0:19 Walter Benjamin, the original aura
0:21 farmer, used aura with reference to art.
0:23 He described the aura of a piece of art
0:25 as its unique existence in time and
0:27 space, an interpretation derived from
0:28 perception. It encompasses the
0:30 experiences of contemplation,
0:32 admiration, reflection, and analysis.
0:34 For example, the Mona Lisa, as you stand
0:36 beneath her in the muz, the silence
0:38 filled only with the occasional musings
0:40 of a French man. the sensory embodiment
0:42 of the encounter and the experience as
0:44 you contemplate, admire, reflect and
0:46 analyze. Dear Lisa, Benjamin would
0:48 describe as aura. It is derived from the
0:50 sense of authenticity, reverence, and
0:51 immediacy that comes from the object's
0:54 originality and history. Maximum aura is
0:56 experienced when these components are
0:58 also maximized. And as such, you would
1:00 experience the Mona Lisa's maximum aura
1:02 as you stand beneath her in the Lou.
1:04 Benjamin's sentiment in his paper on the
1:06 mechanical reproduction of art where he
1:08 introduces us to the concept of aura is
1:10 that reproduction results in aura decay.
1:12 A picture of the monise does not elicit
1:13 the same emotions as the original
1:15 painting would. You can understand that
1:17 this person would be experiencing more
1:19 aura than this person. So whilst
1:21 reproduction can democratize art, what
1:23 you experience from it is a diminished
1:25 version of its original aura.
1:27 Reproduction similarly democratizes
1:29 fragrance. In the current landscape of
1:30 mass marketing in social media, the
1:32 perception of scent and the aura of
1:34 fragrance itself has undergone a process
1:36 of decay, originality is one of the core
1:38 components of the colloquialized version
1:40 of aura. And whilst accessibility allows
1:42 many people to experience something, own
1:44 something. It makes it less exclusive.
1:46 And if you're familiar with the concept
1:47 of chicomics, you'll understand that the
1:50 feeling of exclusivity induced by lack
1:51 of exposure is essential in its
1:53 definition of chic. In case you're
1:55 unfamiliar, chicomics is the science of
1:57 fashion trends. When something is new,
1:58 we have little exposure to it and it
2:01 feels exclusive. But over time, as our
2:02 exposure increases due to such factors
2:04 as influencer marketing, ads, and
2:06 ubiquity amongst muggles, chic value
2:08 depletes. Benjamin would translate this
2:10 as aura decay. And the same mechanisms
2:12 apply with fragrance. Perfume was once
2:14 considered a deeply personal expression
2:16 of taste, an extension of social
2:18 anesthetic identity.
2:21 >> Golden Rolex, red Ferrari, Jeremy
2:23 fragrance. If any of you listen to Miss
2:24 Tuber Avalon, I'm sure you'll be well
2:28 acquainted with Pia Bodo. Um, but in any
2:29 unfortunate case where you're yet to
2:31 watch Tuba video, I should introduce him
2:33 now. Bordaux considered the expression
2:34 of taste as a function not only of
2:36 personal preference, but as a social
2:38 marker of class through displays of
2:40 refinement. He suggested that taste is a
2:42 form of cultural capital, a resource
2:43 through which we assert both belonging
2:45 to the social groups we believe to be
2:47 refined and distance from those that we
2:49 believe not to be. So with regard to our
2:50 discussion of fragrance, choice of
2:52 perfume cannot be attributed merely to
2:54 personal preference but to the assertion
2:56 of status. As fragrances become
2:58 increasingly commodified by trends, the
3:00 distinction of a once subtle perfume
3:02 becomes blurred by our overexposure to
3:04 shared marketable identity. Although
3:06 Benjamin and the principal economics
3:08 share the same theory, aura decays with
3:09 the proliferation of exposure through
3:11 algorithmic trends, influencer
3:12 marketing, celebrity endorsements, and
3:14 viral Tik Tok moments. The originality
3:16 of fragrance has become a symbol of
3:18 conformity. One perfume is reproduced
3:20 over and over, worn by millions,
3:22 everyone smelling the same, and its aura
3:24 is diluted by repetition. That scent no
3:27 longer suggests uniqueness, refinement,
3:29 but symbolizes our participation in a
3:30 collective performance of taste, where
3:32 our identity is mediated through
3:34 marketing rather than individuality. It
3:36 is a very recent cultural phenomenon
3:37 that the highest compliment someone
3:39 wishes to receive is to be told that
3:40 they smell good. But when we say this
3:42 with reference to the smell of someone's
3:44 perfume, we are acknowledging the signs
3:46 of status inscribed within it. Because
3:47 we would similarly say something smells
3:51 good when we smell something cooking. [bell]
3:51 [bell]
3:53 >> Something smells good.
3:55 >> And yet this translates emotionally to
3:57 something else entirely. If your hinge
3:59 date turned up smelling of spaghetti,
4:00 you wouldn't say, "Oh, you smell good."
4:02 Similarly, if your pasta smelled like
4:04 duty-free, you wouldn't be saying it
4:05 smells good either. The smell of a
4:07 person is more symbolic. Complimenting
4:09 the smell of a dish is essentially you
4:17 Whereas Bordeaux would argue that a
4:18 person smelling good is an accumulation
4:20 of symbolic knowledge he calls cultural
4:23 capital. The unspoken literacy of taste
4:24 that allows us to observe the
4:26 distinction between the unique and
4:28 layered fragrance of a handsome European
4:29 man from the commercial best-selling
4:31 aftershave that reminds you of boys in
4:33 school. For example, Axe or Lynx as we
4:35 affectionately know it in England is
4:37 owned by Unilever and sold at a pocket
4:38 money price point resulting in its
4:40 popularity as a fragrance for teenage
4:42 boys. Unfortunately for Lynx, you cannot
4:44 isolate the actual smell of Lynx from
4:46 the cultural context of the smell. I'm
4:48 not sure about my boys over in the US,
4:50 but over here, Lynx Africa has reached
4:52 meme status, but I personally believe
5:56 >> Every perfume campaign tries to sell
5:58 sex, but Lynx tried to make it funny.
5:59 And unfortunately, it's weakened their
6:01 brand as a fragrance because you end up
6:03 smelling like a joke. And you may argue
6:05 that Lynx is not a cologne, so whatever.
6:06 It's not really that important. But is
6:08 this not worse? That a deodorant is not
6:11 about hygiene, but about sexual power. I
6:12 don't know. To me, that's weird. But I
6:13 think to be honest, this is why the
6:15 marketing is so effective for teenage
6:17 boys. Why get a deodorant to stop you
6:19 from smelling when it can get you girls?
6:21 In any case, marketing exploits this
6:22 grammar of distinction. We are not
6:24 simply being sold objects. We are being
6:26 sold belonging. A promise that to own
6:29 the right scent is to be recognized as
6:31 someone who knows, aka
6:35 I Y K Y K.
6:37 Selling a pleasant smell is easy. Yet
6:39 only the most talented marketers
6:41 communicate semiotic fluency, the
6:43 ability to read and reproduce the codes
6:45 of taste through branding. This dynamic
6:46 explains why we are so willing to
6:48 believe in an influencer when they tell
6:50 us the perfume is extraordinary.
6:52 >> This scent is derived from an extinct
6:54 flower in Hawaii. They are the most
6:56 unique fragrances I have ever
6:58 experienced. Their endorsement carries
7:00 cultural authority. We understand as the
7:02 content consumer that the creator is in
7:04 possession of a membership to a class of
7:06 people whose taste we wish to emulate.
7:08 If the brand is smart enough, the
7:09 influencer chosen to front a campaign
7:11 will reflect the brand's identity. The
7:13 aura of the influencer and the aura of
7:15 the brand must align in order to present
7:17 a believable narrative. The influencer
7:19 acts as a bordan figure, the taste
7:20 maker. And this is why choice of
7:22 influencer in fragrance campaigns in
7:24 particular is so important because an
7:26 influencer cannot endorse scent through
7:28 demonstration. As the consumer of the
7:30 influencer, we can't smell what we see.
7:32 And so, the brand relies on the consumer
7:34 simply believing the influencer. As
7:36 such, we find ourselves not buying a
7:38 scent, but buying the taste and identity
7:39 that the influencer represents. This
7:41 phenomenon is not isolated to social
7:43 media marketing or influencer culture. I
7:45 remember watching Darren Brown present
7:46 an audience with a bottle of highly
7:53 >> The moment you smell it, it will only be
7:55 faint. Please put your hand up. He
7:57 opened the bottle and asked the audience
7:58 to raise their hands when they could
8:01 smell it. [music]
8:12 >> That bottle had water in it.
8:14 >> Uh, so here's the twist.
8:15 >> That is not peppermint oil. That's
8:16 actually just water.
8:18 >> Revealing how easily sensory experience
8:20 can become shaped by suggestion and
8:22 authority. Darren Brown's credibility as
8:25 the psychological mind readading I don't
8:28 know magician scientist I don't know I
8:29 don't know whatever but if you're
8:30 sitting in the audience you believe him
8:32 this gives his narrative weight and you
8:34 believe him to such an extent that you
8:35 experience what he is merely suggesting
8:37 influencer marketing functions in the
8:39 same fashion the influencer occupies a
8:41 position of perceived authority the
8:42 influencer is believed to be credible
8:44 for having good taste so when the
8:46 influencer says this smells good us as
8:48 the content consumer respond not to the
8:50 fragrance itself because we can't smell
8:52 but to the creator's cultural capital.
8:54 >> I've seen a video of Molly saying it's
8:55 like her favorite perfume and she
8:57 doesn't get keep. It genuinely smells so
8:58 unreal. This is like Molly May's
9:00 favorite perfume. It is just unreal.
9:01 Demonstrating that aura is nothing more
9:03 than collective conviction. Benjamin
9:05 posits that aura refers to the unique
9:07 presence an object possesses. But in
9:09 these examples, both Darren and our
9:11 influencer dismantle this and expose the
9:13 idea that presence is produced through
9:15 belief. The audience didn't actually
9:17 smell the peppermint because there was
9:19 no peppermint. He has the credible
9:21 perceived authority to create smell
9:23 through suggestion. Aura only exists
9:25 because we agree it does. I'm sure
9:26 you've all heard of it because you're
9:27 very intelligent over here on the Ash
9:28 Caligan channel, but in any case, you
9:31 haven't. For the imposters watching, in
9:33 1961, Stanley Mgram conducted an
9:34 experiment where participants were
9:36 assigned teacher roles in a study that
9:38 they were told by a scientist in a white
9:40 lab coach was on learning and memory.
9:41 They were told to press a button every
9:43 time the scientist told them to. The
9:45 teacher [music] would ask the learner
9:47 questions in a word game and administer
9:49 an electric shock when the answer was
9:51 incorrect. He was told to increase the
9:54 voltage with each wrong answer. And
9:56 every time they did, they would hear a
9:57 scream of agony from behind a wall in
9:59 which they believed the learner to be.
10:00 At every wrong answer the learner gave,
10:02 the scientists instructed the teacher to
10:04 press the button. And every time it was
10:06 pressed, the screams became louder and
10:07 more agonizing. The majority of
10:09 participants continued to press the
10:10 button despite showing visible signs of
10:12 distress and questioning the scientist.
10:15 >> I can't stand THE PAIN. I DON'T
10:17 >> STAND. I'm not going to kill that man. I
10:18 mean, who's going to take the
10:19 responsibility if anything happens to
10:20 that gentleman?
10:21 >> I'm responsible for anything that
10:24 happens here. Continue, please.
10:25 >> All right. Next was slow
10:27 >> all the way to the end of the experiment
10:28 where the concluding button press
10:29 resulted in silence from behind the wall.
10:30 wall.
10:32 >> 375 volts.
10:34 >> I think something's happened that I fall
10:36 in there. I don't get no answer. He
10:37 [clears throat] was hollering a less volage.
10:38 volage.
10:40 >> The Mgrim experiment demonstrated that
10:42 authority when symbolically legitimized,
10:43 in this case by a white coat, can
10:45 override sensory evidence and moral
10:47 intuition. They press this button until
10:49 they thought they killed someone because
10:51 a scientist told them to. The scientist
10:52 telling them to press the button held a
10:54 perceived authority credible enough to
10:55 kill someone. With reference to
10:57 fragrance, when an influencer tells you
10:59 a perfume smells good, their perceived
11:01 authority and credibility as a taste
11:03 maker leads us to believe them. We can't
11:04 smell it, but they can and we trust
11:06 them. The popularity of the influencer
11:08 acts as social validation that their
11:10 opinions are correct and reflect good
11:11 taste. And it is this collective
11:13 agreement demonstrated by a number of
11:15 followers as an example metric by us as
11:17 content consumers that sustains the
11:19 illusion. Therefore, aura, if we define
11:21 it as we have, cannot therefore be an
11:23 intrinsic quality of an object, but of a
11:25 socially manufactured response to
11:26 perceived authority. Social media and
11:28 the digital age has created a paradox in
11:30 the realm of fragrance. We buy perfume
11:32 without having smelt it. We are no
11:34 longer buying based on alfactory
11:36 experience but on semiotic cues. A
11:37 consumer proficient in the symbolic
11:39 literacy of sense will understand that
11:42 oud implies opulence, musk implies
11:44 intimacy, white flaws imply femininity.
11:46 Brands utilize this understanding to
11:47 allow the consumer to project their own
11:50 sensory associations and imagine sensory
11:52 congrent if you will. Exploiting the
11:54 ability to simulate alactory sensation
11:56 through visual or linguistic cues.
11:57 Evidence for this phenomenon can be
11:59 found in the marketing of Bakarat Rouge.
12:01 It rise in popularity did not stem from
12:02 the tradition of spraying a little piece
12:04 of paper in a department store with
12:06 copious amounts of liquid from a bottle
12:08 but from digital semiotics red glass
12:10 gold typography and ad briefs that
12:12 require influencers to use certain
12:14 language that evokes wealth, exclusivity
12:16 and sensuality. So despite Bakrat Rouge
12:18 being first released in 2014, its
12:20 popularity seemed to begin at the launch
12:22 of Tik Tok, the launch of Tik Tok as we
12:23 currently know it at least. And ever
12:25 since the popularity of both variables
12:27 is parallel, suggesting that social
12:29 media has had a great influence in the
12:30 popularity of Bakarat Rouge.
12:32 Furthermore, Backrat Rouge was the most
12:34 popular perfume in 2022, suggesting that
12:36 the success of a perfume no longer
12:38 depends on its scent, but on its ability
12:40 to perform well within the digital
12:41 marketplace. And so, if we believe this
12:43 to be true, it must also be true that
12:45 symbolism and social and cultural value
12:47 are more important factors in selling
12:49 perfume than its scent. This case
12:50 encapsulates the logic of imagined
12:52 sensory congruence. Through collective
12:54 linguistic and visual association, we as
12:56 consumers construct an internal
12:58 simulation of how perfume must smell.
13:00 The literal sense of smell is supplanted
13:01 by social meaning. And as such, we might
13:03 now consider the perfume to be less so a
13:05 scent, but more a vessel for the
13:07 performance of taste, status, and
13:08 belonging. This is not a unique
13:10 phenomenon confined to fragrance. The
13:11 mechanisms of imagined sensory
13:13 congruence are very popular in the use
13:15 of food in fashion marketing. In this
13:16 context, the alignment is no longer
13:18 between sight and smell, but between
13:20 sight and taste. Fashion campaigns have
13:22 recently been saturated with pictures of
13:25 indulgent desserts, fresh vegetables,
13:26 and butter.
13:29 Um, the choice of produce is carefully
13:31 selected to evoke a certain emotion. But
13:32 the choice is not just based on the
13:34 taste in the literal sense, but also in
13:36 the figurative sense, on what the food
13:38 represents. So, instead of simulating
13:40 the taste of whatever food is being used
13:41 by the marketing team, it is, as
13:43 Benjamin would say, the aura that is
13:45 simulated. You can see this all over Tik
13:46 Tok and Pinterest that people are
13:48 matching food with fashion, food with
13:50 fragrance, food with literary
13:51 preference. And I think what we are
13:53 seeing is a flip in the narrative.
13:54 Instead of food simulating the
13:56 desiraability of a product, we see the
13:58 product simulating the desiraability of
14:00 the food. For example, in this image,
14:02 you may align more with the supposed
14:04 output. And so you reverse the equation.
14:06 Instead of being influenced to buy what
14:07 is being marketed, what is being
14:09 marketed influences what you eat. And
14:11 then we find ourselves in the age-old
14:12 sticky situation of making certain foods
14:14 fashionable. and for the mental and
14:15 physical health of probably more so the
14:17 female population but let's just say
14:18 it's the general population as a whole
14:20 this is a bad idea because in this case
14:22 the diet is not being pushed for its
14:24 nutritional value but for its aura and
14:27 when this is a desirable aura a diet
14:28 consisting of this is not going to end
14:30 well furthermore just to drive home how
14:32 much of a bad idea this is not even
14:34 going to end badly if this becomes your
14:36 diet but also if it does not because
14:38 it's propaganda like this that suggests
14:40 that you are only cool if you eat this
14:42 and so if you don't eat this you are not
14:44 Cool. Oh. Anyway, I think this is a
14:46 discussion for another video. So, if you
14:47 want to have the conversation, do help
14:48 yourselves in the comment section below.
14:50 I shall join you as I see fit. Anyway,
14:52 fragrance-like fashion follows trends.
14:54 What we now understand to be clean girl
14:55 aesthetic is just the most current and
14:57 refined rebrand of what we would
14:59 consider minimalism to be in the 2010s.
15:01 Clean girl aesthetic is a result of
15:02 minimalism being filtered through
15:04 cultural eras of self-care and wellness
15:06 influence of individualism and the rise
15:08 of hyper femininity marking a neglect of
15:11 2010 minimalism's original architectural
15:13 and philosophical influences. Clean girl
15:15 aesthetic is a branch of minimalism as a
15:16 result of filtration and refinement
15:18 through the 2010s. And as such, I would
15:20 consider it correct to suggest that
15:21 before there was clean girl aesthetic,
15:23 there was minimalism. One of the first
15:24 brands to capitalize on the breakdown
15:26 and refinement of minimalism into its
15:29 aesthetic was Glossier. 2014 saw the
15:30 colloquial conception of the term no
15:32 makeup makeup, a beauty branch of the
15:34 aesthetic component of minimalism.
15:36 Glossier was the embodiment of this
15:38 trend. Founded in 2014 at no makeup
15:40 makeup's peak, in 2017, minimalism
15:42 reached its own peak. So, it's no
15:43 surprise that this is when Glossier
15:45 became popular as it was one of the only
15:46 brands identifying with the minimal
15:48 makeup and skincare at the time where
15:50 the most popular trend at the time was
15:52 actually full glam, smokey eye, filledin
15:54 eyebrows, Alla, Jeffree Star, James
15:56 Charles. So, in the scheme of things,
15:57 there was actually little competition.
15:59 At the start of Glossia's rise in
16:01 popularity in 2017, they released their
16:03 first fragrance, Glossier U, which was
16:05 popular, but his popularity was limited
16:07 by the Jeffree Star effect. It wasn't
16:09 until the conception of the Clean Girl
16:11 aesthetic in 2022 that it reached its
16:13 full potential. By then, Glossier was
16:14 already an established brand, and so
16:16 when the full glam look fell out of
16:18 favor, it was the natural replacement.
16:19 With the rise of the clean girl
16:21 aesthetic and Glossia's cultural value,
16:23 their fragrance U garnered correlating
16:25 attention, suggesting that this
16:27 fragrance wasn't bought for its scent,
16:29 but it semiotic value, a tool for
16:31 performing alignment with the Clean Girl
16:32 aesthetic. Rather than smelling nice,
16:35 you simply owned Glossier U. No matter
16:37 what it actually smelt like, owning a
16:38 piece of the Clean Girl aesthetic was
16:40 more important. Currently, we are
16:42 experiencing clean girl fatigue. To fill
16:44 the clean girl void, the most popular
16:47 trend circle 2025 ad a
16:48 a
16:51 >> AI. Do you use AI? Do you use church?
16:53 >> Is individuality and authenticity. As
16:54 you might expect if you're listening
16:55 carefully, this cultural turn is
16:57 mirrored in fragrance. So with the same
16:59 sentiment in mind, in order to adhere to
17:00 this new aesthetic, if you want to call
17:02 authenticity an aesthetic, which to be
17:05 honest, I think it is, you must smell
17:07 authentic and individual. But notice how
17:09 these are not scents. We have completely
17:11 dismantled the expectation that perfume
17:13 should smell nice. This is reflected in
17:14 the rise of popularity of fragrance
17:17 houses like Labo and Brio. Labo was
17:18 supposedly created as a scent revolution
17:20 and desire to rebel against the rising
17:23 tide of conformity.
17:25 Where traditionally fragrance has been
17:26 quite heavily gendered, for example,
17:28 floral and sweet for women and woody and
17:31 musky for men, the Labo combined scent
17:33 profiles to create a unisex fragrance.
17:34 The androgyny supposedly allows the
17:36 wearer to project their own identity
17:37 onto the scent. The genderless
17:40 composition, clear liquid, and antibrand
17:41 concepts like the illusion of a
17:43 handstamped label claims that every
17:45 perfume is handmade to order and poured
17:47 upon purchase and the lack of celebrity
17:48 or influencer marketing is all a
17:50 marketing technique in itself to create
17:51 the illusion of individuality.
17:53 Projecting the idea that the wearer
17:55 imparts their own identity, making it
17:57 more than a mass-produced object. But
18:04 The visually inept of us will not see
18:06 difference between the two. I know I
18:08 can't. Both Elabo and Brio make
18:09 fragrances that traditionally would have
18:11 been considered unpleasant for being too
18:13 animalic or smoky because there has been
18:15 a sociological shift from the desire to
18:17 smell pleasant to the desire to smell
18:19 different. This pursuit of individuality
18:21 is a paradox. In the age of mass
18:23 production and consumerism, authenticity
18:25 has become a commodity. The rhetoric of
18:27 realness that brands like Halabo and
18:28 Brio are marketing to us with
18:31 androgynous, raw, handmade, anti-trend
18:33 promises are just another layer of
18:35 branding. These markers of originality
18:37 have become aesthetics in themselves,
18:39 endlessly replicated and reproduced. And
18:41 so it stands to reason that if we assume
18:43 Benjamin was correct in his theory of
18:45 aura decay, the sustained repetition of
18:47 consumer behaviors based on the desire
18:49 to be unique results only in the
18:51 illusion of individuality. The desire to
18:53 smell unique ultimately collapses into
18:55 the same logic as the desire to look
18:56 fashionable. Which is why we now cringe
18:58 at the idea of doing too much. Because
19:00 paradoxically, individuality looks the
19:02 same. And unfortunately, following the
19:04 same reasoning, individuality also
19:06 smells the same. What if we do actually
19:07 consider buying and wearing perfume or
19:09 cologne for its scent? This final
19:33 Who actually value the smell of their
19:35 cologne over its identity. For those of
19:37 you who understand the meaning of a top
19:38 and a bottom, who choose their scent
19:40 based not on research, virality,
19:42 exclusivity, or popularity within the
19:44 niche fragrance community, which in
19:49 itself is also a paradox, but on smell.
19:50 How radical. Maybe you smell like the
19:52 bottle you bought in a foreign country.
19:54 The bottle you haggled a Moroccan man
19:55 for that you couldn't even read the
19:57 label of, let alone recognize the brand,
19:59 but you enjoyed the smell of. No prior
20:01 knowledge, no hype, no commodified
20:02 identity portrayed by marketing,
20:04 influenced only by smell. and maybe a
20:06 little bit by the Moroccan sales pitch
20:08 and the thrill of a haggle, but mostly
20:10 by smell. In 2014, Subbert and Friends
20:12 found that there was a positive
20:13 correlation between the pleasantness of
20:15 her smell and our perception of beauty.
20:17 Participants were placed in a room that
20:19 either smelled nice or smelt like fish
20:20 and were literally asked,
20:21 >> "What would you rate this girl on a
20:22 scale of 1 to 10?"
20:24 >> Those in the nice smelling room rated
20:25 her as more attractive than those in the
20:27 room that smelt bad, demonstrating that
20:29 a pleasant smell makes you sexy by
20:31 influencing and altering visual
20:33 perception. Essentially, to smell good
20:35 is to look good. Notice in this
20:36 experiment how the smell that was
20:38 influencing perception was blind. There
20:40 was no identity associated with the
20:42 smell, just a pleasant smell or an
20:44 unpleasant smell. When scent is isolated
20:45 from its identity as a product and
20:47 experienced only as the chemical, it is
20:49 moderation, not excess that attracts.
20:51 Heavy use of cologne or aftershave ala
20:54 links Africa masks the smell of being
20:56 someone potentially attractive. You want
20:57 your cologne to harmonize with your body
20:59 chemistry, not compete with it. From an
21:01 evolutionary point of view, you can
21:02 essentially smell if someone is going to
21:04 make good babies. There is not
21:06 necessarily a certain smell of wellness.
21:08 There is however a smell of illness. And
21:09 if you are attempting to medicate your
21:12 halattosis with Dior suage, uh maybe
21:14 this podcast is a waste of time. But
21:16 anyway, there is however a smell of
21:18 compatibility. And when you drown this
21:20 with cologne, you stop signaling nice,
21:22 friendly, superior species, ideal mate,
21:24 and start signaling danger chemical
21:26 warfare. There's a threshold, okay? You
21:28 want to be just above the detectable
21:29 level so that there is still that
21:31 unconscious response to combatibility.
21:33 So really, it's not a smell in the sense
21:35 that it is a fragrance because you
21:37 respond below the conscious level to it.
21:38 But when you match a fragrance with the
21:40 right intensity, it has the potential to
21:42 increase the level of attraction people
21:44 feel towards you. As well as intensity,
21:45 you want congruence. A Czech
21:47 zoolologist, which I found quite funny,
21:49 found that wearing your own perfume is
21:50 more attractive than wearing a randomly
21:52 assigned perfume. So by that conclusion,
21:54 there must be some kind of interaction
21:56 between yourself and your preferred
21:57 fragrance because it smells better than
21:59 an interaction between yourself and a
22:01 random fragrance. So what does that mean
22:02 in practical terms? You don't want to
22:04 smother yourself in perfume or you will
22:07 lose yourself part of that interaction
22:08 that ultimately makes you smell more
22:10 attractive. As I said earlier, perfume
22:12 marketing is based on sex because you
22:14 can't smell the marketing. You know,
22:16 gingerbread men smell nice, but
22:17 fragrance, as I said earlier, is more
22:19 than just smelling nice. But unlike the
22:21 smell of a gingerbread man, the smell of
22:24 sex depends on cultural context. In the
22:25 50s, Marilyn Monroe famously said that
22:27 she wore nothing but Chanel number five
22:28 to bed.
22:30 >> They asked you questions like, "What do
22:33 you wear to bed?" Uh, do you wear pajama
22:36 tops, the bottoms of the pajamas, or the
22:40 night gown? Or so I Chanel number five?
22:42 Cuz it's it's the truth.
22:45 >> And before 1998, Chanel number five
22:47 contained civet. The reason why post
22:49 1998 you no longer find this ingredient
22:50 in perfume is because you obtain it from
22:53 the anal glands of exotic cats. It's cat
22:55 bum juice. Bum juice that when diluted,
22:56 it actually smells warm, musky, and
22:58 sweet, reflecting the depictions of sex
23:00 that existed at the time. But the
23:02 semantics of sex changed in the 80s and
23:04 '9s. The AIDS epidemic reshaped how we
23:06 viewed sex and as it follows, how we
23:08 marketed perfume. In 1994, Calvin Klein
23:11 released CK1, a sterile frosted glass
23:13 bottle and transparent liquid. Is it any
23:15 wonder that instead of perfume smelling
23:17 alamalic or primal, it now smells of
23:19 cyst? Whilst they smell entirely
23:20 different, they are portrayed very
23:22 similarly. The sexy one.
23:24 >> Perfume hasn't always smelt the same,
23:26 but it has always smelt of sex. So, with
23:28 that, take what you will. Link smells
23:30 like a 16-year-old boy. Glossia smells
23:32 like a social media marketing intern.
23:34 CK1 smells like a kitchen. What smells
23:36 like you?
23:37 And that is everything we have time for
23:39 today. I really hope you enjoyed that. I
23:40 really hope to see you here very
23:42 incredibly soon. do come again if anyone
23:43 is wondering. My favorite scents are
23:45 white florals. Do tell me what your
23:46 favorite scent is. Do tell me if you own
23:51 Glossia, Bakrat Rouge, Labo or the like. Um
23:53 Um
24:12 Oh. Ah.
24:15 Ah.
