But only an idiot wouldn't see the sexualized nature of putting "Dive In" on a pair of panties.

Marketers and retailers have been pushing these boundaries for years to sell more product. This is just one more example of how amoral these people are.

Oops. No but really, come on now, this is not some big outrage. Who is going to see an 8 year old's underwear? Answer: pretty much only the 8-year old herself and maybe her parents when they wash them. And I somehow doubt the 8 year old is going to "get" any sexual innuendo of "dive in." Rather, she is going to think about HSM, and diving into life or some such.

Only in the perverted minds of adults could someone actually think that 8 year olds would wear such panties to tease and excite their pedophile lovers or some such.

Disney made a mistake by giving HSM art to licensors who put this particular art on the wrong item of clothing. Nothing more nothing less.

Either the British are doing it all wrong or I am.

I also agree with Ms Berman -- it's really hard to see how this text, sexually interpretable as it may be, could have any effect on the children. They simply wouldn't know what it is about. Unless they were counting on parents to feel happy about further sexualizing their 8-year-olds -- and these parents are a small minority -- a failure to view the implications is all I can think of. Yes, if it were only panties, this mistake would be hard to swallow; but I suspect the same little picture and words were placed on other products, where they would be less likely to be misunderstood. Maybe someone just didn't think it through when s/he looked at the list of products.

Sheesh - how many 8-year olds (boys or girls) are going to actually think that the message is a reference to muff-diving?? Even if they DID already have the sex talk with parents, I doubt slang terms for cunnilingus was included in that conversation.

I'm not keen on defending a megacorp like Disney - and I don't often agree completely with Broadsheet (!) - but this seems to be really reaching here - especially if High School Musical has a swimming pool play a role in it. People can get offended over the slightest little things...

I remember at age 7 having Speed Racer-type pajama pants with "Drive It!!" written along one leg; I suppose these same complaining parents would consider that remark to be sexualized (*gasp* It might imply driving a penis into a vagina! Oh, the humanity!=)

Saw the pic before I read the post. At first I thought it was tacky, trashy and dangerous.

Then I thought..."oh wait, it probably means something about a swimming pool."

So I told myself to get my mind out of the gutter.

A couple of years ago, Nike came out with sneakers that had a strange but beautiful name that Nike thought they had made up. After the shoes were in stores in Europe, they found out that it was the same name as a gas used to exterminate Jews in the Holocaust. Nike apologized and pulled the shoes. There was outrage of course, but the same idea prevailed...why didn't you research the name? etc, except I can't believe any company would turn a blind eye to something that they knew associated their product with the Nazis.

why is Disney marketing High School Musical underwear to 8-yo anyway?

But that's a different discussion.

It actually never crossed my mind. Are their people out there who inspect every article of child clothing and accessories with an eye to finding a double entendre or inappropriate slogan?

Give it a rest, this is beyond anybody reasonable caring about it.

Ah, regulation -- that wonderful word that allows bow-shoe-wearing church ladies and their Baptist-minister mates to take it upon themselves to protect the world from anything and everything.

This may well be a Homeland Security issue. Any inappropriate underwear ought to be confiscated at the nation's borders. In fact, that old Woody Allen movie where the new dictator announces that everyone must now wear their underwear on the outside of their clothing should be seen as prescient, a guiding light.

We need pinch-faced church-goers to divine hidden sexual (flare nostrils while pronouncing "sexual") connotations in children's clothing. In fact, we need full-on overt censorship. More than we already have, I mean.

The fact of the matter is that people simply cannot be trusted to make good fashion choices, and OUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER. THIS IS NO TIME TO THINK. WE MUST ACT AT ONCE. GOVERNMENT-ISSUED UNDERWEAR FOR EVERYONE.

Shouldn't the prime audience for a show with "high school" in its title be, well, high-schoolers?

In which case the lingerie in question would indeed be questionable!

Isn't this the same former empire that offered the little girls' Lolita bed a couple of years ago?

My suggestion: Don't market panties with ambiguous wordage. Be straightforward. If you really want your eight-year-old to have sex, replace "Dive In!" with "Please perform cunnilingus on me."

My 5 year old granddaughter loves it, so does my 9 year old niece, just because it has "high school" in it's title doesn't mean that's the target.

It's geared to young girls. I can't picture an average 16 year old girl wearing a HSM t-shirt to school.

BTW, when I was young, I loved TEEN magazine and all their pictures of handsome guys...until I hit about 13, then it was too silly for me. I think it's similar.

Victoria's Secret had a line last year featuring panties that said "Invite Only". How fucking awful is that!? Personally, I prefer the "No Rape Allowed" panties. Furthermore, that was part of the "More Pink" line of panties which I guess is better than the "More Genitals" line.

My first thought on the title "Dive In!" was the diapers they make for swimming toddlers that can't yet be trusted in the pool.

I think your average 8 year old doesn't/wouldn't see the sexual connotation with the panties and any perv that would be provoked by them doesn't need the message for that, they're already there.

I'm not offended, wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow, but if I was Disney I'd pull them off the shelf to stop the controversy.