Vogue Vows Not to Work With Models Under 16: Right Move or Big Deal Over Nothing?

by SodaHead Living Posted 2012/05/04 18:00:00

Related Topics: Fashion, Vogue, Models, under 16, Eating Disorders, Health, photo shoot, Evolution, Magazines, Working, Work, Skinny, Beautiful, Modeling, News, Eating

Read More

779 votes
Read all 207 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Right move	644 votes	83%
	Big deal over nothing	135 votes	17%

Under 16 and looking to score a modeling gig at Vogue? You're out of luck. And if you look like you might have an eating disorder, you'd better keep job hunting, too. The editors of Vogue magazines around the world have agreed to "not knowingly work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder," according to a Conde Nast International announcement Thursday, The Associated Press reports.

"Vogue believes that good health is beautiful. Vogue Editors around the world want the magazines to reflect their commitment to the health of the models who appear on the pages and the well-being of their readers," said Conde Nast International Chairman Jonathan Newhouse in a statement. The editors said they will ask casting directors to check IDs at photo shoots, fashion shows and ad campaigns -- and ex-model Sara Ziff thinks it's a great idea.

"Most editions of Vogue regularly hire models who are minors, so for Vogue to commit to no longer using models under the age of 16 marks an evolution in the industry," Ziff, founder of the The Model Alliance, which strives to improve the working conditions of models, told the AP. "We hope other magazines and fashion brands will follow Vogue's impressive lead." Do you agree that the moves are necessary? Or do they go too far?

+19

Add a comment above

NakedRei 2012/05/04 17:35:47

Right move

+8
It's a step in the right direction, but they need to up that to 18.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Living

Arianne 2012/05/04 23:39:31

Right move

+2
In some respects yes. 16 tends to be the age of consent in many countries anyway, though in the states I think its 18. However if its an underage model wearing age appropriate clothes I wouldn't object either. By appropriate I mean it isn't sexualised at all.

reply
JohnT 2012/05/04 23:38:14

Right move

+1
No sense having teens tearing up their body to fit into a size zero outfit. Maybe fashion mavens thinks it is exotic and fabulous, I think it is garbage. Those models must have the diet of a fly, no way to make a living. I wish all of the industry would grow up and let women be women without the anorexia appearance.

reply
RoyJLores 2012/05/04 23:32:13

Right move

+1
They should leave the 14-17 years old to magazines like Seventeen.

reply
Kigan 2012/05/04 23:23:19

Right move

Should be 18.

reply
PASCALEYANNICKPIERLOOT 2012/05/04 23:09:02

Right move

+1
ofcourse the fit into a size o, most of them have yet to develop female features.

reply
megan 2012/05/04 22:50:26

Big deal over nothing

It should be 14 and up, or something like that. Teens deserve more freedom as they are in between childhood and adulthood.

reply
tweet_tweet 2012/05/04 22:45:45 (edited)

Right move

+2
Let's see if this is PR or if they live up to it.

reply
POWERSHAKER 2012/05/04 22:33:38

Right move

Yep. I agree. That's a good decision on their part if you ask me.

reply
Muriel 2012/05/04 22:31:50

Right move

+1
I think it is a wise decision. The yOunger they are the more susceptible they will to bad outside influences.

reply
Skye 2012/05/04 21:57:07

Big deal over nothing

+1
Under 16? Who cares if they are over or under? The eating disorder thing is great though.

reply
Inquisitve Kat 2012/05/04 21:51:51

Right move

+3
Children don't need to be modelling women's high fashion... it's 'Vogue', not 'Seventeen'.

reply
D.C.Verdone 2012/05/04 21:32:09

Big deal over nothing

+1
Meant to put good move. Whoopsy, but yeah 16 is too young to be wearing some of those clothes (low cut and such) Also to easily influence, if they are told they weigh too much that may actually lead to an eating disorder.

reply
Brian P 2012/05/04 21:31:29

Big deal over nothing

I understand not hiring people with eating disorders, but what's wrong starting young? Afraid there will be more child rapists? Don't worry, they don't look at Vogue anyways.

reply
Mike 2012/05/04 21:01:32

Right move

if you try to dress a child up in those clothes and send them into public, you might need to see child protective services

reply
Elementer 2012/05/04 21:00:37

Big deal over nothing

+1
It isn't Playboy, so what's the big deal?

reply
Kashee 2012/05/04 20:57:20

Right move

+1
great move

reply
cellophane 2012/05/04 20:57:07

Right move

+1
I don't have particular problem with using models under the age of 16, but any time a major magazine voluntarily chooses to take the high road in terms of children and those unhealthily thin, I applaud them.

reply
TasselLady 2012/05/04 20:50:09

Right move

+1
Good idea.

reply
kmay 2012/05/04 20:46:42

Right move

About time.

reply
glass_butterfly ~YSU~ 2012/05/04 20:38:08

Big deal over nothing

+4
As long as they weren't being sexualized or anything inappropriate. And as long as they have parental supervision I see nothing wrong with have kids under 16.

But it's good they're trying to crack down on the eating disorders. That's not good at ANY age.

reply
Inquisi... to glass_b... 2012/05/04 21:54:49

+4
Key word on that magazine cover is "detu"... Vogue Detu is specifically children's wear...
Vogue is women's wear... why should young teens be modelling adult women's clothing?

reply
glass_b... to Inquisi... 2012/05/05 13:56:06

Because they know that teens read the adult version of Vogue too. You're not going to find a 15 year old looking inside a Children's wear magazine. Apart of their demographic is teenage girls who are obsessed with fashion. If they see a fully clothed, healthy, and age appropriate teenage model in the magazine, I don't see the problem.

reply
Inquisi... to glass_b... 2012/05/05 15:04:19

Just because teens read it doesn't mean it should be marketed to teens... adult women (the main market for Vogue) shouldn't have to share their magazine with kids, even teenage kids.

reply
Bob DiN 2012/05/04 20:34:52

Right move

+1
I agree kids should not be expoited.

reply
Racefish 2012/05/04 20:27:57

Right move

+3
Especially the part about (those) "who appear to have an eating disorder,"

reply
dlsofsetx 2012/05/04 20:24:03

Big deal over nothing

+1
I have no problem with models under 16,after parental consent.

reply
Bigbrowneyes 2012/05/04 20:12:40

Right move

+4
It's difficult to tell if a model has an eating disorder or is just "naturally thin". Just stay within a certain BMI. You have to regulate it somehow, and looking like you have an eating disorder isn't all that precise.

reply
Shrinki... to Bigbrow... 2012/05/05 01:12:49

+2
true. and some don't look like they have an eating disorder but do.

reply
Ben 2012/05/04 20:04:27

Right move

+1
Dealing with kids means dealing with parents.

reply
Link 2012/05/04 19:45:04

Big deal over nothing

+2
As long as the parents are approving and such, no big deal... but I do agree with the "starved" look being out...

reply
kitkat42 2012/05/04 19:36:22

Right move

+2
They've also agreed not to use ultra thin models, which is also a good move. I hope they'll be a trend setter.

reply
Charlotte 2012/05/04 19:18:25

Right move

+2
Glad to hear Vogue is trying to be responsible.

reply
Keeping It Real 2012/05/04 19:18:11

Right move

+1
Great move and no brainer!

reply
brittany 2012/05/04 19:17:03

Big deal over nothing

+3
you can have any age you want. but yeah the starving yourself to make yourself look thin for the photo shooting is way out of league.

reply
Lisa 2012/05/04 19:10:16

Right move

+3
I think it should go up to 18, so they at least finish high school

reply
Tara-ABO-2012 2012/05/04 18:38:05

Right move

+4
I don't read Vogue but I assume it is not a teen magazine but instead geared for adults? Kids under 16 need to stick to modeling children's clothing in store catalogs. If they want to put some 13, 14 or 15 year olds in the teen magazine Seventeen, that is fine too.

And bravo on the eating disorder. Although it would be nice if ALL magazines did that with ALL models. Don't use any adults who appear to have an eating disorder also.

reply
Beltazar 2012/05/04 18:27:10

Right move

+1
Good move, Girls do not need to be modeling 16 or under when it can imply a sexual nature.. They are to young to really fully understand it, esp when they don't understand there own bodies and are still growing into themselves...

reply
L1 2012/05/04 18:15:14

Right move

+1
Finally. They have had models as young as twelve for a long time as "women" and they are barely into puberty.

reply
jennylyn.thomas 2012/05/04 18:14:59

Big deal over nothing

+1
There is no gideline for beauty

reply
Anthony Souls 2012/05/04 17:58:50

Right move

+2
Children models shouldn't exist in a sexual industry, unless we are willing to allow for the exploitation of children and catering to pedophiles and so fourth.

Take care,

reply