The names of the interviewee's have been changed for this study. Their names for the study are Subject A, Subject B, and Subject C. Subject A and C are males and Subject B is a female.

Karla: Visual Comm Study. Okay so, in front of you, you have, first one is Brooke Shields second one is Kim Kardashian. What do you see? Like, do you see the same image basically?

All Subjects: Yes

Karla: What do you think is portrayed?

Subject A: Jeans.

Subject B: Supposed to be.

Karla: Okay

Subject A: Sold by sex

Subject B: Women. Sexy women

Subject A: yeah

Karla: Okay so, it's a Calvin Klein jean ad. This one was actually taken in the 90s that's present day. Do you see like a different appeal based on the pictures?

Subject A: No

Subject B: Yes

Karla: How?

Subject B: She's like...her arch level is kind of like...well...I don't know to describe it.

Subject A: The pose is different

Subject B: yeah the pose is different

Karla: She's accentuating her figure maybe?

Subject B: yeah

Subject C: yeah

Subject B: she's just standing up trying to make it look fierce.

Karla: Okay...good. Okay when you look at the pictures what do you notice first?

Subject A: the butt

Karla: which one?

Subject A: The Calvin Klein jeans.

Karla: Which one, like A or B?

Subject A: A

Karla: okay, So kind of b has a more visual appeal than a.

Subject B: yeah

Karla: So would you say that due to the fact that B is a lot more contemporary and A is a lot older, would you say that CK took on a different focus in their ads?

All: no

Subject C: it looks the same for the most part.

Karla: Alright good. So then in front of you you have four images. They all range from a and b are earlier ads, c and d are a lot more contemporary

Subject B: okay

Karla: What, just basically, just by looking at them what can you see as like differences

Subject B: these are just like pose. Like yeah I'm here

Subject A: these are sexual poses

Subject C: mmhmm

Subject A: these have like emotion into the sexual poses

Subject B: these look like they actually just did it

Subject A: contemporary ones c and d have more emotion into the sexual pose

Subject B: you believe it more

Karla: But, Not based on emotion, just the actual image.

Subject B: the arch in her back that's something that shows climax and the same thing with the positioning of the guy and everything

Karla: so would you say that the more recent ones tend to have a lot more sex appeal than the older ones?

Subject A: yes

Subject C: absolutely

Karla: in what ways? Not just looking at form.

Subject A: I mean the expression on their face and their position

Subject B: and they're naked

Subject C: yeah

Karla: so if you were to be looking at C could you tell that it was a jean ad

Subject C: no

Subject B: no, you can't even see the jeans

Subject C: you only see the waist lines

Karla: why do you think they would do something like that?

Subject A: because as long as you put the companies name somewhere on the ad and you know what they sell...i mean from a guys point of view if you're looking thought a magazine a stereotypical guy kind of thing when you're going through a magazine you see this guy and a girl butt naked you're like wow...you know...and as long as you get to see the companies name you're like oh well I'm going to go to..

Subject B: cause that'll have the effect on men

Subject C: exactly

Subject A: and I mean they use both sexes to attract both females and males

Karla: would you say that there were any hidden meanings

Subject B: well like obviously these two people are attractive and they're like having sex so maybe if you buy these jeans you'll be attractive and you'll have sex

Subject A: make your butt bigger

Karla: being a female in the subject would you say that any of these would be degrading?

Subject B: yeahh

Karla: in what way?

Subject B: it's just like that we're just sex objects and you can only sell a product thought a female in this arching climax of a pose. She can't just sit there and sell the product she has to be in a topless position on a man to seem attractive

Karla: Would you say that c is more degrading than d

Subject B: Um...I think they are on the same level, c is probably more degrading because she's topless and d she has more clothes on but she is still degrading because she's in the position to have sex but c is more naked

Karla: now you two other subjects as men would you find any of these as degrading for a woman or more enjoyment for a man?

Subject C: degrading towards women

Karla: in a guys perspective how?

Subject C: I mean for the same reasons I mean it's like telling guys that buy these jeans and you can get this...

Karla: do you think that this kind of appeal or advertisement works?

Subject C: mm mm

Subject A: no

Subject B: obviously it does

Subject A: I mean I don't think it works because I mean when you walk into a store you do not see the same

Subject C: yeah there is not pictures all over

Subject A: there's only several stores in which they show these kinds of marketing ideas. Because I mean for example Abercrombie has the models in the front where the guys are shirtless and the girls are either wearing miniskirts or they're wearing bikinis or two pieces or something like that. Only certain stores do this. If you go to higher end stores like Luis Vuiton, Coach or Gucci they don't use this kind of exposure when you walk into a store

Karla: okay. And then the next set of images. A and B. A is an older ad that was used and this is kind of showing you

Subject B: is that a girl

Karla: yes that's a girl and three guys. Um like this was just kind of to show how CK has changed in the coupling setting and likeÉ

Subject A: adding more guys. Like what are you trying to say?

Karla: just visually what's the difference?

Subject A: well if these are newer...are these newer or older?

Karla: this is older that's newer. B is a lot more contemporary I believe it was published in 07 and a was published in 95

Subject A: um well obviously the newer ones they've included more males

Subject B: more sex

Subject A: yeah more sex to it. It looks like a threesome...four some excuse me...it looks like that guy is passed out this one she just finished with and now she's moving on to the third one

Subject B: yeah

Subject A: and this one is kind of just

Subject C: posing

Subject A: a is just a pose. They're just modeling there's no sex. It's just models modeling

Karla: so you can very drastically see the difference. The sex sells environment.

All: mmhmm

Karla: okay the following images are of male underwear ads and I just want to show the difference in what you would see and how you do it how Calvin Klein has taken the advertisements like in difference perspectives. As you can see image a and b are actually the same pose or roughly the same pose the only difference is how he cover himself. A was actually never published in a magazine spread because it was said to be too risque for the US but all the rest were published

Subject A: I mean I disagree with a because

Subject B: there's no underwear

Karla: that's underwear

Subject B: ohh

Subject A: no I disagree with the company how could they not publish this but they are able to publish the females in the other past ads that we've see

Subject B: well it's just like this subject where they don't censor the entire boob just the nipple might as well show the entire boob

Subject A: exactly so here I disagree with the company because you have to keep it even. It goes back to what subject B said about

Karla: how it's more degrading

Subject A: yeah about how it's degrading and how woman are sex objects to sell clothing

Karla: and like... so just based on...f kind of has this play appeal with the water...would you say that when producers tend to present it in that way they are trying to give another meaning to it?

Subject A: I'm guessing they're just trying to add to the sex appeal

Subject C: mmhmm

Subject B: glistening body

Subject A: I mean when you see swim suit editions playing in the water or getting photographed on the ocean shores with water splashing they're trying to get that same thing buy splashing water onto the male subject

Karla: would you guys, the male subjects, find any of these images degrading towards you or objectification

Subject A: not really...I don't

Subject C: neither do I

Subject A: I think that the degrading is more towards woman because of the way society is structured

Subject B: they're not like really in any sexual position or anything like in the other pictures because the girls were on top of the men or had their legs wrapped around them. here you could typically be lying back on a beach or in your bed or standing next to a pool glistening having your body glisten. Like these are just poses they seem with extremely tight underwear

Subject A: and I think it's not degrading because of how I was saying earlier how society is structured and how men are kind of still in powered and most of these men are muscular and fit and it just shows like power

Karla: do you think that this is an effective way to advertise?

Subject B: it's an effective way for a female to buy even though...

Karla: even though it's a men's subject?

Subject B: yeah even though it's a men's subject cause they can be like ohh they make really hot men's underwear why wouldn't they make really hot women's underwear I'm just more enticed to look at the label

Karla: based on what you see it was actually ck states on one of their websites that they want their underwear at to make their consumer think that they have the best quality the best comfort

Subject B: yes

Karla: would you say that these pictures give off that motto that they have

Subject C: no

Karla: why not?

Subject B: they don't look that comfortable

Subject C: cause how can you I mean ...you could lie down with wearing any underwear and do the same pose and no one would know the difference

Karla: so you think...

Subject A: I disagree...I disagree that like these men are comfortable enough in that underwear that they can just let it all show I guess

Karla: so you agree with the statement

Subject A: yes. That like the underwear is so comfortable that it makes you feel comfortable that you can just go out and be in underwear and just lay down on the beach or on a rock or something and look hot.

Karla: and then going back to yours why you said you don't agree to it. Would you say that either way the form of advertisement is still effective even though you say you don't see comfort in the way they are advertise it

Subject C: can you repeat the question

Karla: like going back to your disagreement, do you think that their form of advertisement is not working basically? Like why would you?

Subject C: Well like not for me

Karla: Like you don't see comfort in it?

Subject C: No. I wouldn't go out and see guys posing in underwear and think oh I want that underwear

Karla: okay the next images are actually all of these are older publications of Calvin Klein. They range from early 90s to around 2001. But mostly they are based in the 90s.

Subject A: well my first impression is that they are all fully clothed

Karla: now a lot of these ads like are structured differently. They are mixed in with not only underwear ads but bathing suit ads, everyday wear, normal wear, day wear, and then just the jeans in general. From the images I've shown you before that weren't just like underwear ads, do you see or can you spot any differences that there may be in older publications?

Subject A: like I said, my first impression is that they are all fully clothed. But then these are different...this is a different kind of advertisement. It's not underwear advertisement it's...

Subject B: I mean I think they are definitely trying to sell the comfort idea because these women seem to be in like not sexual poses but more of angles with their bodies where they are trying to cover all of the screen. And like if she's in her underwear being able to bring her foot up like that in an underwear and t-shirt. She's able. And like in this baggy skirt and there's hair in their face...and they're like looking directly at the camera. I think it's definitely trying to sell comfort. But you can definitely tell how old these are because you don't see ads like this anymore.

Karla: you don't see ads that focus mainly on...

Subject B: the clothes. Yeah. Because like I can tell in these that that's trying to sell underwear this is trying to sell a skirt and like swimwear and a jacket.

Karla: Can you quickly identify who that brand is?

Subject A: mmhmm

Subject B: yeah

Subject A: yeah because the brand isÉ like in the other ones the brand was in the corner or somewhere where it was visible to the costumer but it wasn't like brand smacking in the middle saying Calvin Klein jeans with a big cK Me and then...based on those wehere they're a lot older and you had a mix. The following two are kind of a comparison of the female underwear ads. A and B. Just by looking at them can you tell which one is older and which one is contemporary?

Subject A: A is older.

Karla: how do you know?

Subject A: because the underwear is more umÉless revealing

Subject B: yeah...um it's more like full bottom underwear. Instead you have the g=string side over here and fancy bra and the decorations with it

Subject A: the pose the female in B shows it's newer

Karla: how so? Like when you say the pose?

Subject A: she's like...is she lying down or standing?

Karla: I think she's leaning on a wall

Subject A: I think her facial expression gives a lot away. It's kind of giving the sex come get me sort of look

Karla: the come hither seduction?

Subject A: yeahÉand A she's more like modeling and looking at the camera type of look

Subject B: I'm also looking at the placement of the logo

Subject A: it's right on her vag

Subject B: you can tell how the newer supposedly newer ones have it on her crotch where the older one have it conveniently placed on her arm...which doesn't seem as completely sexual

Karla: so you can definitely see again another like transfer into a more sexually liberating type of idea? That comes along with the times that you know the early 90s probably weren't into. They were more conservative. Now you see a lot more...

Subject B: they were more...I don't know it seems like woman are a lot more seen as a sexual object

Karla: so would you find this one degrading?

Subject B: oh I find the recent ones degrading. The older one yes is degrading because you can see her face isn't like I'm only trying to sell the clothes but she's trying to take it off but she seems uncomfortable. Because she's not directly in front of the camera and her mouth is open. But it's less degrading than 6b.

Karla: okay the next two are again a comparison but this time involving more of the angle that it was produced in. With looking at both of them could you tell which one was newer and which one was newer or older?

Subject A: B. B is newer again because of the facial expressions and more body is being revealed and the placement of the logo. It's right next to the body

Subject C: it's smaller

Subject A: and it's smaller too Karla: so you can definitely see a difference facial expressions?

Subject A: mhm cause here she's curled around and I mean her crotch area isn't being exposed as it was in earlier pictures. Compared to the other ones it's not being exposed and she's using her arms to cover her breasts. And over here she's just in plain sight

Subject B: they both seem equally seductive to me

Karla: but if you had to rate one more seductive or sexually appealing which one would you pick?

Subject B: I guess 7b.

Karla: just by looking at it could you tell that it's a famous person

Subject B: yeah...it's that Eva Mendes chic

Karla: do you think that by using an icon like that they can get away with more provocative poses like that

Subject A: depends on the icon I think

Subject B: well she's an actress that's known for taking her clothes off in movies and stuff

Subject A: yeah that's what I was heading to. It depends on the icon. if it's a conservative icon then I don't think it would be the same

Karla: so if you didn't know who that was do you think that it would still give off the same

Subject A: oh yeah definitely it would give off the same thing but obviously an icon gives it more attention because you're like oh yeah it's so and so but it also depends on who the icon is to determine what kind of position it is and what kind of clothing she will wear

Karla: and then the following images are one of the most famous ones for ck underwear. It was recently reshot and given a new outlook. Based on the pictures in front of you it's Mark Wahlberg and Mario Lopez. What do you think just by looking at it?

Subject B: well the guys themselves seem friendly and approachable

Subject A: they're facial expressions are smiling and it's like they're happy and comfortable and act like the underwear make you look good and powerful. And by the use of icons they attract the attention of the customer

Karla: would you say that they're kind of presenting a different look on the Calvin Klein brand?

Subject A: as to what?

Karla: as to what you saw previously?

Subject B: the other males seem to be posing in their underwear...the underwear's kind of wearing them and here it's more the men are wearing the underwear

Subject A: I think that the other ones since they're models they have to strike a pose or some sort of umm they can't pull off the same things as mark Wahlberg and Mario Lopez can pull off because these two are icons and can have more fun with the shots as for the other ones who are models and just strike a pose and try to sell the underwear

Karla: like when you first look at it could you tell that they were from different periods

Subject A and B: no

Subject A: just looking at the poses, no

Karla: would you say that this was geared more toward women or men?

Subject A: umm women

Subject B: women

Subject A: because first of all they're icons or famous people soo...

Subject B: yeah and I almost bought that poster of mark Wahlberg

Karla: for the male subjects here, would you say that this is an objectification or would you find it degrading?

Subject A: not at all...not to men

Subject C: no

Subject A: because the females are being degrading because they are put into sexual positions or something in which everything is reveals

Subject C: these guys are just standing with their arms crossed

Karla: even though they're half naked

Subject A: but they're standing there all muscular looking like a badass I mean look mark's just standing there saying hey look I'm a badass

Karla: but if a woman were position in that same type of manner. Like in the one where Kate Moss is just standing in the straight frontal shot the one from the previous pictures of her...5f...would you find 5f degrading.

Subject A: no I did not find that degrading. Like subject B said earlier it's just a sense of comfort or degrading to woman. She's not in a sexual position or in a degrading way.

Subject C: she's wearing more clothes and the logo is more visible

Karla: as opposed to 6b where you guys said earlier that it's completely degrading

Subject C: her body is emphasized more. The logo...

Subject B: her crotch is emphasized

Karla: so basically the main things that you guys see that changes is the positioning of the body the angles that your body or the bodies were making

Subject A: and the amount of clothing and the placement of the logo

Karla: okay. The final image is more. It's actually an older ad. It's one of the first risque ads that they have ever done but it kind of marks a changing step. Just by looking at it what do you think?

Subject B: I think that she's a he.

Subject A: I think this one is actually kind of positive because it shows that woman empowerment and how she can step into...

Subject C: a man's room and step into it

Subject A: with confidence

Subject B: women's empowerment totally

Subject A: yeah...like she can step into a men's room and put on a man's shoes and run a business just as he can

Subject B: but still look like graceful and poise because she's still wearing heels and like when a woman wears black high heels you're one, Trying to look sexy but. You also mean business

Karla: so you agree that in advertisements there are ways to show sexiness, feminine appeal without being...

Subject A: naked or degrading

Subject C: yes

Subject B: yeah

Karla: or sexually posed

Subject B: yeah

Subject A: yes

Subject B: I mean like you can say that this is kind of sexually posed because the center of the picture is her butt, but it's not fully exposed, she's wearing full underwear

Subject A: I think this also adds to what I was saying that she can step into a man's shoes and run the business but she's also comfortable doing it because she's wearing comfortable underwear. It's not like a thong or g-string or anything of that sort that's more like sexiness. It's just a comfortable underwear

Subject B: yes

Karla: based on everything that you've seen based on image sections 1-9. Would you say that the times now have continued to drastically change? Or have they gone more towards old fashioned?

Subject B: drastically changed into being more less covered. Like oh, is that really what you're trying to sell, where's the product at in the picture?

Subject C: sex is more in it than the actual product

Subject B: it's like how naked can you get your model to be, that's what it seems. Not about power it's more about sexuality

Subject A: and their more degrading too towards women

Subject C: I think sex is what is most emphasized like saying oh if you get this you'll get a beautiful girl or that's the end product instead of clothes.

Karla: so it's pretty much unanimous that advertisement now has changed?

Subject B: mhm

Subject A: yes it has

Subject C: yes

Karla: do you think that it will continue to change?

Subject B: mmhm

Subject C: yes

Subject A: I think that they will go back to being more conservative later because obviously times change and I think there's going to be one time when someone will step up and say "let's go back to the old school" where they do this and that and someone's going to step up and say let's stop degrading women. Because as society grows and women continue or keep to improve their status in society they are becoming more equal to men.

Subject B: I can see that in society but like in pictures I think it's actually getting worse and will continue to get worse. Because you have like, they're trying to divide the high big logos from like those like old navy and target. Those people that model old navy and target have skirts to the knee, full length shirts. You see Calvin Klein and they're trying to set themselves apart from those like these department stores so they can only set themselves apart by coming off naked. So it'll only get worse.

Karla: based on what subject A said a second ago. Are you aware that advertisement has reached a point where women are completely nude and men are fully clothed?

Subject A: I don't think it's gottenÉwell I don't think it'll get to that point...

Subject B: no it has

Karla: yes, it has. The company Tom Ford has actually published completely nude ads.

Subject A: okay than yes it has but sooner or later I think they'll go back to more conservative and then the cycle will go back all over again

Subject B: well there are women advocates that are fighting hardcore for the whole women not to be seen as animals. They're just as powerful as men and have just as high success rates in college and jobs. But if you look at our society through a magazine it's obviously not portrayed and we've gone from good to worse so it's only going to ...it's not going to improve

Karla: why do you think it will always be the female that gets objectified or portrayed in a certain manner instead of the male?

Subject B: cause we're seen as weak and vulnerable just because we don't have the same muscle mass or weight or height or facial features that are considered strong in our society. We can obviously be persuaded or moved to think or do something.

Subject A: because women are men's weakness and if they wear sexy underwear they will be our weakness in ads.

Karla: okay, thanks you.