I dunno, it smacks of 'victim blaming' to imply that since her poor decision was a part of her being conned (and, essential, there's no argument that she was conned, right? She, albeit foolishly, trusted someone with titillating pictures--this someone intentionally worked to deceive her in order to obtain and sell/distribute those pictures) she actually deserves the eternal professional darwinism of being perpetually unemployable.
I don't really think it's victim blaming - although 'perpetually unemployable' is
pretty harsh. Companies are checking people's Facebook, Instagram, Google+, etc. for potential hires and if an applicant has pictures posted (willingly) that are racy or show them drinking (not even intoxicated) a company may pass on an otherwise good applicant because if the applicant is highly concerned about his/her own image or reputation, they won't be too concerned about the hiring company's rep either.
So to expose yourself as this young lady did on national tv as lacking common sense that a turnip might possess, she may find ESPN looking for every conceivable legal way to get rid of her ASAP and may find future employment prospects withering if research on the internet is done on her name.
I mean, honestly, isn't it difficult enough to get and keep a good job without making dumb decisions?
I've already had and continue to have conversations with my teens about not trusting friends/boyfriends/girlfriends with digital racy pictures. In youth, relationships
can go south quick and in a moment of anger a friend, BF or GF might post something that can never, ever be truly unposted.
So handing over intimate pictures to a stranger? Dumb, dumb, dumb.