its flawed concept of gender, but that's a whole other can of worms). Out of the 25 perfumes I have in my permanent collection, only 2 are marketed for women. 10 are for men and 13 are unisex. Last I've checked – I still hadn't grown a penis, but idk, perhaps I'm just not applying them correctly?

But while I do dislike needlessly gendering things and the existing system annoys me immensely... I don't think I have an easy answer on how to fix it. If I don't get distracted in the next 30 seconds, I am probably still going to write out another long post filled with my bitter grievances later. But before I get into all that, I have to stand back and admit the fact that I'm just one person. The system we have today exists because a lot of people have come to rely on it and find it good enough for them.

If millions of consumers worldwide are already happy enough with whatever soulless gender affirming vanillas companies are churning out this year, what can I possibly offer them? I wish we could stop gendering things needlessly, but at the end of the day most women I know are happy enough to smell like whatever sweet testers I have on hand or whatever is popular at the local stores. What am I going to do about that? Berate them for falling into a trap of societal expectations? Or am I gonna lecture men I know about how uncool it is to be afraid to express themselves with florals in a society that still looks sideways at anything it perceives as too feminine?

"Why do you care if something is feminine/masculine enough?" – is a talk I can have with my partner, or with close friends, or with other perfume enthusiasts. But we do live in a highly gendered society, and I'm not a licensed therapist – I can't just go offering people free "untangle why you think white flowers are for women and why does it matter anyway" courses.

I would love to see a genderless future, but perhaps as a wider society we are just not quite there yet?

I do look at the charts out of curiousity and I have the feeling men are more willing to wear womens perfumes than women are willing to wear men's perfumes. I really see more men reviewing the more masculine leaning scents whereas I see both women and men reviewing the more feminine leaning scents.

And I do want to know if a perfume is rated as more feminine or masculine, but without bothering about the gender, more because I care about the scent profile. I just don't like the more tabacco-ish, sharp, minty or too aquatic perfumes or the sharper colognes without a 'perfume-y' twist that are often being perceived as 'masculine'. 

There's also a separate question when it comes to the usability of pie charts. Sure. They exist. The data is there. But how are we meant to interpret it?

Let's take Rouge as an easy example. At the time of writing this, its pie chart shows a clean cut 50/50 distribution in gender perception based on user input. A 50% split is supposedly as unisex as a fragrance could possibly get. But if we look at the list of users who own it, it's 33% female and 63% male. In a crowd of 100 Rouge owners, 63 will be men. What does that say about the 50/50 pie chart statistic?

147 users own rouge. Out of them 92 are men and 49 are women. 63 people voted it as feminine on a pie chart. 64 people voted that it's masculine. What does that mean? More people said that it's feminine than there are women who own it. Less people voted that it's masculine than there are male Rouge owners. But we have no way of guessing which of the perfume owners chose which option?

For all we know, all female owners could've said that it's masculine. Or all men could say that it's feminine. The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but that's before we consider the fact that one person can theoretically mark both "feminine" and "masculine" as true in their classification. So that adds even more variables.

Maybe out of the 147 Rouge owners only 64 people voted any which way, but nearly all of them marked both categories as true. That would leave more than 50% of Rouge owners' opinions unaccounted for. Who knows what the rest of them think and how that would skew the data?

Am I taking this too seriously? Perhaps. But that is still an interesting thing to ponder.

At the end of the day, I feel like the best decision (specifically for the fragrance enthusiasts community) would be to get rid of the "style" classification altogether and expand the rest of the note chart instead.

Because, if you think about it, the perception of what is masc/femme constantly changes and fluctuates, not only on a personal level, but also societally. Who knows, maybe in another 5 years heavy white florals will be considered peak masculinity. That wouldn't even get into top 10 weirdest societal shifts of our lifetime.

Same goes for classic/modern. Who decides which is which? New generations of consumers are constantly growing up. My view of what's modern or not will be very different from someone who's been in this hobby for 20 years, and by the time local middle schoolers get their first paychecks, majority of them will likely consider my collection grandma-core.

But expanded (and descriptive) note categories would be useful for everyone. There are different types of floral, and different types of aquatic, and different types of basically any note we have a general descriptor for. We could add separate categories for musks and for herbs. If there's category for spicy and sweet, it would be useful to also have salty, bitter and sour. 

There are so many ways in which the note classification could be expanded that in my opinion would end up being way more descriptive and useful even for people who are just searching for something masc/femme vibes enhancing. But the threads proposing that sort of change quickly get locked in the suggestions forum, so, eh? It is what it is, I guess?

@Ursaw

Hahaha. You're funny.
I didn't write this in this review( "Momo (Eau de Parfum) | Fernanda / フェルナンダ" ) because I thought it might be off-topic, but I'll insert my funny story here. I think this is part of the answer to why existing society needs terms like "for men" and "for women".

The other day I was checking perfume reviews on Twitter. Someone who has been using perfume for a long time posted, "I use lactone perfume to mask the smell of my body odor. It's the smell of women's skin. I can say with certainty that men like the smell of women's skin the most. I want all women to smell beautiful. It's a man's wish."

A woman responded to that, "I agree with you. I wore this fragrance because you inspired me." It was Fernanda's peach.

I had no contact with the fragrance community in my country, but this was the first time I spoke out. "I'm sorry, but I understand wanting that from your spouse, but it's weird to want that from all women. I've never wanted all men to smell manly and cool. Also, when I wear this fragrance, I don't want men to perceive me as feminine, and It's depressing to think that men think I wear that scent for sexual attraction.(there are some weirdos out there)." I told him. He ignored me. lol
Also, he uses lactones to mask his own body odor, so he wants to erase the "smell of men's skin" and make it smell like "women's skin", but he wants women to smell like women's skin. This is weird. (This was also in Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.)
So, I think lactones are one of the conditions for women's perfume. Like peach, osmanthus, and, well, vanilla. But now men are also wearing vanilla, aren't they? (There's some backlash) But to be clear, is it because they want to be women? No. They just wear it because they like it.me too.
And women don't have a lactonic scent "forever" either; it fades after middle age. It's strange to limit a scent that disappears with maturity to the "smell of a woman's skin."

Well, basically, he just likes the scents of women much younger than himself (in their teens and twenties). lol

And I think that many old gender-biased scent distinctions are made from that perspective.

Another interesting thing is that the other day I smelled a really nice peach scent from a middle-aged male delivery man. I thought this was probably to mask the sweaty smell, but I thought it was much nicer than the typical scent of existing men's perfumes. (That's partly because I'm a woman, but there shouldn't be many people who dislike the scent of peach. Except for people who are allergic to peaches.) I didn't think it was "unmanly!"Rather, I only got a good impression that he was a person who was considerate of small details.（Of course, I just think it smells nice as a human being, not as a woman, but I would never force all men to "smell like peach."）

So, I think that in the future, the number of people who limit scents based on gender bias will gradually decrease. Very gradually, though.

My thoughts exactly. I never vote for the gender because smells don't have a gender. They are sometimes marketed to a certain gender for sure but that doesn't mean that a particular gender "owns" the fragrance. Gender associations of smells are personal and cultural. I don't want to encourage gendering of smells so I refuse to vote.

I also have similar experiences like @Omnipotato described. I have been told loudly by SAs in fragrance stores that "DO YOU KNOW THIS IS MEN'S FRAGRANCE SECTION, women's fragrances can be found there around the corner" 🤣🤦 So the SAs are both assuming my gender just based on how I look and also assuming that a person who looks like a woman shouldn't test any fragrances that are marketed for men. 🙄

I feel like anyone can wear anything at any time.  I don't pay a lot of attention to marketing either.  

However, I know the profile I'm going for as well, and neither you nor I should be ashamed of the profile we wish to dole out hard earned cash for right?  

For example, if a lady is reading a descriptor that says powdery iris that leans masculine, and she's like, "That's my shit, let's go," I don't think that should be taken away from her.  Descriptors are helpful...clean, fresh, gingery, dark, ambery, leans masculine, leans feminine....there really isn't anything wrong with having those.  They can even be wrong....I've seen people call something fresh that I thought wasn't fresh at all.  

So, while I think anyone can wear anything, without restriction, I also don't think it should be taken so far as to eliminate telling someone that a scent leans feminine, or leans masculine.

I agree, of course people are free to tell about their gender associations if they want. However I personally think that when the gender association is just an association based on an individual's culture and personal views only, how many other people would actually find reading about this personal association helpful? Gender associations are not universal nor facts so if for example an European person says "this perfume leans feminine", a Middle Eastern person might strongly disagree. Thus would be more helpful to actually describe how the perfume smells like: bright or dark, floral or woody, fresh or sweet etc. because that kind of descriptors are more universal. Of course people's noses are different and also skin chemistry, weather etc. might affect if the fragrance is perceived for example fresh or not. But still when I'm for example reading a review, if the reviewer mentions the fragrance being masculine or feminine leaning, I would like them to explain why so that I would know what masculine or feminine smell means in that person's head, for example "this fragrance is very sweet floral so I find it more feminine leaning". Also I just realised when I'm actually thinking about the example given "powdery iris that leans masculine", I have no idea how that would smell like. What did that person think to be the masculine leaning thing when voting? Does it mean it smells like powdery iris perfumes that are marketed for men? Or a dark powdery non-sweet iris that doesn't smell like makeup powder type thing? Or powdery iris with a traditional aftershave smell in the background? Or darker orris root smell instead of floral type iris? Or wtf? 🤣 Term masculine-leaning here actually arouses more questions to me and just totally confuses me instead of being helpful.

@Stardust23  @Lempi 

This is a real example, but I tried almost all of the Givenchy Gentleman series. As you know, it contains a lot of iris and vanilla. And I wrote in the statement, "They all smell very cosmetic. Feminine." It's easy to write feminine because there is a character limit. But I deleted it. The reason is that men probably tend to dislike scents that are described as "feminine". This is because of the gender bias at this stage.

I also wanted to delete my own bias that "cosmetic scents are feminine". Perhaps Gentleman wanted to break the prejudice of such male society and express that gentle iris and vanilla are "gentlemanly". They may have thought that such an image of a man is appropriate for today's society. I didn't want to interfere with Givenchy's attempt.

It's true that it's easy to express masculine and feminine. But I think it's best not to consciously use them. There's no need to attack someone for using those words. I just think it's more in line with the times to consciously reduce them.

@Akira1005 oh, that's a fun example! I only tried Gentleman Givenchy Réserve Privée, but personally I found it almost eye-rollingly masculine. I suppose that's because lots of men in my area tend to wear very similar scents, but if I tried to go past the obvious "it's vibes based" explanation, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly makes it so.

There are many examples I could give from different ends of the spectrum, but every time I try to examine them closely, I end up going in the same kind of "society that surrounds me brands these perfumes as such, members of society who wish to perform a specific gender wear them, the perception of specific scents being gendered solidifies, society brands them as such..." circles.

I feel... conflicted. On one hand, I feel like no notes are inherently gendered. It's nice smells. Everyone should be allowed to smell like whatever makes them happy. I want to stand firmly in the "all perfumes are unisex" camp. But there are also quite a few perfumes which I smell and go "bleh, gendered". It's not about the notes they have. It's not even necessarily about marketing. It's something else I can't quite put into words. It's the vibe.

It's the point.

There's plenty of perfumes that may technically lean into a more masculine or feminine category based on the current standards of whichever society we live in, but they have an idea behind them – some specific vision that they're trying to go for. Acqua di Giò Profondo Eau de Toilette, for example, is currently rated 100% masculine (both in user perception and based on ownership). I understand why. Its scent fits very firmly into what's traditionally considered masculine in my particular society. But there's so much more to it. As a standalone scent – it's fascinating to me. If it wasn't so strong, I'd buy a full bottle in a heartbeat.

But with some perfumes it feels like them being gendered is the main point and everything else is secondary. What's the point in La Vie est Belle L'Eau de Parfum or Valentino Donna Born In Roma Eau de Parfum or Amor Amor Eau de Parfum or Sì Passione Eau de Parfum Intense?

Sure, they do technically smell nice. Vanilla and currant, some jasmine. Maybe a wee bit of bergamot, but not really. Maybe a splash of something else to make it technically different, but at the end of the day – it's all the same sort of thing. In my (admittedly disgruntled) opinion, their main job is to make the wearer smell like a woman. They're like a scent version of heavy makeup or a boob job. In a way, they feel like gender performance enhancing drugs to me.

I don't necessarily have any conclusion to draw out of this train of thought. But I feel like quite a few perfumes fall first and foremost into this imaginary category. It annoys me immensely, but I'm not sure if it's a common point of view or if I just have a weird relationship with /broadly gestures at everything/.

@Ursaw
I see. As Lempi said, it depends on the society.
In my country, men hardly wear perfume...no, they don't wear perfume at all. And if they do, there are two types.
A very frivolous man wears high-brand perfume
In this case, the signature fragrance is Sauvage Eau de Toilette or Chanel, for example.
A young fashion-conscious person wears trendy perfume
The signature fragrance is Lazy Sunday Morning Eau de Toilette or Un Jardin sur le Nil Eau de Toilette . This group is less than 10% of the total. That's about one in 30 people. Maybe even less. Since the beginning of this year, I have felt that less than three men smell perfume. (One of them is a tourist.)

In other words, to me, the scents of designer perfumes, including Iris, are only feminine. I have never seen a man wearing an Iris fragrance.
So, I think your analysis is correct. (Of course, the gender bias proposed by each brand is inevitable wherever you are...) (The two above also said the same thing)
I agree that this unavoidable bias certainly exists.

And as you say, even with that bias, there are some great works.But at the same time, there are also works that make you think, "Was this created to reinforce the bias?" (I'm not mocking people who love this fragrance. Absolutely not.)

Assuming I'm not misinterpreting what you wrote, I can understand it as a "minority" point of view, whether it's common or not.
It's awkward, but as I mentioned at the beginning, it's the same as the category of "oriental". I want to be fair, so I'll take the trouble to mention my country (not because I want to show off. lol) From the perspective of the majority of the world, Japan is "oriental". But from my perspective, oriental is an "imposed image". Moreover, Japanese people who feel uncomfortable about this and have a clear understanding of it are "very very rare". However, I read an opinion that the Vietnamese brand d'Annam ( White Rice ) is not Vietnamese at all, and is based on Western values. Asia is based on the bias of "Zen". I completely agreed.
There is no such thing as "the most sophisticated position" when it comes to gender. However, it is natural that there are people who have doubts about the roles expected of society. I think it is not common at the moment, but a minority.
So I understand your frustration.
Because I don't meditate every day, go to a Zen temple, or bow with my hands together. lol At most, I eat sushi once or twice a month.
That's why I don't usually wear fragrances that others consider to be "Zen". I feel embarrassed, as if I am trying to be "the expected Japanese image. lol

I know what people mean when they say a fragrance is "feminine" or "masculine," and generally understand it as a heuristic for grouping certain scent profiles. However, I personally think the concept is rather silly, and so I don't check the charts or vote on it. I tend to dislike perfumes marketed towards women because I'm not a big fan of sweet gourmands or straightforward florals, and it irritates me that some marketing department decided women are "supposed" to smell like these things. As such, I don't own any perfumes that are explicitly "for women" even though I am indeed female. In Spanish, both men's and women's fragrances are called "perfume," so I sometimes wonder if this has influenced my perspective that these gendered demarcations are not especially useful. That said, there are perfumes that clearly lean into it by borrowing scents of other gendered items (such as the smell of lipstick in a perfume for women), and I know this is something many people actively seek out in their perfumes. I am just not one of those people.