I am not a fan of the word "unisex." In the world of fragrance, "unisex" is used to describe scents deemed acceptable for either men or women. A quick notation supposedly saying it is okay for anyone to wear this perfume regardless of gender identity. Now, I know what you are thinking: wait a minute, didn’t I argue in past posts that this is how all fragrance should be viewed? Shouldn't we be applauding unisexuality as it breaks down traditional gender categories? My answer is no. I do not believe "unisex" is the answer.
To explain why, let's first look at the history and usage of the word "unisex" and how we ended up here.
Unisex History
Unisex fashion is not new. Many cultures have seen clothing shared by men and women. In ancient Greco-Roman times, togas were worn by both sexes. Early Chanel designs of the 1920s, with structured silhouettes and choice of materials, also referenced menswear, and the flappers’ short hairstyles echoed a similar sentiment. Socio-economic influences, like Rosie the Riveter in World War II or Katharine Hepburn wearing pants, further shaped these trends.
However, the word "unisex" only entered the fashion vernacular in the late 1950s. Two key factors were 50s Rock 'n Roll musicians and the Beatniks. Elvis Presley’s rise made jeans and t-shirts popular for both men and women. The Beat Generation reinforced the androgynous look with black skinny pants, turtlenecks, and berets, using fashion to rebel against mainstream ideals. This anti-materialist approach further influenced popular Rock 'n Roll culture, including The Beatles.
I could list more examples, but we are here to talk about fragrance. Arguably, the first influence of unisexuality on fragrance came via Jovan Musk Oil in 1972. Jovan drew inspiration from the free love movement, embracing overt sexuality in its marketing, not androgyny. The fragrance celebrated sexual union rather than promoting gender ambiguity.
CKOne, released in 1994, captured a different vision of unisex. It emphasized sexual ambiguity and a more queer-influenced definition of gender, with marketing showing diverse race, gender, and sexual identities. CKOne became the benchmark of unisex fragrance, but it relied on the least common denominator of fragrance ingredients, a simple citrus-based formulation.
Three Reasons Unisex is Wrong
Three key reasons explain why "unisex" is problematic. First, the word does not mean what it claims. Technically, "unisex" means "one sex," which feels sterile and asexual. To truly reflect gender fluidity, one might use "bi" for two or "omni" for all.
Second, using the word reinforces traditional gender separations promoted by the fragrance industry. By validating this third category, we tacitly accept the "for him" and "for her" framework, which I refuse to do. Fragrance is a personal, emotional connection, not a gendered requirement.
Third, "unisex" thinking has led to diluted formulations. When creating for a unisex brief, perfumers often choose the safest, most neutral ingredients, usually citrus, resulting in a limited palette. The success of CKOne reinforced this myopic approach. It prevents creativity and limits the full expressive potential of fragrance.
The truth is, the wearer is the only gendered component of any fragrance. Do not let fear prevent you from experiencing the full range of fragrant beauty. Do not allow the industry to sell you a third tier without accountability for the gender-based problems they themselves created. This is not heroic; it is parasitic.
In short, forget "for him" and "for her." Fragrance is "for you." Wear what you like, not what you are told.