Example: I could definitely NOT wear the Lauder Private Collection Tuberose Gardenia that I found at at antique (!!!!!) shop recently; and I couldn't wear my Spellbound by Lauder either. I'd be forced to wear Equipage or Bel Ami or something like that. And I thought: Is that such a bad thing?? Maybe it's a good thing. In that, at least, if I wore a "women's" fragrance, it would still be transgressive. And if society had abolished the idea of gendered fragrances, there wouldn't be any transgression. If there are gendered frags, at least you can still raise an eyebrow by wearing against type (if you're a man; if you're a woman wearing a masculine, I genuinely don't think anyone would actually notice). And that's something. They say that when there's a repressive "moral" environs in your society (think 198os; now think Madonna), then you can really easily draw attention to yourself by violating said moral code.
So maybe the idea of gendered fragrances, for the moment, isn't such a bad thing.
Sure, it's a half-baked idea, but what would you expect??? I'm not a professor paid to come up with bullshit! If I were, this entry would be a HELLUVA lot longer and include a LOT more bigger words. And probably some Shakespearean quotes too! So there! Anyway, make of it what you will. It was just a passing thought that occurred to me while listening to David Sedaris today.
Flerp!
E
