The third set of images in the Appendix depicts a variety of Rolex watches. It is easy to identify the watches designed for men versus men by such features as their size and the amount of ornamentation on their faces. The watch is in and of itself a unisex object, which, like the all-purpose sports training shoe described by Boydell (1996), is increasingly differentiated to reflect male and female taste and style preferences.

The final images depict perfume bottles and packaging developed by Giorgio Armani Corporation for females and males. In this instance, the first image is of a red and vibrant package that appeals to women and the following images are of darker colored bottles of a more utilitarian nature designed for male consumers. The visual languages are augmented by what Boydell (1996), in a different context, characterizes

At the same time, when one compares the image of the gold and diamond encrusted ladies' watch in the image series to the larger and less heavily ornamented men's watches it becomes clear that gendered design is at work. Rolex does in fact make 18 carat gold or platinum jewel encrusted watches for males but most men who wear a Rolex watch are unlikely to purchase one whose face is covered with Pave diamonds.

In the case of the Armani perfume bottles, even the names of the perfumes are deliberately gendered. There is nothing androgynous about these bottles or, one suspects, the scents they contain. Attfield (1996) states that studies of gender in material culture are now cutting across the relatively simplistic binary opposition which defines masculinity and femininity by means of division, biological truth, and hierarchy. However, at the same time the discourse presented in each of these images tends to affirm the contention that many marketing professionals continue to believe that men and women have different tastes and will respond to products that are clearly marked as "masculine" or "feminine."