Oh, 'Dive In'. I thought it said 'Drive In', which I found to be way funnier.

Don't they test products before putting them out there? Aren't there focus groups and stuff?

Can't they just have someone not involved in the product's development look at it to make sure the first reaction to it isn't "WTF!"?

I don't get it. If they're for young (presumably 9 and under) girls, who is looking at their panties??? Does this crazy person think that's the kind of thing that would drive a pedo over the edge?

I don't see a 7 year old, under the kind of hypersensitive "parenting" this woman is using, understanding that there might be any sexual implications from the phrase. If she does know, shouldn't the mother have a dialog with her daughter rather than a media-grab?

I'm thinking the mother saw this and saw lawsuit dollar signs, not sexual impropriety.

If there's grass on the field.....

*cough* never mind.

As a Mom of 4 girls, I think "Mrs. Ralph" needs to get a grip! Good grief, I wonder if she disallows "bit a honey" candy in her home,too- because someone might think it descibes her daughter- AAGGGGGHHHHH! I'd consider this a "1" on my offensive meter- her reaction is the funniest thing of all.

You're disghusting@Shadowfire:

@brother9: I don't think the idea is that someone who has the girl's pants off and thinking "should I, or maybe not?" is literally going to see it and think "Dive in!" The woman is probably more outraged by the general inappropriateness of the sentiment.

That's what happens when you offshore your branded clothing. "Here, put these graphics in a language you don't understand on these items of clothing." Recipe for win!

Exactly- that was my first thought,too@brother9:

Mrs. Ralph, you're the one with your mind in the gutter. "It's sexually suggestive, inappropriate and wholeheartedly wrong in some cases." If you look hard enough, there are double entendres in most everything

And thus we have the age old imply vs. infer debate. Who is at fault? I hardly think that Disney is promoting pedophilia, molestation, or sex among children. What you infer is your problem

Disney is well known for their innuendos. "Darling, it's better down where it's wetter"

says the lobster to the fish? yep, super sexually suggestive@sean77:

People are offended over the craziest things. A white politician apologized to a black civil servant for calling some local government office a "black hole." In no way was that racist, it meant that problems, complaints, issues, etc. go in, and in the bureaucratic mess they get sucked in and never come out or get resolved. In no way was it racially motivated. The African Americans who think they have the monopoly on when it's okay to say "black" even outside a racial context piss me off. Sometimes it can be considered a double entendre, but there is such a thing as reading too much into something.

Stay classy Disney

@TomCruisesTesticles: Speaking of getting off-topic..

Several years ago in OKC I was sitting in the supermarket parking lot waiting on my wife, and some mom and her 8-year old girl show up to load their SUV. Embroidered & sequined on the ass of the 10-year old girl (short shorts) was *HOTTIE* (asterisks = actually stars). If a lot of moms are really oblivious to their prepubescent daughters turning into Rollergirl then who can be surprised at this Disney faux.

""Unfortunately, an oversight was made and the text on the underwear was used out context," Disney said in a statement."

I think what they mean to say is "Unfortunately, an oversight was made and the text on the underwear was taken out of context"

Well, they didn't take it seriously. =)

This is like the Walmart panties that said:

[front]"Who needs credit cards?"
[back]"When you've got santa?"

and people went back and forth as to the appropriateness of this message after Walmart pulled them from stores. I don't understand putting messages on any panties. I don't get why a young girls' crotch requires reading material to begin with.

This is like those sweatpants that teenagers wear that say "Juicy" across the butt. What exactly are we supposed to make of that?

@malvones: I use the threads as a forum to rally everyone up and argue against the voices in my head.

I plead guilty to derailing multiple threads.

@TomCruisesTesticles: Oh NOES! You have admitted to thread hi-jacking, which runs 'a foul of the new commenting T&C and will be dealt with harshly! RUN!!!!!

@TomCruisesTesticles: BTW, where my husband is from, they can't call them "black boards" and "white erase boards" because it's racist, apparently.

*shrugs*

@Shadowfire: Funniest thing I have seen all day.

@joellevand: They actually dont call them "white erase boards" they call them "eraser boards" as white is a racist term.

@AirIntake: Dirve in... I like it. Well, it's funny at least. Is there a reason though that girls panties need cute messages? Do they occupy themselves at slumber parties by playing "Guess what my panties say"? Textless is fine, people!

On an aside, these products seem meant for younger girls, which begs the question, who's going to see that would care? The girl? Her mom?

@TomCruisesTesticles: and thinking you are entitled because of it... I hate people sometimes..

these panties would be appropriate for Michael Phelps to wear! He's a swimmer.. "dive in".. get it! I bet he'd look adorable in pink.

Ahhhh...don't get your panties in a wad.

You should still be able to pick these up at WalMart for months, if not years, based on their restocking practices.

@Shadowfire
If they're old enough to go to the store, they're old enough to get bred.

I'm sort of perturbed by how many people think this is totally not an issue, based largely on "no one will see a little kid's underpants". I mean...what if the underwear had a definitely explicit sexual message on them? What if they were Alice In Wonderland-themed and said "Eat me"? It's not the thought that people might possibly see them on a child, it's the thought in the first place of putting anything innuendo-ish on clothing - whether it be outerwear or underwear - for a child. I don't think the folks at Disney made these with the aim of being perverted, but the fact that it didn't occur to anyone there that it maybe wasn't right is what creeps me out.

@midwestkel: Then you're disgusting.

No need to totally stop production of the product or throw away the thousands they've probably already produced, just sell them to stores like Spencer's or something. These would definitely make a 'classy' gift.

@spryte: I think the "innuendo" is in the eye of the beholder. You can find a sexual subtext in anything if you look at it long and hard enough. ;)

@MercuryPDX: BOYCOTT THIS POST! =D

@MercuryPDX: Believe you me, I'm definitely no prude, but somehow, I don't think it takes a whole lot of long, hard looking to see the hidden message implied when one writes "Dive in!" on the crotch of a girl's panties.

@MercuryPDX: Tee hee, you said "hard."

@spryte: Where you see a sexual comment, my daughter sees the same text that she has on her t-shirt. Panties are clothing to her, and not the last line of sexual defense, nor an invitation to sex.

Personally, I think people like Mrs Ralph are so wrapped up in themselves that they forget other people look at things differently, even their children or grandchildren.

If you don't think that a 7-9 year old would know what that was insinuating, you are fooling yourself. They hear worse at school and on the internet.

I had a thong that said "Paradise Found". But then again, I am an adult woman.

I am no prude but I find these Disney panties to be tacky. If you are really wanting them, though, give it a week and they will be on EBay.

@spryte: Very well said. It is a little disturbing to think that some think that this is ok.

On a complete sidenote, don't let your kids wear clothing with words on them! I can't stand watching young women strut around with Pink on their asses. That is loungewear...not outside wear. Let's start teaching girls style and class.

@joellevand: My grandmother loves to tell the story of a coworker who tore a strip of her for referring to an office object as a "blackboard" because it was apparently racist.

My grandmother loves telling the story so she can let everyone know how off her rocker that woman was.

This is like candy cigarettes. It reinforces an image. In retrospect, I find candy cigarettes appalling because smoking is gross (and they weren't even that good).

So I think the point behind the complaint is that mass-market sexualization keeps targeting a younger and younger crowd. Today, she's wearing "Dive in!" knickers, tomorrow she's a sorostitute. They've tapped the college crowd. Teens are in on it too. In the interest of broadening the market, now they're going after the children with oblivious parents. Corrupt them while they're young and impressionable. It makes your work easier later.

And that if Mrs Ralph had known she was buying her daughter something that said "Dive in!" should wouldn't have done it. That's fair enough.

@TomCruisesTesticles:

"If you look hard enough"

Enough said.

@spryte: Oooh Alice in Wonderland! How about Down the rabbit hole on the back of the panties? Or No Rabbits?

@godlyfrog: Thanks. That's exactly what I meant. A 9 year old sees "Zac Effron and Vanessa Hudgens dancing".... a 39-year old sees "sexual invitation".

@thelushie: Then I take it "Dive In" in the HSM movies refers to "pre-teen sexual promiscuity" and not something as innocent as "School Spirit" or "swimming lessons"?

@krom: That's not how it works. Generally, the designs are done in the US, they must then be approved by the licensor before they can be manuafcatured. A sample then is made for the retailer to approve. Once those approvals are done, it goes to the off-shore manufacturing.

As the Disney statement says, the graphic has been taken out-of-context.

@TomCruisesTesticles: Oh, piss off.

@MercuryPDX: Are the actresses running around with "Dive in" on their panties? Are the actresses 9 years old? On a pair of panties meant for a kid, that statement is not appropriate. On a t-shirt with a surfer design, completely different story. And if you think that 7-9 year olds in this day and age do not know the difference, you are fooling yourself.

It is nice and pleasant to think of childhood as innocence and goodness, but that is not the case anymore. Kids are alot more advanced than we ever were as children. And that is the adults fault. Because of this "advancement", we should protect children. Children are sexualized enough, especially little girls, without having to have "dive in" on their panties. Because, in the off chance that they don't know what it is insinuating, one of their friends will and will fill them in. Let the vicious teasing ("you like boys" or whatnot) begin.

Why do you think that a 39 year old seeing Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Effron dancing is a sexual invitation? Are they in their underwear dancing? Are they naked? Dancing has nothing to do with sex. My god, I am in my thirties and that would have never crossed my mind.

These are little girl panties? Then who in Hades are going to see the writing on the panties? Mommy, maybe Daddy and Uncle Perv if he is lucky (or little girl is unlucky). Pretty much means that Uncle Perv, if he is viewing the writing on the panties, is all ready where he don't belong and a wee little bit of writing is going to neither encourage nor discourage his further explorations. For all practical purposes the panties could say "x%&# me" and it would be totally meaningless because nobody with a sexual though in their mind is going to see the message.

And if Disney had panties that said "x%&# me", please let me know so we can get major pissy out of general principal.