Parents Angry Over Disney Underwear With "Dive-In" Printed On Them

White Rain

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
69
“High School Musical” underwear for young girls have sparked outrage — because they have the words “Dive in” on them.
A British woman bought a packet of five pairs, with a “Disney-approved” design promoting the hit movie, for her seven-year-old granddaughter.
“When she put them on, myself and my daughter thought, ‘Oh my goodness.’ It is inappropriate because it is sexually suggestive,” Sue Ralph, a 57-year-old civil servant, said. “You just never know who could see that and think it was a bit too enticing for a young child to be wearing.”
more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403745,00.html
 
It is cute movie and it special meaning for me and my daughter because we have known Vanessa since she was about five years old. She has worked very hard and her parents are very nice people who have never been stage parents.

For me, the bigger question is why is High School musical so aggressively market at the 7-12 year old child market? Why would a child want underwear with young adult actors on it??
I know the movie is supposed to show that bratty girls lose, nice girls win and different kids have something to offer but it also set the idea that girls are not happy without a boy to attach themselves to and that a 17 year old boy is worthy of fighting for.
 
It is cute movie and it special meaning for me and my daughter because we have known Vanessa since she was about five years old. She has worked very hard and her parents are very nice people who have never been stage parents.

For me, the bigger question is why is High School musical so aggressively market at the 7-12 year old child market? Why would a child want underwear with young adult actors on it??
I know the movie is supposed to show that bratty girls lose, nice girls win and different kids have something to offer but it also set the idea that girls are not happy without a boy to attach themselves to and that a 17 year old boy is worthy of fighting for.

My daughters 9, and 11 love it...I wouldn't buy them underwear saying that though. Not that I expect anyone to see the underwear, but still...
My oldest loved Hannah Montana until all the fuss about her started...now she has almost NO interest. I'm shocked (and proud)....The Jonas Brothers are her main love right now.
 
It is cute movie and it special meaning for me and my daughter because we have known Vanessa since she was about five years old. She has worked very hard and her parents are very nice people who have never been stage parents.

For me, the bigger question is why is High School musical so aggressively market at the 7-12 year old child market? Why would a child want underwear with young adult actors on it??
I know the movie is supposed to show that bratty girls lose, nice girls win and different kids have something to offer but it also set the idea that girls are not happy without a boy to attach themselves to and that a 17 year old boy is worthy of fighting for.

I have a daughter right in the middle of that demographic, and I am happy to have her be a fan of such a good, wholesome movie, where the heroine is a smart girl, boys and girls interact with each other respectfully, and the most sexual activity is a single kiss at the end.

PS: I saw the underwear and don't really understand the outrage. If it were large print and splashed across the front or back of outerwear (e.g., shorts), I would have a big problem....Likewise, I can't stand the shorts/pants with "JUICY" across the butt, but my daughter won't be getting any of those.
 
I have a daughter right in the middle of that demographic, and I am happy to have her be a fan of such a good, wholesome movie, where the heroine is a smart girl, boys and girls interact with each other respectfully, and the most sexual activity is a single kiss at the end.

PS: I saw the underwear and don't really understand the outrage. If it were large print and splashed across the front or back of outerwear (e.g., shorts), I would have a big problem....Likewise, I can't stand the shorts/pants with "JUICY" across the butt, but my daughter won't be getting any of those.

I have NOT seen the underwear, so I guess I can't really fuss, however any kind of kids undies that say "dive-in" raise a red flag for me. The sexual connotations out there are just too much for me to be comfy with....
 
I have NOT seen the underwear, so I guess I can't really fuss, however any kind of kids undies that say "dive-in" raise a red flag for me. The sexual connotations out there are just too much for me to be comfy with....

I agree with you White Rain. It just doesn't seem right at all.
 
Ugh, I am so over all the marketing to our children and parents buying into the marketing.
 
Okay, you may not like my opinion on this. So, slap me. :slap:

It's underwear. Fer gawd sakes... Honestly, when I first read the topic and scoped it out, my first thought was, "WTH"? It's underwear and I for one never, ever thought more of the "dive in" than dive into the panties as a child. Suggestive? I don't think so. Frankly, I think some may need to get off the politcally correct train and take some things far less than seriously. You don't like it, don't buy it. Period.

Geesh... There are more important "battles" to fight than some goofy fruit of the looms with a stupid logo.

Just say'in. IMHO.
 
I think what upsets most is not that it's *this* pair of panties, but the whole marketing scheme that pushes the line of sexual suggestion to our girls from birth to death.

There is a cultural ideal that being attractive means you have to be sexy and sexy means overt sexual themes in visual or other means. Corset tops for 11 year olds, tight hipster pants for toddlers, halter tops for 3 month olds ect. Then they watch woman in dresses that barely cover their hoo has and only weigh enough to keep themselves upright and that feeds into it as well.

So it's much more far reaching than just a pair of panties.
 
I swear Disney is causing little girls' clothes to get smaller and smaller (and I don't mean age-wise).

What drove me nuts were the "Hannah Montana" bathing suits where the back sagged so far I swear if a child wore them their crack would show. :eek:

Thank god my daughter's into Jonas Brothers.. well.. I'll have to think about that. :waitasec:
 
I swear Disney is causing little girls' clothes to get smaller and smaller (and I don't mean age-wise).

I guess I question the entire idea that really young girls need two piece bathing suits PERIOD.
 
As for the Juicy on the butt thing: I am a huge fan of Juicy Couture, I own very many articles of clothing, handbags, and accessories. My 6 month old daughter owns a couple articles of Juicy Couture clothing as well. The word "Juicy" on the butt of their bathing suits and sweatpants has no meaning other than the name of the brand. If you notice, the pieces of their clothing that does state the name on it, will usually just say Juicy rather than the entire Juicy Couture. It's not meant to be taken as a sexual reference, it just happens to be the brand name.

Back on topic, isn't there any other phrase they could have chosen in place of "Dive In"? Why on earth would they pick that one for clothing? Jeez.
 
Okay, you may not like my opinion on this. So, slap me. :slap:

It's underwear. Fer gawd sakes... Honestly, when I first read the topic and scoped it out, my first thought was, "WTH"? It's underwear and I for one never, ever thought more of the "dive in" than dive into the panties as a child. Suggestive? I don't think so. Frankly, I think some may need to get off the politcally correct train and take some things far less than seriously. You don't like it, don't buy it. Period.

Geesh... There are more important "battles" to fight than some goofy fruit of the looms with a stupid logo.

Just say'in. IMHO.

All I can say about this is I agree with you ordinarylife.
 
I have not ever been to a Pure Fashion fashion show, but I like the thought behind these fashion shows - to show our daughters that they can be fashionable while still maintaining their dignity and class.

http://www.purefashion.com
 
From the photo, I had to really look to see the words, and just like the bumper sticker (no pun intended) : "If you can read this, you're too close!" ...:eek:
 
From the photo, I had to really look to see the words, and just like the bumper sticker (no pun intended) : "If you can read this, you're too close!" ...:eek:

Someone was quoted as saying “You just never know who could see that and think it was a bit too enticing for a young child to be wearing.”

By the time they see it, it's already said and done.

I don't understand how anyone can think a little girl is going to wear the panties and think anything except that she's wearing panties from a movie she liked. It's the people who make a big deal of double meanings (and this one is a total stretch, to me) that cause the kids to think like that.

WHY do kids giggle at "Ding Dong Dell, Pus_y's in the well?" Because some adult read it, and another one laughed out loud.
 
Someone was quoted as saying “You just never know who could see that and think it was a bit too enticing for a young child to be wearing.”

By the time they see it, it's already said and done.

I don't understand how anyone can think a little girl is going to wear the panties and think anything except that she's wearing panties from a movie she liked. It's the people who make a big deal of double meanings (and this one is a total stretch, to me) that cause the kids to think like that.

WHY do kids giggle at "Ding Dong Dell, Pus_y's in the well?" Because some adult read it, and another one laughed out loud.


I DON'T think a little kid is gonna see that and think anything outside of it....my concern is adults who MAY see it....I agree when I saw the pic of the undies the words "dive-in" were pretty small.
BUT (and maybe I've been on WS or read the news to much) who's not to say, ummm well lets just say for instance since it happens so often, Mom's bf is giving kid a bath, changing them into night clothes, etc...sees those words and that could be the one small trigger that sends him over the edge...Long stretch? Maybe, but you never know. I mean just look at us on here who thinks the words are innappropriate...I am NOT a child molester but I certainly think the phrase sounds sexual. Was it meant that way by disney? Most likely not, but whoever designed them should have thought twice, IMO.
IMO there could have been a thousand phrases to choose from...aside from any with a sexual connotation...heck, for kids that age why have a phrase at ALL....why wouldn't a picture suffice?
 
Ugh! I think this is just as bad as a few years ago when A&F had panties with cherries on the front. And that was aimed at teen girls! Remember the outrage?

You might think, "Who's going to see them?" but still. Why is that necessary? Disney's ginormous marketing dept couldn't come up with anything else that didn't have a sexual connotation for little girl panties?? Please. And if you think it isn't sexual, you are kidding yourself. Even my DS13 was embarrassed when the story came on the news the other night, and he is pretty innocent for his age.

As for the Juicy Couture, that is just disgusting. They know good and darned well what the name implies. I don't know of any other brand of clothing that feels the need to plaster their name across the *advertiser censored* of women and little girls. Why mothers of young daughters would set that kind of example is beyond me.

We really need to think about what messages we are sending our kids.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
911
Total visitors
993

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,699
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top