.jpg)
How many times have you heard that line in one variation or another? Or are you one of the sufferers who feels like you're going to erupt any minute now from the fumes that are coming your way from down the hall? There are two sides to every argument and the modern (mostly Americanised) phenomenon of complaining about perfume-wearing in the workplace and public spaces is interesting to dissect, if hysterically overacted in some cases. Like the one involving Susan McBride, a Detroit city employee who claimed a co-worker’s perfume and room deodorizer caused her to suffer from migraines and nausea and in turn sued the city, claiming the scented workplace hindered her from working properly.
Most impressively, nevertheless, McBride actually won a $100,000 settlement and Detroit city employees in the three buildings where McBride works are now being warned not to wear scented products, including colognes, aftershave, perfumes and deodorants, or even use candles and air fresheners! Incidents like this and reportage from common folks who comment on MSN articles citing the incident as an example of a greater issue make me think. And the majority of interesting questions in this world begin with one simple word: "why". WHY has scent been given so much importance in today's society? Why is this annoyance greater now rather than decades before? And why is perfume and scented goods demonized in such a way? Is perfume wearing the new taboo? Or the new smoking?
Let's start by a typical example, taken from actual comments by readers. One woman complains about her co-worker constantly brewing fresh chai tea five times a day on her desk (Talk about a lot of constipation, but let's not tackle this right now). The smell of tea being brewed bothers her. She complains she's getting a headache. The other woman quips by saying she got a headache by the smell of the noodles that the other woman brought at the office the other day! The situation escalates to the point that the incident is reported to Human Resources and the floor manager. Chair brewing is brought to a halt. You see...nothing is as uncomplicated as a simple repulsion to the smell of something. Imagine how this can take on other shades of meaning when the offending item in question is a scented gift from a beloved one or even if it takes on the "enlightened" appeal of aromatherapeutic products. Or...the horrors, a humble deodorant (banning it risking a major case of the BOs) or the cleaning fluid for the floors!
Scent mapping is starting to become the equivalent of turf wars and a victim attitude that would "pay" for other things, some of which are tangible in the form of monetary recompensation. People have got ideas, after that $100,000 settlement. But it is the power trip which gives the thrill. Scent has always biologically been a way to mark one's territory and man (and woman), a grown-up animal out of the jungle, is refining the process by donning olfactory shoulder pads, marking one's personal space. Refuting someone's right to gnaw on your own personal space -within the public one- seems like resistance to usurped authority, claiming part of the common territory back, setting the line on someone's power. Doubly so, as perfume choice and individual odour is such an intimate, personal matter. It reads as rejection of someone on a deep, core level. How many times have you rejected a potential lover because you didn't like the way they smelled? And how many times have you felt flattered because someone praised your scent?
.jpg)
First of all, the frivolity of perfume seems ingrained in a WASP mentality, the glorification of soap and water of almost religious significance. "Cleanliness is next to godliness", right? Interestingly, the aphorism is similarly coined in other languages to extol the value of cleaning up; but the connection is not made to the divine, but rather with other values, such as social status. To further this syllogism, one might argue that by eschewing the god-prefered clean smell of soap and water, covering it up with perfume is "reeking" of suspicious motives. What are you trying to cover up, dude? Perfume wearing has for long being tied to members of the fair sex of low reputation in particular (parfum de puta), trying to cover up the smell of other men on them, or a witch-hunt mentality in which scent was used to ensnare men and control them through the subliminal medium of olfaction.Another reason might be that the cubicle farm culture is most prevalent in the US rather than other countries. The tight-knit space does induce discomfort, conflict and ennui! Someone has to be blamed and perfume is so easy to target. Especially so since smells invade our space and trigger emotional responses. Which makes me further the thought: Has no one considered Sick Building Syndrome? Several of the symptoms described for perfume intolerance happen to be identical with those for the above condition.
What is perhaps even more intriguing is that I distinctly recall a perfumer saying that American perfumes are made with a higher concentration within the established Eau de Toilette and Eau de Parfum concentrations so as to satisfy the taste to have your perfume announcing you, a form of "olfactory shoulder pads" which used to be very demanded by the market focus groups on US soil. Historical fact confirms that some of the most potent, powerful fragrances first met with success in the US, such as Narcisse Noir by Caron, due to this preference. In a globalised market perhaps this isn't always the case, although several popular fragrances do get produced at different factories for different countries ("made in US" vs "made in France" etc., plus the difference in the alcohol used as a carrier vehicle for the essences) Several of the modern "clean" scents bearing American brand names (the Clean brand for instance) are so harsh and synthetic that they do pierce sinuses. In view of the above is it any wonder that lots of Americans are complaining? I don't think it's entirely their fault! But it does make for a new arena for the claim of personal space in an increasingly tight, overpopulated world.
On to you: Is perfume the latest taboo? Is it the new weapon to battle one's battles in the workplace? Do you have any problems from someone else's scent?
pics via legalblogwatch.typepad.com and dentalcollectibles.com
Posts
.jpg)
77 comments:
This is such a complicated discussion and your points are completely valid (I agree with everything).
I wear perfume to work each day but I try to keep it low sillage. Up to now nobody ever complained, although there was some talk about a colleague who could you washing soap and powder on him and his clothes more often.
I have a colleague whose perfume I can't stand (and I wonder how can she love it so, but that is another issue) but her perfume is only noticeable when she stands close to me so I can live with that.
What I'm trying to say is, we are all very tolerant here - there are 12 of us in one large room (without cubicles) and we all tend to eat there from time to time as well, and no one has ever complained regarding smells.
I do believe though if you want to make life miserable for a colleague, complaining about their habits that waft is a pretty sure way (but it also sounds suspiciously nasty and like you are just being mean).
Btw, our secretary called me from my desk the other day to smell the nice perfume our male boss is wearing, there was some still wafting in the corridor after he left. :)
This is very interesting. I particularly like the analogy with smoking- although obviously I do accept that is harmful and dangerous for health- I as an asthmatic who was once hospitalised after being in too much cigar smoke- think the way smokers civil liberties have been encrouched is awful while, in this country anyway, I see very little effort to do anything about the rabid use of illegal drugs. There are anti smoking officers in the west end of London but no one to stop me getting pressurised to take cocaine in the same bars.
Anyway onto scent. Apart from men who put on far too much scent I am rarely bothered by smell- and honestly sometimes I do quite like the over done thing sometimes.
I think the problem arising in America is also interesting. Their taste has always tended towards the cleaner side of scent and this is almos the next step. Surely though deoderant helps us all have a better day!
I don't believe in an over sterile environment and that extends to scent. People should be mindful and not wear too much but to just block out smell is insane- that would lead us down a path of forgetting how to smell at all. It also smacks of a crazy type of puritanism.
My colleague does steam broccoli every day and while that isn't plesant she opens the windows and we get through it you know- it's life, food smells, better to have it than not!
I like to wear head-kicking perfumes and sometimes I am really conscious of the fact that I might have gotten a bit over-excited with the spraying or dabbing in the morning. At work there is nothing but a four foot cubicle partition between myself and a girl who has asthma and allergies, so I've told her to let me know if my perfume is ever making her feel unwell and I will be happy to go and wash off as much of it as I can. (She never has though - she usually comments favourably and tries out a bit of whatever I am wearing on the day.)
I think it comes down to commonsense. Asking someone to not wear perfume, after-shave, deodorant, highly-scented body lotions or shampoos or the like is somewhat unreasonable. However, I don't understand why people would be using room sprays, scented candles, oil burners and so on in the office. Who even does that? Is that an American thing? I've never seen it before.
Hmmm. It's a slippery slope.
The worst Red Door/Giorgio/Poison sillage would have been preferable to the fragrance emanated by a very nice lady I once worked with who consumed a LOT of garlic. The boss eventually had to say something. Too bad sandalwood isn't edible.
I know there are some people who are truly affected in an awful way by fragrance, but I think most people who claim to be exaggerate their symptoms in order to give "legitimate" cover to just not liking someone else's scent. There have always been some folks who wore too much scent (and I find men to be guilty of this just as frequently, perhaps more, than women), but I think the increase in the number of "official" complaints & lawsuits & whathaveyou reflect our culture's increasing sense of personal entitlement. There is a rapidly escalating culture of "I want what I want when I want it" in this country, with little or no regard for others or willingness to compromise. Turning the dislike of someone fragrance into a "health" issue is often, I think, just another example of this.
Excellent article! This could be avoided on so many levels by people just using common sense and taking responsibility for their actions, something I see less and less of every day. Interesting that some American market perfumes are made at higher concentrations. I agree with your comment that so many of the "clean" scents are so harsh they are unwearable.
skrzypce
I think you were getting to the truth when you mentioned that the number of people who are genuinely medically allergic to frangrances is actually quite low. What we have in North America is a culture of fashionable sensitivities. Chances are you know someone who is genuinely convinced that they are "sensitive" to something, be it fragrance, wheat, dairy, yeast, sugar, or just "environmental." Of course they believe it, when the symptoms of these sensitivities can range from acne, depression, fatigue, heachaches, insomnia, runny nose, intestinal problems, overweight, or any unexplained medical condition.
I'm not saying that it doesn't feel real to them, things can feel pretty real when you're convinced, but I do think that it's rarely actually real. It's just a popular anxiety. Hopefully is blows over.
I do think that we Americans are not as far as we often think from our hedonism-eschewing past. Evidence of this is everywherehere, the latest being the printing of calorie and fat content on restaurant menus and talk that it be a legal requirement for all restaurants, not just the fast-food ones.
Also, there seems to be a bit of anti-immigrant sentiment being voiced here and there -- I remember one poster on a perfume forum being absolutely belligerant about strange-smelling foreign foods in the office refrigerator, being eaten in the break room, or being cooked in the microwave. The anti-chai thing could be a bit of that.
A story -- I worked in one of the first "cubicle farms," in the 70's (!). The office manager, in the next cubicle, was a germ phobic who would spray Lysol on her phone after anyone else talked on it. This was at a time when women wore fragrance to work, including me, and I could tell sometimes that she didn't much like it. But she kept it to herself. Now, I suppose she'd go straight to HR and get a no-perfume policy. This is how much we've changed.
In the 80's, when cigarette smoking became unfashionable and the antismoking movement expanded greatly, suddenly many people were "allergic" to cigarette smoke. I'm not denying that some people actually are, but not in those numbers!
Great points here, and maddeningly frustrating. I work in a hospital where there are supposed to be no fragrances, but fortunately I have no patient contact so I can let it slide. Obviously where I to be a nurse seeing people all day I wouldn't wear anything. When I'm up on the floor there's a nurse who wears patchouli oil, and I can smell her down the hall and around the corner. I wonder how she can do this because she's leaning right over patient with that monster sillage (and I love patchouli, but many don't!). It does require a bit of awareness of space, and that is just being aware of other people. However, I have found that smoking is much, much worse than any fragrance. I work with two smokers, and when they come in from a break, it is just AWFUL. What's worse is the cocktail of cologne or lotion they've applied to try and cover up the smoke, which just ends up mixing to form a miasma of trash. I suppose they're dabbling in the worst of both worlds. This era of political correctness is quite scary, and it's a demon to be dealt with very cautiously. I'm surprised so many others don't see it as such. The American Dream seems to champion the individual (perhaps at the expense of all those other individuals out there), yet PC kind of thinking is so collective it's amazing. And don't even get me started on this lawsuit culture we have here in this country.
There has been something wrong with blogger I understand- I haven't been able to put all the comments on my blog on it and it seems ones I have written are not showing up. Other people have tweeted saying the same thing. So I wrote a nice long answer earlier which seems not to be here.
Basically I was saying that intolerance of scent is a bit like being intolerant of taste or touch. Should food stop being so strong? should they tone down those stinky bries? no. Yes considersation is needed but banning these products- especially deoderant!!- seems crazy to me- and sad too
Ines,
thanks! I should think that Europeans do not quite grasp all the intricasies of this issue because we are living in a more "chaotic" environment, where litigation isn't rampant. We're lucky in our own way,
Then again I should imagine that BO would be pretty vile if it affected co-workers and that is much worse than a scent one doesn't like....
You raise a valid point in that complaining about something as intangible as smell is a sure-fire way of "scoring an inch" in the battle against someone at the office. A mean way, indeed, but it seems to work!
What was your boss wearing?? Curious! *fluterring my eyelashes*
Dee,
thanks for commenting and for being so common sensical about it too! Yup, isn't plain old communication between human beings better than reporting to authorities and suing for money? I bet your co-worker would have told you if she had a problem since she's so kindly invited to do so.
Banning anything scented is Utopian, no doubt, but like you I had the same question: WHO burns candles and sprays rooms with scent at the office? We're not talking Anna Wintour here, we're talking plain folks working at office and secreterial positions.
Is it all part of a marketing scheme, I wonder, to boost sales of scented goods ("burning small lavender-infused coal lumps by company YXW at the office provides the serene, tranquil workspace you have been always dreaming of" etc etc ~fill you own ad copy here) which backfired horribly? What do you think?
Anon,
LOL!! Pity indeed!
Much as these perfumes get a chaffing for being sillage-monsters, I fail to see them producing the sheer repulsion that strong, stale body odour would produce. Garlic is indeed very potent, much as I like it in foodstuff, and one has to be diligent with personal upkeep if they're to consume it with any regularity. It seems to be secreted in the sweat, although nothing beats pasturma! (and yes, I'm talking through experience, the spice they add is feral and it aromatizes sweat, urine, tears and every other fluid in your body ~ahem~ for days on end). Yummy but lethal, LOL!
SS,
thanks for bringing up what I was reluctant and unable to utter in a convincing way myself: this is what bothers me when I read perfume boards sometimes! That so often the default advice on getting someone to stop using something would be to claim "allergies". It trivialises a serious issue (one which is true) and it imposes a doubtful question mark over any subsequent claim heard as well.
The sense of entitlement is also at play I guess. Maybe more worldspread than just the US, I'd wager.
Wonderful article, and I truly admire the balanced and fair-minded presentation of a nuanced issue.
Asthma is real, allergies are real (and verifiable when genuine), reactive airway disease is real. So are passive aggressive behavior traits and personality disorders. I consider myself obliged to refrain from behavior that would put another person in danger of death by acute asthma exacerbation. I do not consider myself in any way obliged to cater to the whims and manipulations of pathologically entitled workplace bullies.
As for the "I don't like my colleague's perfume" and "you should just say you're allergic" trope, it does trivialize a real issue. I suppose the strategy is at best aimed at avoiding hurt feelings, at worst profoundly controlling and a passive refusal to take responsibility for considering one's own preferences more important than those of others. That's a wide spectrum of intent.
What a thought provoking article. It is a shame there is not more language to support this sort of productive discussion. Perhaps then bullies, passive aggressives, and responsibility-eschewers of all kinds would be recognized as infringing on coworkers' boundaries.
As one who does have reactions to certain perfumes (and smoke), I go out of my way to say nothing. Office politics often play a part in what's being said as does the need for power. There are those who just love to complain enough about something to affect a change. This, however, makes it more difficult for those of us who SHOULD be saying something to keep quiet.
In our quest to accommodate everyone, we often accommodate no one!
I am a huge allergy sufferer who has lived with allergies from oak trees to dairy and crabgrass to dust!!!! But unlike many people who believe that their country/workplace/social environment must make changes in order to rectify the situation, I chose to be accountable for my OWN allergies and take medication......I know, I know.....it seems almost unnatural for an American to be accountable for his own actions, but a few of us still remain....
I don't like the idea of having to take allergy medication everyday, but being able to breath and smell has allowed me to live a fuller life - and it has allowed me to have an (overwhelming) appreciation for perfume and fragrance.......to me, that is well worth the allergy medication.
Rose/K,
how weird, I now see your comment published between Ines and Dee, while before I couldn't!!
Anyway, glad it's not lost. It's very interesting and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Comparing the trafficking of drugs with legal drugs such as tobacco (it's proven to be addictive so it falls under the same umbrella, like it or not) and liquor (ditto to a smaller degree and big question mark re: its circulation to minors) is a huge issue. I'm not sure whether there would be so much furore over perfume if the smoking ban wasn't so heavily handed in the first place. (On the other hand, I have been to some really nasty places with second-hand smoke, so it's a question of whether the egg or the hen made the egg...)
Now you bring an important aspect into the equation: Will we forget how to smell? I think we already have!! The smell of Pledge stands for lemon, Pine-Sol for pine (these are American references), the natural sources are so often mistaken for the functional products, you wouldn't believe! I have this on perfumers' testimonies and the mind boggles: semantically speaking, how can we have zoned out soooo much of our natural environment to not be able to differentiate between the sign and the reference? And how can food have become something that is connoted as anything but positive/nutricious/wholesome/fulfilling, as you so succinctly say through your everyday real life example? I'd really like to hear opinions on those things!
Oh and Rose,
I'm not entirely sure that American taste does veer into "clean". I think this is a perpetuated myth with an ulterior motive, sometimes (a market directive if you please, like say orange satin is being pushed at the collections because this is what the textile market has in bulk, not because there is any other reason!) Weren't many potent, skanky perfumes such as Tabu and Narcisse Noir loved in America? Didn't SJP say referring to her countrymen "we love our body odour"? I'm puzzled sometimes, this is something that needs a little more thinking; the "clean vs. animalic" cultural divide is rather oversimplistic to my mind.
KJanicki,
yeah, great comment, isn't it odd how everyone is becoming so very delicate all of a sudden?
I am convinced that some people ARE delicate and poor dears have a lot of discomfort. There is absolutely no reason to torture them with assinine behaviour.
Then again, I think it's beginning to be fashionable to pose as the "oversensitive", "overdelicate" one in one's crowd. It even lends a veneer of...I don't know, "discernement"? I have such a case in real life and it's so silly because the woman in question is strong as an ox, but she makes herself ill sometimes by over-reacting and stressing herself over minutiae.
I recall a film by Todd Haynes, was it? "Safe" it was called. Very interesting, do watch it if you can. It highlights a LOT of the problems that some of the individuals who are convinced there is a specific culprit for their discomfort, when there isn't one, face.
P,
I'm amazed that this is done in restaurants!! You'd think that would be one place where satisfaction of the senses is a prerequisite!! Is it through a mania for health-watch (and the subsequent hysteria for a lean body) or more than that?
It's also disheartening if indeed there is a xenophobic element in dishing "foreign" cuisine and from then on different smells. Somehow it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, recalling eugenics and WWII...or am I over-reacting? (ha!) Because how far is "your food is smelling bad" from "your body is smelling bad" (as in not as it should be and it's not because of your food or hygiene but of your genetics)? We'd be entering pretty scary territory there.
I live in a society which has had a very cosmopolitan past, due to its very loooooong history and strategic geopolotical location, but the immigration problems that the US faced in the late 19th century and through to the middle of the 20th century are a very recent phenomenon for us (last 15 years or so) and as a society we need to find the ways to intergrate organically. So, this is all very educational to me. :-)
Thanks for recounting your personal experience (wow, talk about a rich past, you've seen it all), it reads as totally making sense what you're saying there.
Jared,
I suppose you're the one in the most restrictive environment here! LOL
Very truthful of what you say regarding nurses especially, as they're beside patients all the time and when one is ill or indisposed, it's so easy to get discomforted and annoyed by even otherwise innocuous things. I suppose a happy medium would be to wear perfume at night on their free time.
As to smoke, you absolutely have a point when it gets combined with fragrance (Now there's something I didn't mention in the article, how did it escape me? Thanks for bringing it up!) It's the stale smoke that I find repulsive. The time a cigarette is smoked I don't mind, even though I don't smoke myself (had experimented but I just didn't have it in me). It's the stale remnant on clothes (and hair) which I shy away from. I suppose combining that with perfume, the smoker doesn't realise how twisted the result is, as they're accustomed to the smoke and thus blocking it out.
"The American Dream seems to champion the individual (perhaps at the expense of all those other individuals out there), yet PC kind of thinking is so collective it's amazing"> Isn't that so? I find it as fascinating and perverted as you do.
I believe it's called Multiple Chemical Sensitivity; reactions to specific chemicals either smells or contact. I've read there's a small and supposedly growing percentage of Americans getting this. It's covered by ADA now. I've read comments by perfume haters; they can be downright mean and nasty. Perfume wearers are being accused of being "dirty", "unwashed" and I supposed self absorbed. I would have a difficult time working in a fragrance free (not unscented, there's actually a difference between the two in products, didn't know that but it makes sense) environment. The ones with MCS can have reactions ranging from headache/nausea to something that puts them in the hospital, can't remember what it's called (aplaysia?). No one is wearing perfumes/scents to specifically put you in the hospital. Maybe that's where they are confused. Anyway, thanks for reading my ramble. Great post, too. Glad to see someone else questioning this and also disliking the arguement "I have a right to breathe; perfume is not a right."
I'm starting work in a cubicle farm tomorrow. Up until now I've only ever had to share my office with one other person at most, all of whom were very tolerant of my love of scent.
I'll tell you how it goes...
I think this is interesting because I am on both ends of the issue. First I will admit the majority of those "clean" and "oceanic" smells - especially a lot of those sold at department store counters give me a wicked migraine. My SO is so sensitive to those chemicals he will have to have an inhaler. That being said - I would never think that having a "no perfume" policy in the office is fine. If someone's scent was making me ill I would just gently let them know that I'm very sensitive to that particular smell could they put on a little less, maybe find someone new, or move further away from me if possible.
On that note I was once told by an early boss to not wear perfume to work anymore as it "gave her migraines." I switched to a more natural, high end fragrance and she mysteriously never got ill. This may have been a little mean but I knew her quite well and detected some BS in how she mad the initial request. So Vera Wang's Princess was not her thing but Marc Jacob's Daisy or BPA labs oils were fine.
My ex has also been fired from some jobs because he has a health condition and sadly most scents, soaps, detergents, and prescription deodorants don't stand up to his particular brand of toxic BO. I kind of think weather you are telling somebody they smell inappropriate because of perfume or their own body's particularly offensive odors is kind of rude and shouldn't really be acceptable. As a feminist I think body policing is really a big deal and this seems like body-policing to me.
Some people do have allergies - but I don't think most people really do and I've never know anyone who really has a health issue to be so pushy or demanding.
Personally, I like when I catch a whiff of someone's perfume. It is interesting to me what other people choose to wear, what it says about their personality. I do tend to get migraine headaches so it would be hard to work with someone that wore a fragrance that triggered a headache for me (such as the popular D&G Light Blue).
One problem is when someone is (politely, I hope) asked to stop wearing a fragrance because someone in the office has allergies or sensitivities and they do not stop. This makes me think that the issue is more about personality clashes in the workplace where scent becomes the excuse for a full blown war.
If someone asked me to stop wearing a fragrance to work, I would. I can still enjoy my fragrances at home and on my days off.
There are definitely valid reasons to (politely and respectfully) request lowering exposure to perfumes, I think. However, it's certainly not black and white as many of these thoughtful posters have pointed out.
I live in the US and I think several issues are at play.
First is the appalling state of health of the average American, in my opinion. No, not because of lifestyle choices, far from it. I think there is a background level of toxicity that is just staggering here - you can see it clearly in photos, especially if you have the chance to compare what you see in magazines now with photos from, say, the 60's. There is a vibrancy in people in the older photos that made my jaw drop when I figured out what the difference was. I think that we are dealing with the results of corporate food supply policies, heavy metal toxicity, vaccine exposure (there is a doc that has found a way to map ischemic damage in the brain by mapping the features of the face and eyes, and when you know how to see vaccine damage, you see it *everywhere*)and the worst of all is electromagnetic pollution. Adding aroma chemicals to the mix is a last straw for some people now, where in the past it wasn't.
It is also the "new smoking", where it has become socially acceptable to be really hostile over this issue now that smoking has been "dealt with" here. That part is truly annoying - just ask any smoker that's been the subject of a non-smoker's righteous abuse.
I wish the people who were so up in arms over office policies would stand around my neighbor's laundry vent on washing day some time. I DO love fragrance, with an extensive, loved and worn collection, and the exhaust from a dryer that's overloaded with "functional" scents can put me in bed with a migraine, pronto. I have also had to endure the fragrance residue on the clothes of friends and have said nothing - the golden rule, huh?
i think there is a shock that occurs the moment we smell something strange, unexpected, or "ugly." like when you get on an elevator with someone wearing too much cheap cologne. you instinctively want to hold your breath. then you breath carefully and realize that while it's not the best thing you've ever smelled, it won't kill you.
the same thing happens when you encounter someone with sharp body odor. that quick, "i'm not going to breathe" reaction. it's a throwback to self-preservation.
anyway, i think some of these complainers are taking that reaction and running with it. and, for all we know, the scent intrusions are the final straws in otherwise tense relationships.
i know from personal experience that i have worse reactions (headache, sore throat, congestion) to commericial carpet cleaners, air fresheners, cheap body lotions (bath and body i'm looking at you and that tropical crap you sell to my coworkers) than i do to colognes and perfumes. and mold isn't so great, either. so yes, a sick building complaint is definitely viable and honest.
not sure about the WASP connection. a lot of those WASPish women wear things from estee lauder and clinique and other companies with powerhouse scents, like, um, patou with joy and 1000.
i simply wish i would smell more interesting scents on the women around me - i catch a whiff of what they're wearing, and it's almost always insipid. they just don't seem to understand the power of scent.
cheers,
minette
My late mother had asthma and wore fragrance. One had nothing to do with the other. She was never allergic or reactive to her fragrances (which were rather pedestrian Avon and Revlon scents).
Though strong sillage is annoying, it doesn't compare to the smell of a lunchtime microwave fest of frozen diet dinners. Probably fellow posters in the U.S. will know that certain brands have a peculiar 'stink' to them. I cannot abide that smell!
Another true irritant is pollution from automobile gasoline or getting stuck in back of a bus or truck en route to or from work. It's sickening and can make me dizzy.
I wonder if these fragrance-phobe people understand that everthing gives off fumes of some sort -- even wooden floors and wooden walls!
Another great blog entry, Elena!!
I'm an American, and I think a lot of the distaste for the 'scent free'people comes from the perception that they're refusing to limit their own lives to care for their illnesses.
I have a condition that requires me to use a wheelchair. I don't exspect the whole world to become accessable; rather, I make accomodations and accept that some places/activites will not work for me.
Likewise, if a coworker was sensitive to one particular smell, or smells generally, I would certainly avoid whatever bothered them. But to demand I buy only unscented products to use for the office? That's not a reasonable request. If someone really can't tolerate any sort of smell at all, perhaps s/he needs to look into working from home, applying for disability or asking HR to help find a solution that doesn't inconvienience everyone else in the vicinity.
I think the "I'm allergic to perfume/cigarette smoke/etc." excuse is horribly over-used in the US, but I can't help but feel that if people could limit themselves to one or two sprays of fragrance instead of 10 or 12 or half the bottle, it would be much less of a contentious issue. Sitting next to someone who smells like she bathed in a vat of Angel is no less distracting than sitting next to someone who's playing music at high volumes - they both affect your ability to concentrate and it's not like you can just tune it out. It's not the same as disliking someone's sense of personal fashion. If I were the boss in a workplace, I would have no qualms about telling an employee to tone down the perfume if it seemed excessive to me.
Cora,
thank you for the nice compliment!
I would assume that most people wouldn't want to knowingly hurt others. And are oblivious to the effect that marinating in a scent has on others. Then again those others might approach the subject personally and not rely on higher authorities to "ban" something. But I suppose when it comes to full blown war...
As you succinctly say, it has to do with a lack of appropriate language, an issue of both communication and semantics: Is perfume a political issue? You bet. Especially because perfume -more than just shampoo, deodorant, lotion or other products, but not food- is aspirational and denoting of some sort of social status and a certain "in the know" vibe. I don't know if I'm expressing myself well, I think you did it better (infringing on coworkers' boundaries").
Would there be a polite, considerate but also effective way to say one is discomforted by another's perfume choice/use? I'm taking notes.
Tiara,
very true, very true! One can't please everyone.
I would sincerely hope that the people who DO have a problem spoke up, instead of the whiners who are on a power trip. If you keep quiet, it makes it harder to discern a real problem and handle it from the beginning, "cut it at the bud" so to speak.
[Personally if I had put on too much perfume I would appreciate it if someone kindly but firmly told me to maybe use a bit less. Then again, it would get nuanced if that person was using the perfume just to spite me. I would get irked, even though I would comply. So, I can well see how it's not easy.]
Do you work at a particularly "perfume goes" office?
Marko,
it's good to know! Thanks for sharing your personal experiences, much appreciated.
LOL, I think Americans sometimes get the flak for everything, when in fact several of them are the nicest people imaginable. Like I said, some of the whiners have a REAL problem and this should never be trivialized. but unless the ones who pretend to have a real problem stop it, the rest of us get confused. Plus so many perfume wearers don't stop and ask "am I wearing too much?" It all boils down to individual responsibility, one way or the other, doesn't it?
Anon,
thanks for the praise, glad it resonated with readers. And thanks for such an enlightening comment, full of info.
I didn't know it had a specific name! I think you've hit the nail on the head.
And yes, definitely a difference between "unscented" and "fragrance-free", I learned that while searching cosmetic and skincare labels some years ago. It would make one's hair stand on end if they knew how there are added ingredients in order to mask the natural smell of the ingredients in many a skincare product!
The mean and nasty part is what bothers me (not personally, as I don't get complaints, but it provokes me intellectually to read that stuff). WHY does anyone feel the need to be mean and nasty to anyone else? Either in purposely annoying someone by over-applying (assuming this gets done) or by blurting out rude things concerning such a personal issue as personal odour? Clearly it's more than just the subject of the specific perfume sometimes....
Diana,
congrats on the new job and by all means, tell us what happens, we're looking forward to your impressions on this!
Pixie,
thanks for your most interesting thoughts!
Very telling examples and I can see where you're coming from. Re: the specific perfumes, I suppose it had to do with taste (i.e. an aesthetic choice) much more than an organic issue (i.e. an ingredient giving her migraine). i would suppose BPAL oils are full of stuff that might trigger headaches, as they're quite potent!
Isn't it highly ironic that the people who genuinely suffer do not raise hell about it? I find that very disorienting.
Plus I want to pause a bit on what you said about body-policing: There IS an element of that in judging (and imposing a controlled use of) odour on other people. Yes, smell is invasive and you can't really zone it out, but to actually intervene to that degree to someone else's private smell does begin to sound a bit "1984". Which is odd and alarming....
"No scented products" (and by that I include deos, cleaning functional products, as well as soap and shampoo) in the workplace seems completely unrealistic to me; am I the only one?
melissa,
thanks for chiming in!
I like detecting perfume on others myself, I chalk it up as another element of their personality and a decoder into their tastes and desires. :-)
But that could backfire.
I agree with you that not stopping/toning down perfume use after being asked hints at a greater communication/personality compatibility issue behind it. Which is sad. And awkward. But there you have it.
Clashes in the workplace can take so many nuances. It seems that perfume control is the latest "weapon".
Anon,
you raise a lot of valid points and introduce data which I admit was oblivious to (And frankly you got me very curious now, can you direct me to more credible info on the vaccination pollution? It's horrendously interesting!)
Scent chemicals is the last straw I guess. Of course one can do certain things to eliminate as much as added smells from their -own personal- environment as much as they can at least. For instance use unscented, ecological washing powders/liquids for the laundry (here we have prepackaged shredded olive oil soap for that, the same we use for our babies and ourselves, a sound choice to avoid additives; don't you have an equivalent there?), small changes like that. (for instance what's that craziness with the paraffin candles with the lead-wicks you see everywhere? Lead volatilises, this is no laughing matter!)
And I would presume that a laundry without softeners and such would be "cleaner", it's amazing how much residue is left on clothes. A simple experiment like running the cycle without any added product except for water shows how bubbles are produced regardless. Maybe if you told your neighbour to try that?? She's see for herself. ;-)
As to perfume being the new "to deal with" issue after smoking, ain't that the truth. It seems that smoking has become so taboo that something else has to be found now. In my country, we're heavy smokers (unfortunately) and it's ingrained in the culture of the cafes and the talkative lifestyle around a puff and a sip...So, I'm right now living the banning attempts on smoke. Which feels odd sometimes if one knows how smokers can't really help themselves (it's an addiction).
Anyway, to revert to your point the righteousness is the interesting angle in all this. I think more than given credit for in the media.
Minette,
hello there darling!
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment.
There has to be some level of self-preservation there, as so often smell perception is such an instinctive, guttural reaction. Maybe entering the workplace and getting hit by the pong produces an intant "hell, I need to flee" reaction which predisposes one to take the other psychological/neurological pathway ("fight") since they can't well leave! What do you think?
Interesting about the Lauder, Clinique et al being favoured by wasps. I'm not entirely attuned to which group wears what exactly as I rely in transmitted data and the rare personal experience (from travelling and friends visiting, but my US friends are not really waspy, LOL) I guess I was thinking more of bible belt citizens or conservative, stiff types who equate cleanliness with a higher value than perfume. Am I completely off?
I don't mean to offend anyone, anyone is entitled to choose what they deem best of course. It just strikes me as ascribing certain values (positive or negative) to perfume, more than with other things in life.
It's a shame that so many women (and men) go for insipid stuff. I wonder if part of the reason is the "mute-ing" of individuality or the fear of not offending. Probably both.
Brownie
thanks!! Glad you liked it :-)
How very interesting about your asthmatic mother wearing fragrance! I guess every individual is different and most of them don't react badly to just everything.
Hadn't thought about frozen dinners, but then I have absolutely no experience with those (diet or otherwise, LOL, not because I'm that fit and thin, but because it's just a non-entity here). I take your word for it!
I do know very well about air pollution due to exhaust fumes, though, I live in a very polluted place and alas, it is almost unbearable especially when hot and humid. I feel like a veil of grime is sitting on my face at the end of the day. It's quite icky...Escaping those would be a top priority over anything else, cigarette smoke and perfume taking a far far down below place on the list. LOL!
Lauren,
very thought-provoking comment, thank you!
I suppose that a little fine-tuning has to be made when someone has a disability. Inevitably.
Yet, I kinda feel when I see people with disabilities being incommoded by other, perfectly healthy people who are obviously not thinking how those people's lives are hindered in small details. For instance, in my city, not all sidewalks have a special little "platform" for wheelchairs (or prams) and I know this makes life difficult to many. How costly would it have been to fix this? I would gladly pay taxes for that instead of added taxes for new street labels with an "improved" look.
Small things like self-adjusting or asking someone to please do something to make co-existence easier though can be arranged. Asking any place to be completely "scent-free" (from food to cleaning to products) is night impossible, I'm afraid...
Amy K,
succinct point, thanks!!
Not being able to tune out smell is one of the moot points of this whole issue.
So often I hear people saying "I can't smell my perfume" and then hear how they spray several times themselves with it. And it gives me pause. If they use half the bottle in one go, how is it even possible that they don't offend others working/living with them??
I suppose it also involves scent education: Knowing how to control the dosage or the sillage (where to spray/apply and how to), which concentration or ancillary product to go for, adjust the scent to weather and space you're going to be in, etc etc. What do you think?
glad the comments came through- something very strange was happening! No to be fair America is a big place and SJP and others certainly do love the more animal smells!
Honestly I think it will be food being banned next- anything that isn't deemed okay will start to be limited I think- sweets, chocolate, butter.
Dear Elena! Absolutely wonderful post, very current and thoughtprovoking. All i am going to say is: i am so glad to be living and working in the Netherlands, where none of this is an issue. As a matter of fact, i am slowly educating my colleagues on perfumes (arrogant? me?) and converted one of them to a Serge fan. I myself am wearing Mitsouko (in perfume) today, and getting loads of compliments, too! take care, Wendy
(PS my second try to comment..)
E,
Thanks for a thoroughly thoughtful post...and for having a forum where so many equally thoughtful comments could be presented.
So many things to say, many of which have already been offered :), but it does seem to largely boil down to reason and dialogue, doesn't it? Being rational, and talking to others...and remembering that not all tolerance zones are equal. In one direction or the other.
One thing that hasn't been raised yet and skitters about my brain is the idea of scent level tolerance in general. I (an American) recall when the issue of the level of body odor was a hotly discussed topic...how much was acceptable, the attachment of "too high" levels to people perceived to be immigrants from certain cultures, the bandying about of potential "bus rules" and offering the right to refuse a ride to a person with significant B.O. Is *this* an American "thing"? Honestly, I don't know. I could wax poetic about this big open land, and how we are less comfortable being confined with other peoples' destiny/choices, blah blah blah, but from a sociological/scientific standpoint, I've got not a scrap of data to stand on.
Incidentally, there are clear areas which are known to reek--or, to use a less loaded term, have significantly elevated levels--of body odor, and yet are culturally condoned as such. Like locker rooms. And associated sports equipment. But the idea is that it is okay for it to be THERE, and not transported to, say, your dinner host's living room. (A concept which I can see Etat Libre d'Orange literally pooh-poohing... ;) )
Really? Higher concentration in edt / edp? Interesting. BTW, I'd toss out an alternate explanation: perhaps consumers want the smell they are paying for to register more strongly because "that's what they are paying for." You do know that our vacuum cleaners are noisier, too, right? Because that indicates they are more powerful cleaners. (A fallacy, a fault of perception, but true.)
Don't get me started on Harley motorcycles. ;)
An "oh! and..." from me...
As for Americans preferring "clean" scents...Jovan musk oil was HUGELY popular a few decades back...trends, perhaps, but no cultural DNA for oceanic scents versus animalic. IMHO, but of course. That Jovan permeated life like a linguistic tick, dude.
Dearest E,
Love it when you give us food for thought.
The first thing that popped into my head when I read the title was "cubicle culture" and I do believe that part of the reason for the all the indignation is that our business culture forces us upon each other day in and day out at a time in our culture where each of us is more entitled than ever to our rights and equalities. Very rarely do I now hear of our individual (not necessarily collective) responsibility to our fellow man. I lost count of how many times I have hung on to the poles in the subway train in rush hour, unable to get a seat, my very pregnant belly swaying and bumping for all to see (everybody is equal, you see, so it's just first come first served). Anyway, I think I am straying from the topic. I do recall being repelled by the smell of a cubicle mate's lunch once to the point of nausea and HR did eventually ask everybody to partake of their lunch in the lunch room although certainly not because of any complaint from me. I just went for a walk.
The second reason for the fight for scent free environments is a consumer culture that values Louis Vuitton bags with LV splashed all over them for all to see (sorry, I am not trying to vilify LV, just using it as an example). In the same way, when we put down our hard earned cash for a bottle of the latest designer or celeb perfume, we want everyone to know it, and so everybody does. Perhaps Europe, generally speaking, has a more indulgent view on scent and prefers to wear it for the enjoyment of the wearer and possibly their lover, not their cubicle mate. I am Canadian (immigrated from Europe) and I do sometimes wish people would tone it down but it happens rarely and I hope that my own sillage reflects the idea that I wear scent for myself and for my better half, no one else.
Natalia
I have a lot of allergies and always have. I was diagnosed with eczema as a kid and was always breaking out in rashes. I was (and still am) very allergic to cats, dogs, and pretty much any other mammal you might run across or have as a pet. Dust, plants, certain foods, certain lotions or other body products, etc. can make me itchy and uncomfortable. In the past year or so I also developed a gluten intolerance. (I'm actually *glad* that "sensitivities" to wheat and gluten are fashionable right now, because it makes it much easier for me to find food I can eat.)
All that said -- perfume doesn't bother me one bit. I assume this is because perfumes are highly regulated and common allergens are always being banned? I'm not sure. But it makes me think that perfume is not really a very common trigger for allergies (certainly not as common as dust and pollen). That's a separate issue from headaches/migraines, though.
I work in an office with cubicles. I wear perfume every day, but no one has ever complained. It may help that I don't wear sillage monsters in the office, and I rotate through my collection, so if I happen to wear something that bothers someone one day, I won't be wearing it the next day and probably not again for a while. I don't think I wear enough for other people to smell me from their own desks in any case.
Everyone makes compromises when you work in an office. It distracts me when I'm trying to write and people are chatting loudly in the next cube, but I just wait for them to finish. If it got really bad I'd just ask them to move so I could concentrate. I wouldn't ask HR to ban talking. Bans are intolerant and lead to miserable draconian workplaces.
Sheesh, the allergies again.
Helg, your article is much better than anything I could ever produce, I'd get angry and write a long whiny rant full of sharp sarcasm.
I'm allergic to every other thing. I made it rather known so that I can nag when someone is smoking around me.
But, since I'm allergic to all rather common stuff, it's my job to learn to live with it. Every doc I frequent has it in my files that I can't use several groups of antibiotics. Because I told them, I didn't wait until the rash or violent vomiting occurs in front of them. I love cats and dogs and I'm allergic to both. Well, then it's my business that I snuggle with someone's pet and then get all itchy. I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. Like, really, and quite a few people witnessed a nice coughing fit or bronchospasm - and since I don't appreciate cigarette smoke, I do tell folks that I'm allergic and could they please move their burning tobacco further away from me, thankyouverymuch. Oddly enough, civilty usually works, folks say Oh, I'm sorry for you and do something, be it opening the window or stopping smoking.
I can understand that there are people who have a real allergy or sensitivity to perfume ingredient(s) in some form although I yet need to meet them.
On a side note, sick building syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity are not the same thing, the latter hasn't been proven as existing condition. I'd have to do quite a bit of research to prove my point but I'm lazy at this point:)
Regarding the 'them furriners eat stinky food' - when in Italy, I imagined the worst death imaginable to someone downstairs who loved roasted garlic. I hate hate hate the smell. I hope that I don't need to love all strange and foreign food to be a proper citizen, though.
Regarding all the stuff like Lehz Americains being constantly poisoned by vaccines, heavy metals and who knows what because nowadays folks look worse than those on old pics... well, someone needs a tinfoil hat.
Also, don't you find it ironic that one bunch screams for scent-free environment and that there was an article about Sony scenting their offices to look more awesome? I wonder, may the Sony employees wear, say, Poison, or do they get thrown out of the window for damaging the company's image?
The vaccine info is from a Dr. Andrew Moulton who was pretty visible during the swine flu fiasco. I've since searched for his website with little luck, though he might have changed websites or something. He had a couple of DVD's and the whole thing about a year ago. He was also on a special show about the "pandemic" on Coast to Coast radio and that is still available in the archives (requires a Streamlink subscription).
Regarding scent sensitivity, I had a friend on a post-grad course who generally couldn't wear scent (too sensitive) but found that Eternity (newly out then) was fine on her. It gave me the weirdest sensation, like an instant ice-cream headache, on first sniff, and never, ever got any better. I didn't grumble to her about it because she was so thrilled to find a scent she could occasionally wear and I didn't want to spoil her fun. What's an agonising eye-watering spike of pain in the middle of one's sinuses between friends:-)
So I sympathise with the folks who experience that discomfort because of someone's scent, and I always ensure that my scents are applied lightly. I've never had anyone complain but who knows (nose?) what offence I might have unwittingly caused?
I'm sure most colleagues in work situations don't want to cause or take offence over scent, and I hope that the idea of banning all scents doesn't catch on here, in the UK.
yours, in subtle rose today,
Anna in Edinburgh
PS the word verification I got was "mings" which, here in Scotland, means "stinks"! Scarily apt.
Very nice article! Thank you! http://www.smellzgood.biz
Rather late reply...I wish I knew of a polite way to comment discomfort created by perfume use. I suppose the most polite thing to do in my mind is say nothing. I think of it a bit like correcting someone's comportment; there's an inherent contradiction in the act of doing so that makes it self-defeating. By the time someone has told someone else she smells bad, the air has been polluted with meanness as well.
Scent is a highly personal form of expression. Saying one doesn't like how someone smells is not so far off in potential hurtfulness from telling someone you don't like how she looks, or that she's ugly, or that you don't like her face. If Phoebe Prince wore scent, I bet the South Hadley bullies had something to say about it.
The "aspirational" aspect you mention further ups the stakes. I couldn't help but notice in that msn article that was linked, people used the phrase "cheap perfume" to represent that the perfume was strong and bad smelling. People reading this article probably agree that there are some aggressive, synthetic smelling perfumes that are quite expensive. But the use of "cheap" reminds me of the age related epithet that must-not-be-named. The idea is clear - "cheap" perfume is crass because not having much money is degrading.
When I went back and read the bit in the original entry about the "witch hunt mentality" and the marking of territory, something else occurred to me. For many, again, probably not anyone reading here, perfume has much to do with sexual politics, and social validation of women by the opposite sex (which seems to have more to do with identity here in the US than I would like). So we see all the "what perfume will men like" type questions out there. Easy to forget for me, as I wear perfume to please myself. To want to "claim the common territory back" as you put it, means far more than the workplace bullying and passive aggression I was referring to earlier, which could take place over many issues. Denying someone the expression of scent is more othering, silencing, and asks that the perfume wearer de-self.
It did not occur to me that someone would actually use scent as a weapon - it seems perverse to use a scent one owns and presumably enjoys that way, and by the time it had been applied in sufficiently offensive quantities, wouldn't the wearer be suffering too?
Well, I still can't seem to find quite the right words to discuss this whole mystery, but there is certainly something meaningful in the fact that these suits, complaints and sensitivities are mostly on US soil...
My son is asthmatic, and has very serious allergies (we must always carry an "epi-pen" in case it is needed to save his life), but he enjoys my perfume and even likes trying to pick out the notes. The only scent that he ever reacted to (by wheezing), out of at least a hundred I've worn around him, was the Johnson's *baby cologne* (which I was wearing--I only use unscented products on him)!
hi everybody, I'm European and what mostly intruiged me in article was that bit about person not necessairly having the right to wearing perfume?!?!? omg, what was that? I still can't believe that woman won in court, how can this be? with all respect and no offence to anyone, but it's another proof of US being so not democratic country, it's more communist even tho Americans are afraid of just that word, but definitely too many contradictions to call it free and democratic place in the world... I have the right to wear perfume and cannot imagine anyone could question that... by the way, great article and good arguments,i'm glad someone responsed to that ridiculous subject and wrote a few words. best regards! Domi:-)
It is a great post for people who have allergies with some scents, perfumes and deodrants.
Wendy,
thanks honey for stopping by and commenting! Sorry if Blogger is acting up, I never know what's happening...
I should imagine that the Netherlands would be very lenient with perfume use, LOL! But you're doing a great service in educating people and introducing them to new and exciting things too. Mitsouko is so glorious in parfum form, isn't it? You smell delicious, GOLDEN.
S,
you're most welcome and thanks for your enlightening comment.
I hadn't monitored in the vastness of the land as a factor: How it has always been a much wider environment in which the pioneers made their home and how current working conditions inflict too much "togetherness", sure to grate on nerves. Could be! (and it would be very interesting to compare with Russia and the former USSD which is also vast and where it's been known people have had a preference for strong scents too)
The transitioning from locker room to dining room just begs to be treated the ELDO way!! LOL!!
Now, regarding "more bang for the buck". Good point; that plays in too!! I think it also goes back to religion tradition and evolved ethics (the sense of not overspending is according to Max Weber a classic protestant value, I see it in European countries as well)
(Funny about the vacuums: hadn't really noticed. I hate those things myself. )
S,
I am all about clean scents being a trend that is being pushed. I really don't think there is a genetic predisposition. The idea of soap and water, yes, a long-time standby (can't even think of dirty Americans for some reason) but the rest...more of a marketing ploy for sure.
Forgot to say above, that the sense of "bigger=better" is certainly an ingrained characteristic of the American culture (I refer to buildings, cars, food portions etc) and it might be chalked up to what you so wisely brought up yourself: the vastness of space justifying the occupation of that space by big things. Both literal and subliminal. So the air has to be filled with perfume otherwise it's too...vacant. Not so in a much more cooped-up space/region.
Would you agree?
N,
thanks, glad you're all enjoying the conversation, I think many interesting points have been made by the readers here! More than I would have anticipated and would think of myself.
It's a shame that equality has side-tracked manners and common sense. Pregnant and standing with the belly swaying....urgh....I get goosebumbs just thinking of it! Likewise, one would assume that anything offensive or exceptional might be treated with some reason and common sense.
It's an interesting thought that perfume broadcasting is an attempt to communicate a status , much like those LV bags (incidentally, I do find the latest models absolutely horrendous and kitch, even though I did own some LV bags from days yore in a very discreet pattern). This is probably why one wants their scent to smell "expensive" or to be from some well-known brand that is recognizable (I have witnessed this with gifts, which are so much better received when they're from a well-established brand, even if other scented gifts can be more qualitative but not well-known).
People in Europe still wear quite a bit of fragrance -I smell it everywhere- although from what I see where I live the idea of it being "light" (as in volume, projection, not composition) is always considered a plus and the desirable trait. Maybe a more indulgent but more restrained use make for more pleasant experiences overall for everyone? Although since I live in a hot country, this element plays a role and everyone is more considerate by default, it';s not like they can help it, you see.... I can't say the same for everyone (for example try boarding the London subway with hoards of Angel in the air floating....)
Elisa,
thanks for a thought-provoking comment from someone who does suffer from allergies!
Indeed IFRA with all its misgivings is providing a service in making sure perfume is always a safe product. (Then again I don't really know of anyone who died of perfume, but this is more a joke than anything...don't take me too seriously)
Like you illustrate by personal example, common sense and consideration would make for a more pleasant environment for everyone. I find that many perfume users become too numb to their own perfume use over time, failing to pick up the scent and thus imposing an increasing load of sillage and quantity on others...This might indeed be the culprit for many incidents.
Rotating has its practical uses, how smart of you to note it.
L,
thanks, I think. I know I can't really talk from the viewpoint of sufferer (I do get hay fever but it's not incontrollable and I've learnt to deal with it) so it's good to know that I didn't put my foot in my mouth.
It's always preferable to just say something if something bothers instead of expecting people to guess. If I were offending, I would be grateful to be told (politely but firmly) that I would better tone it down. Draconian measures rarely condone peace.
LOL, one doesn't need to like "strange" food to be considered a proper citizen. I do admit that some of the stuff we eat here is considered weird across the pond (calamari/squid/octopus/snails/ouzo or even olives etc) but as long as I don't make other people eat them or shove them under their quivering nose, I guess I'm alright. BTW, why didn't you tell your neighbor to close the windows while roasting? It is pervasive.
No real opinion on Americans being poisoned by vaccines or whatnot. I heard the claims about children's vaccines of course (since refuted as far as I know from the medical community) and I know there are concerns about heavy metals poisoning which I don't really refute. Whether they're as influential as purported, I leave it to my more knowledgeable (or local) readers.
L,
LOL about the potential Poison Sony employee!!!! It does boggle the mind why every company is using those 'scented gadgets' miasma in their shops. I find it completely disorienting and off-putting myself. I guess I'm not in the demographic...oh well, what else is new?
Anon,
thanks for the added info.
The moot point about such stuff is that so very often any given statistic/research is either funded by some specific organisation/company with an invested interest or is focused on producing panic/stricken interest on the person delivering the alarm message (aka instant fame). It's making many people dubious to believe things.
Plus researchers in general are contradicting themselves every few years, have you noticed? (First eggs were breakfast of champions, then they became cholesterol-weapons of mass destruction, now they're good again. Soy was good due to polyphenols and antioxidants, now it's GMO and therefore bad etc etc. non-stop)
Anna,
thanks for chiming in!
You're a good friend, no doubt about that. :-)
I suppose some honest and considerate communication is the key in situations like this.
PS.I'm going to usurp "mings" and use it from now on!!
Cora,
never late, welcome!
You bring salient points, thank you very much. Smell is so very personal, isn't it? I suppose which is why so many people take offense. Maybe something along the lines of "I appreciate your pretty perfume choice as something that gives you pleasure, but it triggers unpleasant memories/feelings for me personally, could you please use a little less of it when we're together?"
I definitely agree that "cheap" denotes something that is undesirable, as if the person can't afford better. Then again we both know that some expensive stuff can be vile too. So where does this lead us? That people judge with their preconceptions.
I guess "old lady perfume" (of which I had devoted an article) falls under the same category: It's considered demeaning in a youth-crazed culture, so to be avoided. Which brings me to your other syllogism (a very wise one) that denying someone scent choice is like de-selfing them, so in the case of anyone being "poor" or "old lady" it's as if we're denying anyone poor or older to even exist on our plane of perception: we want to tune them out! We want to avoid perhaps a reminder of how we ourselves could fall into those two undesirable states??? There's food for thought!
As to the US (and Canada), I think it has to do with litigation and an established law-churning state. if there weren't good money being made in this, it would be dropped, trust me. A good question to ask on everything, I have found out, is "where does the cash flow end?"
Amy,
how utterly (and perversely) fascinating!! Imagine that! Proof that perfume is one of the best regulated products after all. And the Johnson's, eh....let's not get there.
I'm sorry for your son, I suppose it's getting increasingly difficult to control a polluted environment, but you're doing the best you can for him.
Domi,
thanks for commenting.
I can't really comment on how the US is formed and whether the words you say really apply, but I am surprised that the range of the phenomenon is so vastly spread. Interestingly though, Canada has had similar products and they're a completely different system and lifestyle.
But yes, deny someone the right to wear perfume is bordering on totalitarianism. We had an interesting discussion above with Cora who suggested that it is a method of de-selfing, reducing someone's identity that way, making them "mentally go away". I found it very thought-provoking and close to bull's eye.
hey, helg. just getting back.
i think "fight or flight" is a good way to describe the reaction to a nasty or unknown and scary odor. i wonder how tied in to our adrenal system that reaction is. it seems to lead quickly to anger or at least irritation in many people.
i live in the bible belt, and i smell all sorts of things on women. the older women with money tend to wear classic french scents like mitsouko and dioressence. they wear the better scents, in general. most of the younger women wear really dull scents - even when they have money. the scents may be expensive, but they are not interesting.
conservative politics don't seem to dictate a conservative scent. i think it's more aligned with class and money here. and perhaps with maturity. we also have a lot of foreign-born women, and they like perfume (yey!). it's fun to watch them shop for scent at neiman's. i turned one latin american woman on to panthere there - she had never smelled it, and loved it.
i was there when francis kurkdjian presented his scents at neiman's, and the reactions to his scents were varied. the women who only liked quiet scents were kind of taken aback by some of his. and yet, to me they are fairly tame. of course, i feel as if he made lumiere noire just for me (it is that yummy on me), but that's neither here nor there! simply fun.
-all the best, minette
Interesting subject!
From this Canadian's perspective, I can tell I personally LOVE perfumes. I wear them and I experiment with them.
My nod to being PC in this country is that if I plan on wearing them in public, I choose ones that are light and/or have very little sillage. This is for two reasons.
One: There was a person in one of my University classes that said he had a very bad reaction to ALL scented products. He needed to be in class and couldn't be "nasally assaulted" out. He paid for, and was entitled to, his education and I don't see a problem with that. As I was wearing perfume at the time, I was very concerned that I might make him ill. So, I asked him if my perfume was bothering him. His reply was that he couldn't smell it (Thank goodness!). As someone earlir in this comment section also said, I told him if there was any problem in the future, all he needed to do was tell me and away I would rush to wash it off as well as sit further away. I personally made the commitment to make sure my love for scent and the possibility of inflicting it negatively on people were in balance.
Now on to the second point. I have myself, been in the position of reacting very badly to a scent. It is a man's scent that seems to show up about 10 feet before the man does. Ok, a little exageration here. Now I will tell you the real truth. This scent hits my nose, causes a sneeze 75% of the time with the first inhallation. And a runny nose 100% of the time. As the scent "reaches" into my brain, it feels (no lie!) like something hits the inside of the front part of my skull like a sledge hammer. Instant headache! Then I have about a minute of still being able to smell until this scent causes me to lose my sense of smell for the next couple of hours.
It seems there is a case for both sides. This business of suing has really gone to extremes, even in our country. We have a hilarious incident that happened just lately, but it is not scent related, so I won't bore all of you.
Rena
I see where you are coming from but I have to say I don't agree. Yes it is true that some people say they are allergic to things they don't like, but I feel you don't understand perfume allergies enough. I am highly allergic to perfume, and I carry an epi pen wherever I go. When a person who is allergic to perfume doesn't tell you that it's bothering them even when you know you're wearing a lot, that doesn't mean they aren't having a reaction. We have had so many people yell at us, be rude to us, and purposefully wear more scents because they don't like us or believe we really have an allergy, that we have become afraid of you. Dealing with our allergy when most people believe were faking makes our like a constant struggle, when I was in high school I had to leave on average half of my classes because I couldn't breathe because of scents, and my marks suffered. This allergy will be my lifelong struggle, so please try to understand more of this allergy before you judge it so harshly.
I am one of those people prone to headaches, migraine and colds. Usually, my first recourse is White Flower Embrocation (embrocation.50webs.com), also called White Flower Oil.
Thank you for a very interesting article, and many thoughtful comments. I love scent, though very few perfumes on the market do NOT give me a headache. More interesting, was discovering 17 years ago that my then 5 yr.old asthmatic son was terribly allergic to his teachers fragrance product. Though he appeared healthy when I took him to school in the morning, when I picked him up in the afternoon he would be wheezy, and tell me how his teacher would comment that "he shouldn't be in school." (Now I wish I'd called her out on speaking to a young child that way); but, when she was out of school for three weeks with pneumonia (ironic), he came home healthy and fine every afternoon. When she finally came back to school, he was congested and wheezy again. After meeting with the school director, I decided to move him into another class instead of discussing this issue with the teacher. I was afraid of embarrassing her. I also was afraid that she would somehow treat him differently if we brought this issue up.
I believe that some of the chemical additives used in perfumes can cause sinus inflammation for many of us. It seems that I am on a perennial and quixotic quest to find a scent with sophistication, that dries down nicely on my skin, and that does not smell adulterated by compounds far extracted from their natural state. Any suggestions? (I hate vanilla).
My allergist requests all patients to refrain from wearing perfume to the office? Why? Because, air-borne fragrance fumes, like second-hand smoke, cause illness in those people who are truly allergic to fragrance. For me, that includes hives, migraine, difficulty breathing, and sinusitis. I would ask that readers distinguish between medical conditions for which there is no known treatment (other than wearing a respirator) and mere disklike of a "smell." Also, allergy medication does NOTHING to prevent a reaction to scent! Do some research. I take allergy shots and many allergy meds. However, these do not treat fragrance allergy! An American, I have also lived years in Europe. While I may not like BO, it never gave me a migraine or hives. Yes, a person has the right to wear (or not) perfume. Yet, the price for living in society is a balancing of the individual's rights with public health. There are logical areas to limit that freedom, e.g., public places --to avoid adversely affecting other's right to walk in a public spot without having to wear a huge respirator. Both sides could benefit from practicing common courtesy. My experience has been very similar to that of "Anonymous." Thanks for letting me share.
I'm reading this blog because I love the IDEA of perfume but the REALITY can leave me with hives or a splitting headache that lasts for hours. There are very specific ingredients that give me this reaction, though it seems that perfumes have gotten less noxious as a whole over the past 10 years or so. Before I began searching sites on the specific constituents of perfumes, I never knew what it was that made some perfumes make me sick while others didn't bother me at all--and I didn't LIKE one group more than the other, as a whole. In fact, some of the most delightful scents in magazine inserts have had to be run not only to the trash but all the way outside within seconds of opening the magazine. Anyhow, it was through this blog that I discovered that oakmoss is one of the biggest culprits for me, based on my known allergy to oak lichen (people who are "allergic" to fireplace fires are usually really reacting to this being released by being burnt--I'm one of them). There's at least one floral ingredient that makes me sick, too, but I haven't tracked it down yet. Anyhow, I plan to formulate my own perfumes from my favorite scents to see if I can get something I love without a bad reaction. That way, I can tweak it however I need to. I'm planning on buying the following to play with:
Mandarin
Jasmine
Bergamot
Sandalwood
Vetiver
Vanilla
Rosewood
Clove
Patchouli
Neroli
Lily of the Valley
Should be interesting.
Post a Comment