Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Gurahl

Super Member
Apr 17, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

As seen on fragrantica
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.


I haven't watched the video. I was hoping there might be a 'women react to Dior Homme' type video on youtube but it appears not.

That said, I'd certainly agree with the first part of the title...!
 

ClockworkAlice

Cakesniffer
Basenotes Plus
Jan 3, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.


I haven't watched the video. I was hoping there might be a 'women react to Dior Homme' type video on youtube but it appears not.

That said, I'd certainly agree with the first part of the title...!

Maybe I should actually try them on my own skin. The parfum has that softness that might transfer well on both sexes.
Although at least the newest Dior Homme seemed like a very generic masculine perfume to me. I'll have to wait until the stores open again.
 

The Cologne Cabinet

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Jul 22, 2014
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

As for the rest, I suppose I was slightly surprised at the hostile response, and then when the tragic trolling arrived, then it becomes annoying - which they evidently know and relish in, such is the mindset of a troll. I genuinely don't think I've stumbled on something 'amazing'...I'm just surprised no one seems to agree. I thought the reaction would be 'oh yeah, that sounds about right'. Genuinely. I expected some kind of 'hmmm I'm not so sure', and that's fine. But I didn't expect the reactions I've received. I think the 'fair' pushback I'm receiving is mostly saying things I'm not disagreeing with, nor have tried to deny - which makes it difficult, because I have deliberately left space for their points, yet probably because the posts are too long people haven't read them. By contrast, I haven't been given the same - there hasn't been 'yes, you're probably right, but it's not the ONLY reason' etc. It's just been a negative response that denies the premise, not a nuanced and critical one. Given the nature of this, as you say, as something that isn't really up for being 'proved' or 'disproved', that sort of shuts the convo down.

I'm not playing the victim, I'm bored of being trolled by a tiny proportion of sers who have called me all manner of the bigoted sexist slurs due to their own insecurity and weird psychological projection. I'm not a victim, I'm just bored of their shite and have no time for them. The only reason they are here is to get 'more' of their kicks, just like any troll.

Good sir, I don't know you and you don't know me. This is not a personal judgement, just an observation based on your comments -

People who have a victim mentality believe that life happens to them rather than for them. As a result, they are quick to feel victimized when something doesn't go as planned. At its core, a victim mentality is a form of avoidance. It's a way of saying, “I refuse to take any responsibility for myself or my life.”

Whatever you have to say, on this forum or otherwise, just stand by it and own it. Calling out "trolls" or trying to read into someones secret, subversive intentions is nearly impossible unless you are face to face and can interpret tone, body language, facial expressions, etc... Don't waste your energy. Own your opinion, forget about validation, and then move on.

This is how you cultivate authenticity. In turn, authenticity will garner you respect. People do not have to agree with you in order to still have respect for you. But, if they do not respect you to begin with then whatever you say will fall on deaf ears.

Good day.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

It takes a special kind of arrogance (and, presumably, boredom and disgruntlement) to go down the route of "no, what you actually meant was...".

You post a specious theory about why a generation or more of men and perfumers have turned en masse to iris and violet masculine scents, and I'm arrogant? Please.

Also, I didn't go down the route of "what you actually meant was…"; I went down the route of, "what you actually said was…" If you have been misunderstood, it's due entirely to the way you've stated—and restated, and restated—your argument.

Feminism really, truly has nothing to do with this. Your purpose for discussing the 'upper echelons' of the workforce is entirely a misreading for whatever weird desire you have to drag yet another thread in to the mire of identity politics. Now, feminism may be a broad and by now inherently contradictory set of pseudo-religious socio-political beliefs, without the metaphysics, that manages to spread its hands over far more than it ought to…

So you defend yourself against charges of bashing feminism by—wait for it—bashing feminism. Brilliant.

You don't seem to have much of an understanding of the topic.

I have more than you, but then, that's a bar too low to trip over.

No one's "trolling" you. You start threads, often with inherently contentious assertions that focus quite a bit on gender and masculinity (on a perfume board, of all places), then get upset when cogent counterpoints and rebuttals are offered that expose your sometimes specious claims. Sometimes, a bit of wit and sarcasm is employed to keep things light. That's pretty much it.

Precisely.

I wholeheartedly believe that, yes, many women want to not 'feminise' men, per se, but I suppose 'de-masculinise', instead. That may go to the extent of making them overtly feminine but, in essence, it's the proverbial 'friendzoning'.

And you wonder where the "incel" comments originate. You're equating masculinity with the aggressive sexual pursuit of women. If that's all it is to you, then it's no wonder you see restrictions on workplace romance as "de-masculinizing." (But not "de-feminizing," as that would mean women also have an interest in sex and romance.)

There's a time and a place and, increasingly, given the way workplaces and corporate cultures are changing to be more overtly feminine, the tolerance for 'cologne guys' is diminishing - to the point where many companies explicitly have 'no fragrance' rules.

These rules are no more due to masculine fragrances and "cologne guys" than feminine ones and "perfume gals." It has nothing to do with corporate culture becoming "overtly feminine" (which it isn't; it's just less overtly masculine than it once was.) Fragrances can trigger allergies, and even when they don't, they can be distracting and/or annoying. Workplaces are for working, so if fragrances interfere with that, it makes sense to limit or eliminate them. The same goes for the "no fraternizing" rules, though those are mostly with regard to different levels of corporate hierarchy.

Why is it so hard to understand that the overtly feminine aroma that has become one of the key 'secondary' genres of male fragrance, beneath the 'dark blue' trend, in male perfumery has become successful and sells well in large part due to the fact that women like them? And why is it so hard to accept that they like them because they are feminised fragrances with a lipstick-floral heart on top of more traditional masculine notes? And why is THAT so hard to accept as coming from a place of wanting to see men softened, feminised, and the desire/need for this comes in large part due to women spending a lot more time around non-familial men in the workplace? Is it really so hard to accept that women aren't a unitary 'thing'? That they will see different men differently, and assign them 'roles', in a sense, in relation to them and their needs/wants?

It's not the least bit hard to understand. There's just no evidence for it—only your bias- and correlation-based contention.

One could as easily assert that the net effect of "feminine" scents and women in the workplace on men's fragrance choices is that men with little social experience of women are regularly smelling women's "daytime" frags for the first time and realizing they like those notes and accords enough to wear themselves. I'm not suggesting that really explains the popularity of certain flowers in men's scents; only that it's no less plausible than your theory.

In your world, straight men only wear fragrances to attract women, and straight women want the men they desire to smell like women—or, rather, the men they don't desire to smell like women—ergo, men who want to be desired now douse themselves in Eau de Lipstick. This is not the world in which everyone else lives.

Legal and practical restrictions on traditional ingredients of perfumery (masculine and feminine), alongside the vagaries of fashion and the usual desire of a generation to differentiate itself from the one before, have left perfumers with the task of creating new fragrances their customers will like using approved, abundant, and affordable aromachemicals. Market testing has determined that large numbers of men and women of and below a certain age (i.e., malleable consumers who haven't already settled on one or more fragrances) respond positively to certain usable notes and accords. Market successes have confirmed the testing. Voilà: new trend.

That's all there is to it. The rest is hot air and social angst.
 

tspencer

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Jul 12, 2016
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Wow,

This is a rather impossible thread. What is male or female about a plant-based scent other than what we, as humans, culturally associate with that scent? I remember a PBS documentary on perfume made a decade ago. And a team of fragrance developers/marketers traveled to South America to get opinions from teen/young-adult boys in a focus group on fragrance and they all selected/favored floral notes that Euro/western culture typically associates with women.

Are we really arguing about sex as it pertains to science or are we arguing about culture here? I think everyone needs to take a step back and discuss this from a more sterile and non-emotional perspective. Unless we're discussing pheromones that our bodies produce, then there is nothing scientifically valid about non-animalic scents and association with sex.

I think that if men are buying fragrances that women in today's culture enjoy smelling on them, then men are going to wear them. Cultural trends shift. And that's okay. There is nothing to be upset about or to argue about. I think people should wear what they personally enjoy first, for themselves, and then secondarily what their significant other prefers. I actually think that if someone is confident about what they personally, individually enjoy, their significant other will accept and associate that with them (usually, but not always depending on past experiences in life).

I think we need to separate the discussion on this topic from cultural/emotional and factual/scientific. We are all 'emotional' about fragrance. That's why we all enjoy fragrances in the first place. So, it follows that sometimes we talk more with feelings than logic and get caught up in forcing that into the discussion. I've come to realize in my time on a fragrance forum that I have to accept alternate perceptions and reactions to fragrances that don't match my own. And to actually get entertainment from the different takes other people have. When I morphed my thinking in this way I much more enjoy this forum.

I suppose I'm saying here that when it comes to our favorite hobby, we should all try to get along with each other.
 

Sheik Yerbouti

oakmoss fiend
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2017
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

For all the dog piling, the OP has made some reasonable points.

I agree that men’s fragrances are using dominant notes of iris and violet notes which weren’t the norm in the 80s and 90s (when these were typically considered feminine notes.) Parma violets, handbags, powder, lipstick and the like.

Men’s fragrances in the mainstream have moved away from certain notes like oakmoss, animalics etc (though this could be for a number of other reasons in addition to those stated by the OP)

With perfumers creating more perfumes with iris/violet is it a surprise there is an increase in iris and violet being smelled on men. I suspect that many men receive fragrance as gifts and so they just wear them, get a compliment or two and keep the bottle. If you want to blame someone blame the perfumers for making these iris dominant fragrances to begin with or go further up the line.

Blame IFRA, blame the Creative Directors for being too ‘creative’. Something to bear in mind though and not beyond the realm of the unreasonable is that if one of these individuals had a more sinister or personal reason to include a note then they could abuse their position to make mens fragrances ‘smell like their grandmama’.



The arguments back and forth about feminism are daft.

It was quite normal to have distinct stylistic differences from decade to decade in the 20th century, and I would personally equate the move from heavy oakmoss and animalics to Sports and Aquatics as a ‘new era’ going from the 80s into the 90s although I enjoyed both decades’ offerings immensely.

With IFRA effectively killing off oakmoss fragrances in the early 2000s, the crap reformulation of hundreds of fragrances and the launch of Dior Homme being seen as extremely feminine by most guys that were used to what had adorned men’s fragrance counters just a few years previously is it any wonder there is a bit of backlash to something that Joe Blow hadn’t actually asked for?

I said this to someone yesterday and they got the hump with me.

The mens side of the fragrance aisle is definitely more feminine compared to 30 years ago but I can’t generalise and say men themselves are more or less feminine.


If Schwarzenegger smelled like Parma Violets would he be considered more feminine?
Like I said above I don’t know for sure but my instinct is slightly, at least how things are portrayed on screen. In real life not much of a difference that I’ve experienced. Have fragrances become more feminine? Yes but it’s a pendulum that will inevitably swing back to more obviously masculine traits in the mainstream eventually. The mainstream Homme fragrances that are considered masculine are mainly either the synth woody ambers or woody sweeties. For stuff more like the 80s and 90s you have to go for niche, artisanal or old stock.
 

hellbentforleather

Basenotes Dependent
May 18, 2016
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

For all the dog piling...

The issue is not singling out someone for holding an opposing view. Clearly, there are many divergent viewpoints even on this very thread and it's quite easy to surmise that many here might even find some of OP's arguments agreeable to a degree. The issue is just how fatiguing OP's approach on any given subject continues to be disallowing for any meaningful discussion unless one is in agreement.

Personally, I don't have much issue with anyone's position on most anything (excepting any form of extremism), but I will take issue with just how someone approaches a discussion, belief, or argument even if I'm in agreement to any of it, especially when it's repeated to exhaustion with the added distraction of claims of victimhood and specious accusations of "trolling."

Ultimately, I find it hilarious that even something as seemingly innocuous as a fragrance board can rile people up but I suspect that there are those few who are willing to take any subject and force it into far more contentious waters as we see here on BN time and again.
 

Sheik Yerbouti

oakmoss fiend
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2017
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

The issue is not singling out someone for holding an opposing view. Clearly, there are many divergent viewpoints even on this very thread and it's quite easy to surmise that many here might even find some of OP's arguments agreeable to a degree. The issue is just how fatiguing OP's approach on any given subject continues to be disallowing for any meaningful discussion unless one is in agreement.

Personally, I don't have much issue with anyone's position on most anything (excepting any form of extremism), but I will take issue with just how someone approaches a discussion, belief, or argument even if I'm in agreement to any of it, especially when it's repeated to exhaustion with the added distraction of claims of victimhood and specious accusations of "trolling."

Ultimately, I find it hilarious that even something as seemingly innocuous as a fragrance board can rile people up but I suspect that there are those few who are willing to take any subject and force it into far more contentious waters as we see here on BN time and again.


I hear ya. The urge to argue with every single person must have got the better of the OP lol.

Certain topics are more contentious than others though and emotions can run high, even regarding fragrance notes.

It’s funny but a lot of what is argued about isn’t even the notes but just semantics. The you said this so I said that but he said she said is just rather specialist to watch sometimes. I know I should look away but...

Sometimes though there is a feeling that there is something at play behind even the seemingly innocuous. IFRA for instance. Where companies create their own self-regulation can create awful conflicts of interest.

Back to iris heavy fragrances I think it’s a valid point to ask how we got from Paco Rabanne Pour Homme to Dior Homme in men’s fragrances. A long opening post with quite a few assertions is bound to draw some attention. tspencer keeps a cool head and makes a good point about trying to all get on.

Why don’t you guys just block each other and be done with it lol. It’s like Spy vs Spy from MAD sometimes.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

What is male or female about a plant-based scent other than what we, as humans, culturally associate with that scent? I remember a PBS documentary on perfume made a decade ago. And a team of fragrance developers/marketers traveled to South America to get opinions from teen/young-adult boys in a focus group on fragrance and they all selected/favored floral notes that Euro/western culture typically associates with women.

Exactly. Gender classifications of smells are products of the cultures in which the perception occurs. They're as real as any other social construct. They're just not absolutes. The OP and I might agree about much of what we perceive as masculine and feminine because of the broad cultural similarities of our backgrounds. The difference is, he asserts that the increase in popularity amongst men of fragrances he considers feminine must be due to "feminization" or "de-masculinization." The idea that what others perceive as masculine or feminine might simply be different from what we do exists outside his theory. Our cultural assumptions are not yardsticks against which to measure other cultures, whether the "otherness" is due to geography, generation, or anything else.

If you want to blame someone blame the perfumers for making these iris dominant fragrances to begin with or go further up the line.

Blame IFRA, blame the Creative Directors for being too ‘creative’. Something to bear in mind though and not beyond the realm of the unreasonable is that if one of these individuals had a more sinister or personal reason to include a note then they could abuse their position to make mens fragrances ‘smell like their grandmama’.

If fragrance companies could sell whatever they want to people and make them like it, no fragrance would ever fail in the marketplace. Men don't wear iris and violet now because that's all there is. It isn't even all there is: there's just more of it now. Perhaps it's because of the runaway success of the original Dior Homme, which is funny, because Dior killed DH and replaced it with a reportedly (I haven't smelled it) generic woody aromachemical compound. Is that the pendulum swinging back, or just a company treading water while it flails about for the Next Big Thing? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter.

Gotta say, I think it is smack dab in the center of the realm of the unreasonable to suggest an individual (or an evil cabal!) with a sinister motive could—much less would—deliberately feminize the whole world of men's fragrances. Hedi Slimane may want iris in everything, but he's hardly powerful enough to drag the whole industry behind him. It's not about sex or gender, or even about blame at all: it's about what the industry can mass produce and mass market. Nobody can make you buy Sauvage. It's not anyone else's fault if you do.

I don't like the new mainstream of men's fragrances, and I don't dislike it, either—it's just largely irrelevant to me. I'm not the target market now, nor will I ever be again. It's not because women dominate the workplace and manipulate poor, helpless men into wearing olfactory Froot Loops as part of the Dance of Courtship. Most young guys just like that stuff now. To them, that IS masculine. Too, many young men and women simply care less about what's "masculine" or "feminine," thereby driving the unisex trend in fragrances.

So, rather than stocking up on ambroxan bombs, I buy mostly vintage, and I have a lifetime supply of oakmoss-based frags (including old feminines that, to my nose, are to modern masculines as leather jackets are to crinolines). When my time is up, there'll either be no one left to sell them to and so they'll go down the sink, or they'll have appreciated in value and the proceeds from the auction can pay for my final expenses. It won't make any difference to me. I'll be stinkin' up the joint for a whole 'nother reason.

Either way, Sheik, you and I are good! :thumbsup:
 

cheapimitation

Basenotes Dependent
May 15, 2015
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

1. I wholeheartedly believe that, yes, many women want to not 'feminise' men, per se, but I suppose 'de-masculinise', instead. That may go to the extent of making them overtly feminine but, in essence, it's the proverbial 'friendzoning'. A woman doesn't want 100% of the men they associate with to be seen as sexual/romantic/physically or socially intimidating. They want a small portion of men to be that, but the rest - let's say anywhere from 70-95% of the men they associate with - to be fathers, brothers, friends. In a work space, colleagues are far, far more likely to fit in to that latter category: not least as it is now the law in some parts of the USA, or at least some sectors, that workplace relationships are forbidden and liable to be prosecuted, under the notion that they are 'predatory' and a result of 'toxic masculinity', despite the fact that work is obviously a place where many people very happily and successfully meet the love of their life.

I fundamentally disagree with this, what you describe doesn't sound like women wanting to feminize men so much as women not wanting to be treated and pursued as sexual objects especially in a professional environment. This seems like a completely reasonable request to me, and if a man is only able to see women in this capacity, the least he can do is to suppress that in the work place.

This kind of thinking seems quite dated though, and I would suspect the 1970s was the last decade where men might have struggled with the relative newness of women in the workplace and felt the need to adjust accordingly to see women as professional colleagues. A lot of fragrance trends have come and gone since then which makes your argument even more tenuous, that it would take some 30 years for men's fragrance taste to finally adjust to accommodate women in the workplace.

Also, if we take your argument and back it up to before women entered the workplace, does that mean men wore fragrance to impress or please the other men at the office? Is that a more manly thing to do?

Look, there are a lot of reasons why this style might have taken off and while your thesis might sound interesting at first, it doesn't hold water. We could get Freudian and say that it reminds men of their mothers, especially with the Chanel connection of Olivia Polge creating Dior Homme and Chanel's signature use of iris. It could be that the iris makes Dior Homme smell just different enough, but not necessarily feminine, that it helped it stand out amid a market of sameness. Smelling Dior Homme again recently I'm struck by just how traditionally masculine it smells. Though not listed, I get a good dose of tobacco and woods while the iris always gave me an earthy "clay" like feeling. It doesn't read as feminine to me but as almost classical ultra refined and sophisticated French perfumery.

The issue isn't necessarily in the 'type', it's in dysfunction. As you say, choice is a good thing, and no doubt this whole thread is about discussing the addition of another 'choice' in to the market.

Agree with this, there are douches of all shapes sizes sexualities colors and ethnicities!

In any case, all of this is a way of saying that, yes, women DO want some man - indeed many men, specifically the ones they do not see as romantic potential - to 'feminise', I suppose. At the very least, they don't want them wearing 'sexy' fragrances, something like a club scent, or even an aquatic. Just as they don't want to be aggressively flirted with, or dominated, in work yet may actively seek this out in their personal/romantic/sexual lives. Something clean, soapy, classy is fine, but then how could brands make money on something that already existed? Here is where the commercial decision comes in - amp up and re-calibrate the new developments (as mentioned) in orris to create the 'purple floral' trend as something new, modern, corporate, and more female-friendly in a...well...friendly way.

As stated above, this is a totally reasonable request on the part of women to be treated as equals in the work place and not sexual conquests. Again that doesn't equate to feminizing men to accommodate this.

Do you have anything explicit to back up your claim that Dior Homme was never meant to be a work-safe fragrance? I don't need it to be for this assessment to hold, by the way - as I said, it could have been a happy, subsequent discovery that this type of iris translated well in to offices etc. But are you just guessing when it comes to that claim? Or is there something backing it up? I certainly see Eau for Men, for instance, as an explicitly 'work safe' use of Dior's iris accord, and Prada has followed this up with a very explicit marketing campaign that has pushed its scents in to this category via GQ, and astroturfing on youtube via Jeremy (who they paid) and others, where their scents sit alongside Dior's in the typical 'best office fragrances' lists. You may be right that it was never, ever meant to be work safe or built to be worn in similar settings but I don't think it debunks my premise, basically.

I don't have any inside information to support my claim, but I am/was a huge fan of Hedi Slimane and followed closely his fragrance launches at Dior. I know that he is a control freak and would have been intimately involved in the launch of this pillar men's fragrance and that it bears a signature character also found in his line for Celine. And I know that Hedi's primary source of inspiration is creative youth movements (usually musical but more recently including tik-tok generation). He is hyper specific in his casting and his vision is of a waif sometimes androgynous usually quite delicate and beautiful and always very cool man. As far form office drone as you can get.

I couldn't find any interview of him talking about Dior Homme specificially, but I did find these two articles which give you an idea his viewpoint and creative control of the fragrance launches:
link 1
link 2

Still, that's not to say the corporate side of Dior doesn't want to sell to office workers. Hedi left Dior over a contract dispute (basically he wanted even more control) so only after he left they have destroyed the exclusives line and start to make generic ad campaigns with Robert Pattinson that might speak more to the average office worker. It is hilarious to me someone like Jeremey would recommend this as an office safe wear. I guess all subversive movements do get cannibalized by the mainstream. It's the same irony as conservatives using Queen songs at their rallies. Not sure if this is poetic justice or a disgrace to the spirit of the original creations.
 

tspencer

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Jul 12, 2016
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Exactly. Gender classifications of smells are products of the cultures in which the perception occurs. They're as real as any other social construct. They're just not absolutes. The OP and I might agree about much of what we perceive as masculine and feminine because of the broad cultural similarities of our backgrounds. The difference is, he asserts that the increase in popularity amongst men of fragrances he considers feminine must be due to "feminization" or "de-masculinization." The idea that what others perceive as masculine or feminine might simply be different from what we do exists outside his theory. Our cultural assumptions are not yardsticks against which to measure other cultures, whether the "otherness" is due to geography, generation, or anything else.

Agreed. Now, if the OP had cited a scientific study that involved pheromones in fragrances, such as anamalics/synthetics that emulated human pheromones that men or women produce, and if the scientific paper found men were responding like a female to masculine/same-sex pheromones........THEN the OP would have evidence of de-masculinization of men and could make a case that we have a potential genetic or developmental problem caused by some environmental pollution or medication. But that's not the case in this thread. Here we have what amounts to a completely "cultural" perception of the sexes and their choices.

I would not be surprised if I time traveled into the future a few hundred years and found men wearing fragrances that women today wear and the reverse for women. Heck, I have met several women who work at fragrance counters who wear fragrances marketed at men such as Aventus and Tom Ford Tobacco Oud and others. People today are wearing what they like to smell moreso than what they think other people like. And that is a very good thing. Fragrance should be an individual thing. I have a few fragrances here and there in my wardrobe that some may think lean feminine. But I clearly am masculine in appearance, so I have zero confidence issues wearing them. I just like how they smell and my fragrances are for 'me' first and if someone else happens to enjoy them that's cool too.

A curiously funny thing......I think it's smart for women to wear Aventus because I've noticed in my observation that men tend to go WAY more crazy over Aventus than women do. Men I think are projecting their own bias/enjoyment of Aventus on to women and assume women 'must' love it because "I" love it. LOL. So, the women who want to target male attention could do very well wearing Aventus as a lure.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

I would not be surprised if I time traveled into the future a few hundred years and found men wearing fragrances that women today wear and the reverse for women.
Indeed. I've "traveled back in time" with nominally masculine and feminine fragrances up to a century or more old. Even strictly within the parameters of modern western perfumery, these notions have already shifted and drifted substantially.
 

hellbentforleather

Basenotes Dependent
May 18, 2016
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

On the subject of notes, I want to reiterate that Habit Rouge is considered an iconic masculine frag though many consider its accords to be decidedly "feminine" and reminiscent of makeup. At the very least, that's my reductio ad absurdum...sort of :).
 

Sheik Yerbouti

oakmoss fiend
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2017
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Exactly. Gender classifications of smells are products of the cultures in which the perception occurs. They're as real as any other social construct. They're just not absolutes. The OP and I might agree about much of what we perceive as masculine and feminine because of the broad cultural similarities of our backgrounds. The difference is, he asserts that the increase in popularity amongst men of fragrances he considers feminine must be due to "feminization" or "de-masculinization." The idea that what others perceive as masculine or feminine might simply be different from what we do exists outside his theory. Our cultural assumptions are not yardsticks against which to measure other cultures, whether the "otherness" is due to geography, generation, or anything else.



If fragrance companies could sell whatever they want to people and make them like it, no fragrance would ever fail in the marketplace. Men don't wear iris and violet now because that's all there is. It isn't even all there is: there's just more of it now. Perhaps it's because of the runaway success of the original Dior Homme, which is funny, because Dior killed DH and replaced it with a reportedly (I haven't smelled it) generic woody aromachemical compound. Is that the pendulum swinging back, or just a company treading water while it flails about for the Next Big Thing? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter.

Gotta say, I think it is smack dab in the center of the realm of the unreasonable to suggest an individual (or an evil cabal!) with a sinister motive could—much less would—deliberately feminize the whole world of men's fragrances. Hedi Slimane may want iris in everything, but he's hardly powerful enough to drag the whole industry behind him. It's not about sex or gender, or even about blame at all: it's about what the industry can mass produce and mass market. Nobody can make you buy Sauvage. It's not anyone else's fault if you do.

I don't like the new mainstream of men's fragrances, and I don't dislike it, either—it's just largely irrelevant to me. I'm not the target market now, nor will I ever be again. It's not because women dominate the workplace and manipulate poor, helpless men into wearing olfactory Froot Loops as part of the Dance of Courtship. Most young guys just like that stuff now. To them, that IS masculine. Too, many young men and women simply care less about what's "masculine" or "feminine," thereby driving the unisex trend in fragrances.

So, rather than stocking up on ambroxan bombs, I buy mostly vintage, and I have a lifetime supply of oakmoss-based frags (including old feminines that, to my nose, are to modern masculines as leather jackets are to crinolines). When my time is up, there'll either be no one left to sell them to and so they'll go down the sink, or they'll have appreciated in value and the proceeds from the auction can pay for my final expenses. It won't make any difference to me. I'll be stinkin' up the joint for a whole 'nother reason.

Either way, Sheik, you and I are good! :thumbsup:

I don’t subscribe to political correctness, I say what I mean. That can sometimes come across as more blunt and I’m also not a politician so I can pretty much speak my mind.

People are, like it or not, being dumbed down. Couple that with a larger disposable income relative to the 80s, they don’t have to be as discerning when buying something because if they buy something they don’t like, they are more likely to buy another bottle which they might like. The price/quality ratio in the 80s was great and the general quality was also great. Whether you bought Old Spice or Patou you knew you were getting a kingly fragrance.

Today if you take a company like Dior and get an A list celeb to be the poster boy/girl for their new fragrance you can fill the bottle with virtually anything and a large section of the population will unfortunately lap it up.

You said Evil Cabal not me. I was refering to individuals as the plural of Creative Directors, not plural of sinister individuals. If you don’t think individuals are being manipulated a thousand different ways by less than updront corporate interests then I would say at the very least you are being naive. I won’t buy it either but there’s a line of unsuspecting youths that can’t lift their head out of their phone screen for 5 minutes that probably will but it as long as one of the social media hero numpty shills or Cap’n Jack convinces them. That isn’t by accident.

I personally don’t subscribe to the idea that all notes are all thiings to all people so masculine will never mean Froot Loops to me. Violet will never be a masculine note. We have been over this previously though in other threads. I’m not in the market for smelling feminine so I wear fragrances that are considered masculine that often include notes heavy in spices, woods, oakmoss, patchouli, vetiver, clary sage many of which are 70s 80s 90s era compositions.
 

hellbentforleather

Basenotes Dependent
May 18, 2016
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Indeed. I've "traveled back in time" with nominally masculine and feminine fragrances up to a century or more old. Even strictly within the parameters of modern western perfumery, these notions have already shifted and drifted substantially.

This is a great point. We're confining perfume - an inherent element of style - to a decidedly narrow cohort, i.e., a Western one. That doesn't make such a take bad - not at all - but demonstrates just a limiting a view can be, especially in matters of style. Again, rose is often considered a feminine accord in a Western context (though for some reason, Royal Mayfair seems to always get a pass a "classic masculine" owing to its association with Windsor) but in other parts of the world, rose is masculine. Hence, the inherent subjectivity of style.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

You post a specious theory about why a generation or more of men and perfumers have turned en masse to iris and violet masculine scents, and I'm arrogant? Please.

You can call it specious all you wish but it doesn't make it so. And yes; you've made snide, passive aggressive comments throughout your commentary. You have a history of baiting me on this site which eventually devolves in to personal insults when you have nothing more to offer and this is now more of the same. I have no idea why you would choose to comment on my thread unless you have an express wish to engage with me - which evidently you do. I have my own ideas for why this is, of course Your choice to enter this thread in the manner you did and your continued presence on it belies your self-ordained moral superiority that, in fact, you are 'above' all of this - and your sophomoric assertion that it's all about 'feminism' was your foot in the door for you to do so without losing face and making it clear that, really, deep down, all you wanted was what used to be called a 'flame war'. Same old, same old.

And you wonder where the "incel" comments originate. You're equating masculinity with the aggressive sexual pursuit of women. If that's all it is to you, then it's no wonder you see restrictions on workplace romance as "de-masculinizing." (But not "de-feminizing," as that would mean women also have an interest in sex and romance.)

And you assume that men aggressively pursuing women is not within the remit of masculinity? :lolk: :lolk: :lolk: This is how inane and ridiculous these discussions become when they simply turn in to staging grounds for the culture war: very quickly, ridiculous assertions are made which are easily missed amidst the mire. What are you saying? Seriously, what on earth are you suggesting? Maybe it's been too long, or maybe you never actually experienced it, maybe you're female, or maybe, simply, you DO know it exists but you wish it didn't so this is why you deny it; but young(ish), healthy, happy, confident, competitive men pursue women sexually and romantically and there is no problem with this. Of course, some men don't. It seems like I need to explain this explicitly otherwise you'll accuse me of professing something about this truth that I have not expressed nor believe. Some men cross the line and where there is a shortage of women, or when the man is particularly inept or desperate or poorly socialised, then that competitiveness can become ruthless and threatening and unsettling: rather than merely forceful, proactive, and effective. Some men never experience this due to the 'type' of man they are and are therefore brimming in jealousy towards the men who do and can successfully pursue women sexually. Some men are, in essence, not desirable. Some men are less desirable but make for a decent compromise and take what they can get without ever being capable of taking their pick of women, or pursuing the best looking. After a certain age, this is most people, male and female, which may be why you have the misunderstanding about sexuality and sex-based behaviour that you do. It's a 'spectrum' of sexual behaviour and ability, I suppose, to use the postmodern parlance.

The fact you think that is 'incel' behaviour is a fucking tragic insight to your own warped view of the world. Nothing more, nothing less. You're filling in the gaps of what I haven't said with your own assumptions about what I may believe, morally or ethically: "in your world straight men ONLY wear fragrances to attract women." That is the laziest of black and white strawmanning you could possibly have conjured and given the ridiculous simplicity to it - ignoring the fact it's just wrong and not what I believe in the slightest, which seems a fairly fundamental problem in its own right... - is evidence that you truly do not understand what I am saying and your need to put facile and absolute 'opinions' in to my mouth is only revealing how much you don't understand as well as how much you underestimate me. It's the same old failing of imagination - and, surely, experience - that defines the way postmodern philosophy has been corrupted by exceedingly less able minds than those of its originators; one that ultimately doesn't understand what is being said, nor why it is being said, yet still resorts to insults and argues against the strawman they learned to fight from a vaguely similar topic where they 'won' and which they drag around in to ever debate or discussion precisely because they know how to wield the strawman in order to 'beat' it (of course, you've really had to stretch to bring feminism in to this, it certainly is far less relevant than many other socio-political systems of belief, let alone economic and sociological trends over the last 50 years or so, but you have managed to drag the strawman in to this topic because it seems you don't know what else to say).

Your assessment of my views/opinions is quite simply wrong. You have made a glaring error of assuming when I refer to something which is true that I ONLY believe this is true, and do not consider it part of greater and even contradictory truths. This is presumably why you talk down to me in the manner you do; you have a combination of misunderstanding and self belief which is required to both miss the point and think you're correct at the same time. It may well come from the aforementioned lack of experience and exposure to human beings as they are. I don't know the reasons behind your thinking and wouldn't do as you have to me. Unless of course these thoughts/ideas/insults are a way of protecting your ego from a truth you do recognise but don't want to accept. That seems reasonable, too, but, again, I don't know if that is relevant. It's certainly a common pathology and one I see many people, particularly young people, espouse. It's also a way for women, in particular, to deal with the fact that it's fairly scary being female - particularly so without any competent, powerful men who are within your 'family group' to protect you, which is a consequence of the lack of community and family in the modern world which is celebrated by many of the PoMo 'isms' - and that brimming just under the surface of maleness is a ruthless and predatory biology that, albeit rarely, can bubble up to the surface in (sometimes) terrible ways. Just ask any woman who's experienced a crowd, let alone a warzone...You should do something that tests your own belief systems, instead opting for regurgitating dumbed down versions of the contemporary philosophical theories of our age that pander to the ego. At least many of the traumatised second wave feminists who naturally catastrophised reality due to experiences of male abuse raised this point: that all men were scary because of their potential behaviour, and this was biologically based. They weren't telling the 'whole' truth, but they were certainly getting at part of it. Somehow I doubt you'd mock them in quite the same way they were and as you have tried to mock me, as totally delusional witches (or, in my case, by calling me an 'incel', haha, which has sadly become true because of the pandemic but most certainly wasn't before) simply because their ideas were not universally true. Why? What's the difference? Now, of course, feminism has been consumed by the greater body of critical theories that hold that being 'human nature can be fundamentally changed and in fact nature does not exist', which is the dullest and most emotionally and psychologically immature 'philosophical' understanding of humanity I have encountered...yet it's one we humour in the present day.

In any case, this is why it's SO FUCKING RIDICULOUS for you to demand you be allowed to bring your 'lens' in to discussions like this because for anyone who had the displeasure of recently working within academia, or who has chosen to expose themselves to or even believe in postmodern philosophy, they will surely understand how every single topic of discussion - however small, simple, non-controversial, or unrelated to something like feminism - can be derailed under the premise of "but this isn't universal". All you have to do is find the most fringe, extreme instance of something that appears to contradict the premise, and exponents of these ideolodies think they're produced a dialectical slam dunk. The attacking of 'grand narratives' became an attack of universalism as 'exclusionary', and therefore the assumption that anything that generalises (even on a forum discussing perfume ffs!!! let's get some perspective) is de facto false becuase it is not universally true, is something that was explicitly designed to be used in the EXACT manner you use it: to sneer, goad, and derail anything that doesn't conform to the particular form of solipsistic, psuedo-academic philosophies of the post-Marxists (which, ironically, do not hold themselves to the same problem when it comes to the inability to universalise truth, yet still claim truth as such - anyone who hasn't woked this out yet, you're welcome). You don't OFFER anything to the discussion, you're totally uninterested in either leaving the discussion be or adding any of your own thoughts - you 'deconstruct' in order to destroy and silence, pontificating from a place of wild misunderstanding where you have to (unbelievably!!!) tell me what I actually think and mean because you, presumably, cannot fathom anything else. First it was the idea that it was about 'feminism', now it's the notion I ONLY think men wear perfume to attract women. This is just total fantasy. It's the stuff of an Owellian nightmare. It's potent - if destructive - to relate to people in this way: but it's certainly not true.

And of course "the bar is low" for you when you believe that this manner of 'deconstruction' can be applied successfully while getting some emotional kick out of doing so on a perfume forum. The mediocre and dysfunctional people who flock to these belief systems (in large part because some truths are obscured to them through immaturity and a dysfunctional way of relating to the world) tend to think that the world is improved - rather than slowly destroyed - by turning every single facet of life, or even other peoples' views, that don't adhere to their own subjective delusions about the nature of reality in to an socio-political culture war. The problem is, your ideological framework is self-congratulatory fluff that provides nothing of worth, nor does it actually deny or disprove the points I have raised, to whatever extent they may be true, it just seeks to silence. It has no philisophical merit, its potency lies in its rhetorical power to silence and persuade majorities in spite of the better nature of people. It seems to make sense on the surface, but only to those who have been denied a broad education and for whom the surface logic of deconstruction no longer holds. You presumably cannot accept that, however, and that's why you've come back to me for more - because I seem to be one of the few people on this site who's up for it and can stand their ground on ideological terms. There's nothing like adversarial discussion as a means of 'bolstering' the flimsy beliefs that someone professes to believe in but cannot harmonise in themselves. It's why so many exponents of these 'isms' are so aggressive and seek conflict with others so desperately; internal cognitive dissonance is a tough thing to overcome within your own self, but trying to 'dismiss' the external views of someone who offers a much truer and broader explanation of the world than the simplistic assertions of the postmodern 'isms' is much easier to do, paticularly if you find someone who proposes something true which makes you emotionally threatened/insecure. It becomes a very easy thing to convince yourself you DO believe in what you profess if you're able to use your emotions to overcome the dissonance. That last facet is a huge motivating factor in seeking out and shutting down discussion. Huge.

All of which is to say: so what. To all of your points. So what? You think I haven't provided enough evidence for you, or that there is an element of logical fallacy to this notion? So what? You're holding me to far higher standards than you hold yourself. I haven't returned the insult of portraying your views in the most egregious and fantastical light as you did to mine. "In your world, straight men only wear fragrances to attract women, and straight women want the men they desire to smell like women". This is laughably wrong. I did say you had misread my post but you didn't want to take my word for it. That's not my fault, that's yours.

This topic was never intended to proselytise, let alone 'prove', the veracity of the idea. I'm glad there have been some counterpoints an qualifications and, for the most part, they have been contributed successfully and fairly in to the wider point of what influences the business of perfume, what influences consumer choice and behaviour, how do trends and both develop as well as entrench. I'm not holding on dearly to this being THE explanation for the purple floral success. Every other point raised - about the chemical advancement of perfumery; to the simple commercial need to periodically inject novelty in to the market; to the fact that purple florals have been used in masculine perfumes that pre-date the 21st Century - are all absolutely fine. I accept and indeed touched upon every one of these points in the oriiginal post. The problem is an ideological one for some people, where they pretend they're not in fact living in a world where the Gillette advert pandering to women by feminising and, perhaps, scolding men has become a commercial and marketing norm because women hold so much influence over the spending habits and tastes of men.

Alas, for a handful of users, the ability to simply contradict the idea that 'purple florals' are feminine is enough to claim 'victoy' and - as LITERALLY suggested in this thread - to negate the very purpose of this topic...why? It's the old 'but it's not universal' argument. I'm just not interested in it. Not only that, but I actively dislike it as it's fundamentally suffocating of the truth and the ability of people to discuss, relate, and explore the world we have such a short time on in which to do these things. In short: it's stifling and a tricksy way of derailing discussions that, for whatever reason, you dislike. I'm not doing this again. You wanted to discuss feminism so there we go, yet another topic gives you the attention you sought. But that's it. Your points are not relevant, nor interesting, nor productive, nor indeed welcome as they are not offered in good faith. Nothing you've said negates the points I've made, it only argues that it's not universally true. Biiiiiiiiiiiiig whoop, as if that was ever what I was trying to claim. The reason the culture war rages on is because it's like trying to harmonise relativity and quantum mechanics - there is no cultural or philosophical 'string theory' precisely because the tenets of postmodernity are designed to be incompatible with enlightenment ideas of truth and reason which have filtered down and can be used in a broad, if not absolute, manner to discuss topics (such as fragrance) in respectful, productive, and interesting ways. Even then, string theory hasn't worked, and basenotes is not going to be the place where the cultural war is 'solved'. So this is utterly pointless. I have 'deconstructed' your deconstruction and any further attempt to debunk or belittle me and/or the ideas I have raised is now much more explicit in its motivations for other people reading, particularly given that most people will be unaware of your history of insulting me on this website.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Wow,

This is a rather impossible thread. What is male or female about a plant-based scent other than what we, as humans, culturally associate with that scent?

I suppose I'm saying here that when it comes to our favorite hobby, we should all try to get along with each other.

Indeed, herein lies the nuance of this discussion, and why trying to hold it on absolute terms is just mind numbing.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Good sir, I don't know you and you don't know me. This is not a personal judgement, just an observation based on your comments...

...People do not have to agree with you in order to still have respect for you. But, if they do not respect you to begin with then whatever you say will fall on deaf ears.

Good day.

I understand your comment. I probably sound more charged about this than I actually am. Blame that on international rugby being back yesterday!

I'm definitely annoyed about the manner ideology is used to derail threads, not just this one. I am probably sensitive to this as I have seen the potency of this mindset in the wider world, where it is far scarier and more destructive.

It's also not true to say I seek validation; I am on this site to seek communication, discussion etc, about something which I cannot and do not discuss with my friends as they are not interested in fragrance. I'm seeking something from this sort of post, certainly - and I'm frustrated at the manner in which come people get kicks out of derailing discussion, that much is true - but I'm not seeking validation. I like the fact that people have offered alternative ponts and bolstered other points I raised in my original post. This is interesting and the exact reason why I post and continue to post on this site and fragrantica. It's interesting and I learn from others who actually do have a greater understanding of perfumery than I do, who are here to discuss fragrance honestly and openly.

I take your point about it falling on deaf ears. That much is surely true. But I'm also aware there is a much larger, silent portion of either users or readers who are not reflected in discussions but who would surely rather we discuss topics that are reasonable and at least somewhat interesting.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

For all the dog piling, the OP has made some reasonable points.

Indeed. As I say, despite dishonest portrayals of my argument, I either left room for or explcitly referenced nearly every 'counter' point which other people have raised. I'm merely adding another interesting idea to the mix which, thus far, no one has been able to dismiss without resorting to insults about the fact I don't get to sleep with all my tinder matches because I don't want to get coronavirus again and/or be fined! Which, really, aside from the fact that it's :cheesy: is rather harsh. The clue is in the name: my celibacy, like everyone else's for at least the last month or so, is involuntary! If I had a say in the matter it wouldn't exist in quite the way it has over the last 12 months... :lolk:

Blame IFRA, blame the Creative Directors for being too ‘creative’. Something to bear in mind though and not beyond the realm of the unreasonable is that if one of these individuals had a more sinister or personal reason to include a note then they could abuse their position to make mens fragrances ‘smell like their grandmama’.

No one's to 'blame' 👅 ! The idea that I see this as a negative is a misreading. Choice is good. Dior Eau for Men is an exceptional fragrance, in my opinion, and I very nearly chose it over Beau de Jour. Please don't fall in to the trap of reading the strawman positions that others pretend I hold as my actual opinion! In terms of 'who' or 'who' is also responsible for the change - then yes, I agree. Ingredients, creative development etc. I seem to be the only one to raise the fact that oakmoss isn't well loved anymore because we don't live in a world where public smoking is acceptable. I'm of an age where I just caught the end of smoking as common, and indeed much of the latent dress/style/manner of postwar Britain, which to my mind seemed to end with the wealth explosion in the late 80s and 90s. Oakmoss and other heavier aromas smell great in smoky pubs. In fact, try Aventus if you're a smoker - it somehow manages to conjure something of that 'wow, this smells better with tobacco!' phenomenon. As far as I can tell I'm adding MORE, rather than less, to discussions. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this point - I also don't understand why people cannot accept that what I am saying is based in some understanding of social and commercial developments! It's far, far more interesting than an outdated regurgitation of mid-20th Century ideological talking points!

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

If Schwarzenegger smelled like Parma Violets would he be considered more feminine?

Presumably. At least a little bit, but I see no harm with 'externalising' some awareness of the fact that human beings have masculine and feminine potential within themselves, irrespective of sex, and that a healthy acceptance of this that also accepts which sex you are is a far better way to be than living to some two dimensional caricature of notions of gender. Is Arnie the peak of masculinity still? In terms of the public eye, I'd say Khabib is a far more contemporary measure of controlled, able, and 'true' masculinity. That said, perfume itself is a fairly feminine 'thing' - or at least it's not exactly masculine in its most basic form. I think this is a point to easily get stuck on. It's good, as a man, to add this dash of something more stylistic and feminine to a solid grounding of masculinity. The change as I see it, socially and culturally, is that many men, from boyhood, are told that what they naturally desire and what would become that solid grounding of masculinity is in fact 'bad', which is a shame. Indulgence and boredom is also a likely contributing factor to losing sight of I suppose this reality that men have to eventually face at some point - that they are in fact men, not simply genderless humans, which is something The Fall, among other things, is clearly touching upon in a faily profound manner in relation to puberty. But I don't want to go there as people aren't particularly receptive to my ideas on this matter of 'too much' and overindulgence, which is fair enough.

it’s a pendulum that will inevitably swing back to more obviously masculine traits in the mainstream eventually. The mainstream Homme fragrances that are considered masculine are mainly either the synth woody ambers or woody sweeties. For stuff more like the 80s and 90s you have to go for niche, artisanal or old stock.

This is almost certainly true and will likely come with another demographic shift. Certainly, you look at the way oud has taken the place of something like sandalwood or oakmoss in western perfumery, and you can see how additions to the cultural 'melting pot' will impact perfume. I can't see feminine male fragrances going away for the simple fact that we are now much more tolerant of and openly supportive of homosexuality in the west, and there's no suggestion that will change or why there won't be a portion of gay men who love the 'gender bending' creativity that Dior Homme represents, as well as Fleur du Male, Joop etc for the forseeable future. There may, instead, be an ever-greater 'splintering' of the fragrance market, in the way that social media tends to 'separate' people in to boxes. I can see that happening - more choice, more nuance etc., with even more concern for women and womens' tastes when it comes to male design/style - as that's where the money is!
 
Last edited:

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

I fundamentally disagree with this, what you describe doesn't sound like women wanting to feminize men so much as women not wanting to be treated and pursued as sexual objects especially in a professional environment. This seems like a completely reasonable request to me, and if a man is only able to see women in this capacity, the least he can do is to suppress that in the work place.

Yes, this is totally fair, and more a matter of language than anything else. I don't think the prime motivation is the desire to feminise men - it's merely a product of self interest. In some cases that's self protection, in others it's a means of leveraging your own power through, ironically, structural norms. You need to look no further than the cultures of European Courts to see how this can manifest, what drives it etc. It's very interesting. It's not totally analagous to the way wider society is being shaped but Orwell certainly touched upon something when his dystopian society didn't really extend to the proles, who were free to say, do, and behave as they liked as they had so little stake in the boons of society. No one really cares about making firefighting or metallury 'woke': or if they do, they're not getting much traction with it.

The unfortunate counter to this is something like 50 Shades of Grey. Again, the notion that humans are wholly consistent and coherent in their thinking and desires is obvioisly not true; someone could at once want to flirt with the 90s George Clooney-looking junior executive, for a variety of reasons, but at the same time obviously not wish to receive the advances of the IT tech. The same principle applies to fragrance; some men, sometimes, in some places. Increasingly, work is becoming a much more feminine and female realm, and thus it follows that - if men are to be made to buy and wear fragrance to work - that they conform. Conformity in this sense seems to make sense as smelling much more feminine than fragrances from the past, whether they be a powerhouse fougere or sporty aquatic. Despite what others have said I don't see this change as a negative! I don't know how many times I need to state this: I don't see it as a bad thing...!!!

This kind of thinking seems quite dated though, and I would suspect the 1970s was the last decade where men might have struggled with the relative newness of women in the workplace and felt the need to adjust accordingly to see women as professional colleagues. A lot of fragrance trends have come and gone since then which makes your argument even more tenuous, that it would take some 30 years for men's fragrance taste to finally adjust to accommodate women in the workplace.

I don't want to get too in to this point as I think you're being fair and delving too far away from fragrance would be getting off topic, which is not something I want to do with people offering honest discursive points, but I definitely think the manner in which institutions - including places of work - are now actively developed to suit women, as opposed to men, which starts in schools and works its way through education and in to public sector workplaces in particular, may surprise you. It all depends where you live and work, I suppose. If you work in The City of London then chances are you're still loving life in what is, although changing, still very much a rich boy's club. If you work in Media City, however, in Salford...it's very different.

I think the real 'change' would be men who grow out of boyhood, or a youth culture which is absolutely OBSESSED with sex and, increasingly, a hollow, pornographic representation of it, where fragrance, by and large, is clearly seen by a portion of men as a good way of adding to the way in which you appeal to women, and in to the 'adult' world where you see sex and the way men and women relate to each other more clearly. It's a case of maturity, and I would be surprised if there isn't still a portion of men who are the 'cologne guys' at their work, at least before work became remote and virtual. So it's not a case of social change, per se. A lot of boys and young men never really associate with women or girls in any meaningful way until they get to the workplace. I'm amazed at how many of my mates growing up didn't 'get' women, or know how to relate to, talk to them, what makes them stick etc. Some still don't, in large part due to sexually segregated education. Uni is often the first time they see them as peers who they hang out with, rather than chase as horny teenagers, and that's hardly a time of sexual control! So I don't think this is an outdated premise as much as it is an eternal one - of men and women, or males and females, learning how to socialise with each other. And I'd also add one final point: in spite of Gen Z's greater adoption of unisex and non binary gender identities and branding than millennials or previous generations, a lot of that is learned virtually. One thing fragrance is not is a virtual product. Kids these days are alienated from 'real world' socialisation in a way that no other generation has been, and it's obviously getting worse with lockdown. Learning how to actually style yourself, or hold yourself, in a way that isn't designed to construct an 'image' for social media is something that, clearly, young people are stunted in. It takes time. I've experienced this myself within universities and in work, the way in which people younger than me are hot shit on social media and tech, but definitely have missed out on some parts of socialisation that people my age and older had. At least generally speaking. So I don't think it's an outdated 'need' to effectively create a 'readymade' genre that can be sold as 'worksafe'. Rather, along with all the other reasons, it's recognising a social trend of younger men not really knowing what to wear, and older men wanting something less 'sporty' that doesn't smell outdateed. The mistakes with fragrances are there to be made and if - or when - you get a negative reaction for wearing Sauvage to work, then chances are that's when you head to the internet and seek out something like Jeremy's top 10 office scents or whatever, of which the purple florals will be a major part.


Look, there are a lot of reasons why this style might have taken off and while your thesis might sound interesting at first, it doesn't hold water. We could get Freudian and say that it reminds men of their mothers, especially with the Chanel connection of Olivia Polge creating Dior Homme and Chanel's signature use of iris. It could be that the iris makes Dior Homme smell just different enough, but not necessarily feminine, that it helped it stand out amid a market of sameness. Smelling Dior Homme again recently I'm struck by just how traditionally masculine it smells. Though not listed, I get a good dose of tobacco and woods while the iris always gave me an earthy "clay" like feeling. It doesn't read as feminine to me but as almost classical ultra refined and sophisticated French perfumery.

Yes, there are definitely lots of reasons why this style has taken off. I agree. I don't see the problem with offering another reason to the public forum and it seems a fairly reasonable suggestion in my mind, supported by a wider understanding of the associated social or commercial changes that have occurred since 1990.

Of course these are not ultra-feminine fragrances that smell like jasmine and rainbows and fluffy dog tails. They're feminised masculines. There's a difference. Men still need to like/buy/wear them well enough.


I don't have any inside information to support my claim, but I am/was a huge fan of Hedi Slimane and followed closely his fragrance launches at Dior. I know that he is a control freak and would have been intimately involved in the launch of this pillar men's fragrance and that it bears a signature character also found in his line for Celine. And I know that Hedi's primary source of inspiration is creative youth movements (usually musical but more recently including tik-tok generation). He is hyper specific in his casting and his vision is of a waif sometimes androgynous usually quite delicate and beautiful and always very cool man. As far form office drone as you can get.

Interesting. That would certainly add more weight to the idea that this was a happy accident, and instead the subsequent irises - most obviously Eau for Men, released in 2014 - was a product of seeing how much women liked it, how applicable it could become in more 'worksafe' ways, and all the rest of it. This seems to be the most likely explanation to my mind, not that the whole thing was planned out in 2005. Rather, it's a development - something that has seen Dior react in 2014, which in turn led to Valentino Uomo and Prada releasing similar albeit different variations on the 'purple floral' theme. Which is why I say it is in vogue - it seems like the mid 2010s is when this 'genre' really established itself, not 2005. There are surely others which I haven't included - which others are free to mention.

Still, that's not to say the corporate side of Dior doesn't want to sell to office workers. Hedi left Dior over a contract dispute (basically he wanted even more control) so only after he left they have destroyed the exclusives line and start to make generic ad campaigns with Robert Pattinson that might speak more to the average office worker. It is hilarious to me someone like Jeremey would recommend this as an office safe wear. I guess all subversive movements do get cannibalized by the mainstream. It's the same irony as conservatives using Queen songs at their rallies. Not sure if this is poetic justice or a disgrace to the spirit of the original creations.

Now THAT'S an interesting point. Definitely.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Agreed. Now, if the OP had cited a scientific study that involved pheromones in fragrances, such as anamalics/synthetics that emulated human pheromones that men or women produce, and if the scientific paper found men were responding like a female to masculine/same-sex pheromones........THEN the OP would have evidence of de-masculinization of men and could make a case that we have a potential genetic or developmental problem caused by some environmental pollution or medication. But that's not the case in this thread. Here we have what amounts to a completely "cultural" perception of the sexes and their choices.

I would not be surprised if I time traveled into the future a few hundred years and found men wearing fragrances that women today wear and the reverse for women. Heck, I have met several women who work at fragrance counters who wear fragrances marketed at men such as Aventus and Tom Ford Tobacco Oud and others. People today are wearing what they like to smell moreso than what they think other people like. And that is a very good thing. Fragrance should be an individual thing. I have a few fragrances here and there in my wardrobe that some may think lean feminine. But I clearly am masculine in appearance, so I have zero confidence issues wearing them. I just like how they smell and my fragrances are for 'me' first and if someone else happens to enjoy them that's cool too.

Pheromones are by and large junk science. Or at least, they're corporate science. Not to say they don't exist but it's a primordial sense in a human being, something archaic that is far less influential on our own behaviour than more intentional, conscious forms of behaviour and sensing. In short, modern perfume is FAR more potent at hijacking our limbic system than any pheromone in isolation. Far more. It's like comparing a McDonald's hamburger compared to, I don't know...carrion meat. One has been designed to make use crave it because it tastes 'good', even if it's shit. Carrion meat, as long as it's not rotten, will taste far worse in comparison despite probably being marginally better for you, depending on the animal. The whole 'commercialisation of pheromones' in to perfumery or otherwise was a clever trick of marketing and, I suppose, propaganda, nothing more. At least not yet. I don't want to rule out the fact that there cannot be greater isolation and improvement upon pheromones so they can surpass the effect contemporary perfume has on the human brain and our preferences/likes, however unlikely it seems.

Quite the opposite when it comes to the 'cultural' perception of sex. On the one hand you have some people who espouse the idea that gender is a cultural artefact and biology is irrelevant. I don't want to go down that rabbithole as enough has been spent on the ideological culture war but I'm not resting solely on cultural stereotypes. I'm responding to social, economic developments in a way that tallies with culture and no small amount of prior knowledge based in a solid biological understanding (thankfully) of human beings, which is certainly more robust than the current notions of how the mind's sense of self is superior to biological reality.

In terms of women and masculinity, I think 'women wear trousers, men don't wear dresses' is relevant. Gender nonconformity and indeed 'genderlessness' appeals to women for a variety of reasons, not least as a means of competing with men in the workplace - something I have already referred to. I feel this discussion is probably one that is hard to have with enthusiasts while still hoping to have any real grounding in the wider world and relating to how most people think, precisely because so many enthusiasts see perfume as a hobby, or an obsession, and have got to the stage where what intrigues or pleases them has reached the point of exploring any and all fragrances for that little *something* that will be lost to almost anyone else but makes the enthusiast adore it. Just as 'collecting' fragrances won't make sense to most people, of having 100+ fragrances to smell and/or wear, I think the enthusiast mindset of enjoying fragrances in the way say, for yourself etc, as olfactive constructions, or even works of art as some people see them, makes it hard to get back to the more mundane reason that most people wear fragrance: to smell better than your natural body. And at least for many men: to add something to your personal style that, in particular, women will appreciate. Losing sight of this fact, of assuming that the enthusiast is the norm, is probably what leads to reacting with scorn when I or someone else dares mention this reality! Fragrance may be an individual thing but it's also interesting that, even within the enthusiast community, certain commonalities based on experience, age, wealth etc seem to come to pass and become 'norms'. Perhaps we're less individual than we like to think?
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Alright, good stuff. Got the thinking juices flowing on a freezing cold Sunday moning.

Hopefully that gets things back on track.

I'd be interested if we could 'list' (yes, I know...) the scents that fall under the 'purple floral office' type?

Dior's Homme line (specifically Eau for Men)
Prada L'Homme line
Valentino Uomo line (specifically Intense)

Any others?
 

Emanuel76

Basenotes Dependent
Jun 16, 2018
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Any others?
The Different Company - Bois d'Iris

I prefer it in warm weather, when the vetiver and spices doesn't overwhelm the iris.
Minimal sweetness.

Definitely the small 50 ml bottle. It's much cuter. :happy:



xze1izz3mye4.jpg




slpfrsly said:
Prada L'Homme line
Any others?

Did you tried Infusion d'Iris from Prada?
It's so good in the summer time - light, refreshing, very fluffy from musk, it surround you in a soapy bubble.
It's my "aquatic". :rolleyesold:
In the other seasons I don't like it, because the musk doesn't blossom enough, it's not so diffusive anymore, and the soapiness became too harsh and brain scratching for me.


infusion-d-iris-eau-de-parfum_1637_3_1521817911.jpg




Van Cleef & Arpels - Bois d'Iris


Van-Cleef-amp-Arpels-Bois-DIris-45ml-EDP-1.jpg
 

Larry Hoover

Basenotes Junkie
Jan 18, 2015
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Alright, good stuff. Got the thinking juices flowing on a freezing cold Sunday moning.

Hopefully that gets things back on track.

I'd be interested if we could 'list' (yes, I know...) the scents that fall under the 'purple floral office' type?

Dior's Homme line (specifically Eau for Men)
Prada L'Homme line
Valentino Uomo line (specifically Intense)

Any others?

Cartier L'Envol (iris)
Lalique Hommage a L'Homme (violet)
Narciso Rodriguez For Him EDP (iris)
Amouage Imitation Man (iris + violet)
Zegna Florentine Iris (iris + violet)
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Far from being anything particularly 'thorough', nor to claim that this is in any way scientific, this may be of interest to those who think that most people now don't see this type of purple floral accord or smell as anything other than 'normal masculinity'. One's own views are not reality. It's an important thing to remind ourselves from time to time and, in spite of my voice clearly being a relatively solitary one on certain matters, it would be good if others could at the very respect differences. Not least when their own specious assertions about what 'most' people think are based on such dodgy, circular reasoning.





And a final point about everything else discussed. I do sense there may be an obliviousness to the way in which the world caters to, and is increasingly infleunced by, women. This may be particularly true for those living outside major cities, and who are closer to retirement than the age of entering work. The purported beliefs seem to suggest that there isn't in fact a 'feminising' of the world but rather a 'righting of the wrongs of patriarchy', or whatever, despite the fact that often the changes being made by women and for women jar with feminist philosophy (which, again, is why this is not actually about feminism despite on person believing/wishing it to be). Which in turn drives the hostility to what I'm saying. People don't tend to see change in 'real time'. Not least because even historical trends or narratives necessarily are honed from messy, contradictory events and facts.

I'd once again reference the culture of the European Royal Courts if anyone is stuck on the idea that it is through simple gender/sex percentages that people are influenced; or that a culture is necessarily 'masculine' if men are seen to run it, or that a behaviour is masculine if men do it. If you can make the claim that 'everything men do is therefore masculine because men do it' and apply it to the fashions, tastes etc of the Courts - particularly in France - of the 17th and 18th Centuries under the guise of relativity totally divorced from any sense of 'nature' then you can certainly do it by claiming that "lipstick irises are now masculine aromas" simply because brands sell them to men. It's a logical fallacy, of course, and most people will disagree with the details of the premise if exposed to these fragrances (particularly so in the case of men when smelling them without female approval/validation), but the argument of course follows if you've done enough of a job on people to believe similar logic in another matter or field for it to have become a belief 'system' that is transferrable by rote. That's the essence of ideology. If, on the other hand, you have a broader, less ideological understanding of humanity then you'll know that people - and the sexes - don't relate to one another like that. Society doesn't get 20% more feminine if you add 20% more women in to it. It's far more complex than that.

Take 30 boy scouts. Now add 1 girl in to the mix and see how the boys start behaving differently, how some boys compete, some retreat, how behaviour changes and the 'culture' and dynamics between people are impacted. Now add 10 girls to the 30 boys and see what that does. Now add 30 girls and see what that does. Now add 90 girls and see how the male behaviour changes. See how it changes over time, too, how it settles and differs from the point of introduction. Come back in 10 years time, when a whole new generation has come through, and see what differences have occurred. Even then this is all rather rudimentary in terms of relating to the present day and gendered changes within culture and work. This creation, or asserting, of a Year Zero some time around 1970 from which everything else flows isn't one I understand as anything other than a fringe, if loudly expressed, belief for socio-political purposes. The idea that there is a scale of masculinity and femininity that progresses neatly and coherently in a linear manner depending simply on how many women and men are in the workplace totally misses the point as well, just as denying the manner in which many workplace cultures, and wider society, have become influenced by women for women, rather than simply becoming 'less masculine'. In fact, it seems to me that an impressive facet of modern identity politics is to claim feminine things are in fact genderless. Perfume is surely no exception, particularly in the niche world. Unless you truly think that the developed world was 100% or even just overwhelmingly masculine and patriarchal up until something like 1968, or maybe 1918? This is of course obviously facile, circular reasoning, based on theoretical, self fulfilling, and almost solely ideological beliefs about human beings and their 'social construction', where gender at once doesn't exist and yet is cruel and vicious when it can be placed within men (as long as they're wealthy, competent, and getting shit done in a non-woke manner). That hypocritical bind - that the tool for deconstruction simultaneously undermines its own analysis - is one that seems to fly over the heads over its exponents. If you haven't noticed how feminine much of popular and, increasingly, corporate culture has become, then either you haven't noticed - which is likely to be a lot of people based on how/where they work, if they're outside the major cities, major companies, the public sector etc - or don't understand (or care?).

By and large, though, I don't think there's anything insidious, let alone conspiratorial, about the purple floral trend. Rather, it sits within a wider context in which "the future is (professed to be) female", and indeed much of the present seems to validate that. Once again, I don't see the particular growth of purple floral fragrances within the masculine designer world as inherently 'bad'. For all the publicly accepted ways in which men and boys are disincentivised from succeeding for the sake of women and girls' benefit, and why, the most obvious answer is simply 'self interest', as all of this is (why did Tom Ford suggest straight men should try anal sex - it's at least partially based on self interest!); it has nothing to do with some evil puppeteer nor is it a conspiracy theory. I am not and do not make the claim that this trend is borne out of a desire to feminise men as the primary let alone sole motivation but it is a consequence of collective female self interest. There isn't a corporate conspiracy, unless they're putting mind altering chemicals in to fragrances... :tongue:

No, instead, the reason is really (or at least, so I thought) quite simple: self interest. And the consequence of this has been for brands, seemingly around the early to mid 200s, to produce a less overtly masculine form of male aroma and roll it out in to a largely 'sporty' or 'sweet' market of male fragrances with the requisite marketing to try to profit from a trend and predilection they discovered through focus grouping women. I can't see how some people are missing the point here. Once the likelihood of threat and harm reduced massively in the 20th Century, once abundance created a safety net, women pursued their self interest which continues with and certainly without the doctrines of feminism in to the workplace, which includes changing the workplace to make it a more feminine space with female-friendly cultures (the idea that the fashion world, of which perfumery is part, isn't feminine is of course nonsensical). It's self interest, that's all it is, and women's interest has become a major commercial concern, as linked earlier in this thread but which, by this point, should be common knowledge. If not, turn on your television and wait for an ad break. My premise is really not contentious and so much more interesting than the lazy application of an ideological, historically vapid manner of viewing the world that concludes 'this is just what men are, this is what they like, and we have always been at war with Eastasia' etc. It seems that a small minority cannot manage to read the expression of that premise without resorting to the most asinine misinterpretation of it before resorting to insults. Hopefully, for everyone else, there was at least something interesting in this thread.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Nice suggestions. Some of those are proboably a bit outside the more 'mainstream' than I was thinking of but I think it's good to move the discussion on. I think the niche world, and how orris/iris/violet is being used, is interesting. Personally, I don't like them, but then I also don't like cucumber - I wonder if that has anything to do with it!?
 

Andrewthecologneguy

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Dec 26, 2006
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Wow, what a thread.

Took a while to read (glance) through...lots of emotion OMG.

I'll add this...

Back in 1998, 2 masculine fragrances were launched that were somewhat feminine, and would fit well in today's fragrance landscape.

Neither contained iris or orris, but they each centered around flowers (not rose) that were almost exclusively featured in feminine offerings.

I wore and enjoyed both very much and still reach for them every now and again; I can only imagine there were others.

My point: feminine masculine scents are not new; that they have become center stage is simply where the trend is at the moment.




As an side, almost a decade later, JPG pushed the envelope with white florals for men via Fleur du Male, a 'cleaner' take on Joop! Homme, the modern progenitor of feminine scents for men - a trailblazer I still enjoy today, as it soldiers on in its 32nd year
 

Brooks Otterlake

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 12, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

The tediously insistent and misguided axe-grinding on gender in contemporary society says more about people's own anxieties about personal identity than it does about the actual mechanics and forces of culture.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to weigh in here, just as a rebuttal to this idea that Dior Homme was really some game-changing move. Was it influential? Sure, but there's a long history of feminines getting reworked as notable masculines.

Guerlain's a fine example, already cited in this thread. Jicky gets reworked as Mouchoir de Monsieur. Shalimar gets reworked as Habit Rouge (beloved of Keith Richards).

Indeed, masculine perfumery up to the 60s was generally pretty floral. Scents like Dunhill for Men (1934) and Rochas Moustache (1949) are really just citrus-infused florals that have plenty of feminine peers from that time.

And even the fougere, the most classic of masculine styles, is really just a "purple floral." It's been the backbone of Western masculine-marketed perfumery since Houbigant came out with Fougere Royale in the late 1800s, paving the way for stuff like the aforementioned Jicky, but also Caron pour Un Homme and Dana Canoe.

And while the original Aramis might qualify as the first iconic "powerhouse" masculine, its aldehydic opening pulled from "feminine" styles at the time. A number of Aramis' subsequent flankers were just reworkings of Estee Lauder feminines (900 reimagined Aromatics Elixir, while JHL was really just Cinnabar for Men).

If the 1970s and 1980s saw the rise of some gruff, mossy masculines, you still saw plenty of florals for men during that time, both in the designer tier (Grey Flannel) and in the "luxury" tiers (Amouage's flagship masculine, released in '83, is really just a animalic floral). Even "manly man" frag Kouros is essentially just a really bold floral fragrance, with an opening that has a lot of echoes of the feminine scents of the time.

Additionally, what were 1980s scents like Obsession for Men but an extension of the spicy floral, vanillic amber style that finds a natural successor in stuff like today's Dior Homme Intense?

Honestly, Dior Homme's concept wasn't really all that groundbreaking. Even just going back to the 90s, Calvin Klein had already done the gender-bending thing with the floral CK One.

I side with those who believe that the emphasis on iris/orris in the years following Dior Homme's release has more to do with shifting landscape of materials and technology than anything else.
 

ClockworkAlice

Cakesniffer
Basenotes Plus
Jan 3, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

And additionally, as there is a lot of talk about masculine fragrances getting more "feminine" (while meaning probably many things, but mostly sweeter) in the past decades, I'd just like to add that the same is happening with feminine fragrances as well - they are getting much more sweeter than the fragrances in 80s, 70s, 40s or 20s were. When young folks like me smell the greatest feminines of the 20th century, they all feel not only strangely "perfumey" or "oldschool", many say they smell very "masculine", too - because they're often much less sweet and more bitter than the masculines of our time.
Things like oakmoss can seem outright weird to a modern nose, too, no matter if it's in a male or female marketed scent. It's just so bitter and dry and strange compared to everything we're used to. It takes time to appreciate the old scents.

What I want to say is that maybe it's not about masculine scents getting "feminine". I think BOTH masculines and feminines are just getting sweeter, and people in general are enjoying the sweeter fragrances more, and therefore we are getting even more of them. I mean, Thierry Mugler's Angel in 90s was the first big gourmand and it felt overwhelmingly sweet to everyone. I smell Angel now and it's not even very sweet to me, it's just a slightly sweetened and fruitified patchouli bomb to me - because fragrances that are made today are much sweeter now!

And we'll be getting the sweet fragrances until the fashion starts shifting again, and the shift is mostly driven by young people not wanting to look or sound or smell like their parents. It's just like the pants - we had the wide legged ones, then skinny, then wide legged again, and the wheel keeps rolling on and on. I'm interested to see what the future brings though.
 

Ken_Russell

Basenotes Institution
Jan 21, 2006
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

With many thanks for this point, admitting to like male violet fragrances like Grey Flannel very much
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

An interesting and relevant link that touches on Polge's use of orris: https://www.cafleurebon.com/cafleurebon-modern-masterpieces-dior-homme-give-that-man-a-floral/

"According to Michael Edward’s Fragrances of the World data base; prior to 2005 there were only 10 fragrances which were classified as masculine soft florals. After Dior Homme, in the following seven years, seventeen masculine soft florals have been released with the majority of those iris-focused and mass-market. Dior Homme made it safe for a man to wear a new flower in his olfactory lapel."
 

Beck

Basenotes Dependent
May 13, 2014
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.


LOL.
No way I’m gonna read all this, but if somewhere in this thread it’s said that florals are for women or anything like this, man, OH MAN, people really like to fit in boxes. It’s “comfortable” and hot. Like laying in a bathtub full of fresh shit.
 
Last edited:

GoldWineMemories

Basenotes Dependent
Nov 22, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

An interesting and relevant link that touches on Polge's use of orris: https://www.cafleurebon.com/cafleurebon-modern-masterpieces-dior-homme-give-that-man-a-floral/

"According to Michael Edward’s Fragrances of the World data base; prior to 2005 there were only 10 fragrances which were classified as masculine soft florals. After Dior Homme, in the following seven years, seventeen masculine soft florals have been released with the majority of those iris-focused and mass-market. Dior Homme made it safe for a man to wear a new flower in his olfactory lapel."


that suggests a fashion change not a paradigm shift imo
 

finsfan

Basenotes Dependent
Aug 6, 2003
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Trumpers Violet shave cream was very popular for years until reformulation regulations hit it. Also they had done sort of Cologne for maybe a hundred years - Ajaccio Violets.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

that suggests a fashion change not a paradigm shift imo

Yeah of course. I'm not arguing it's a paradigm shift. It's still a significant change in fragrance and fashion, and a clear change that reflects and ties in with wider societal changes.
 

slpfrsly

Physician, heal thyself
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
Re: Purple Florals; or, "how to change the way men smell" with Iris & Violet 'work' scents.

Trumpers Violet shave cream was very popular for years until reformulation regulations hit it. Also they had done sort of Cologne for maybe a hundred years - Ajaccio Violets.

I'm leaning towards think violet is less appropriate, or at least less integral, to the points being made here than iris is. In part because obviously there is a history of violet being used live lavender has been in male grooming products. At the same time it also does tie in to this trend/change and I definitely feel like men who wore violet leaf fragrances (Green Irish Tweed) would be more open to something like Dior Homme and the subsequent 'floral office' fragrances as discussed in this thread.
 

Latest News

Top