To me, the more interesting issue is - how did this regional California feature story end up on the front page of the Washington Post? My guess - poor decisionmaking by substitute editors working on Memorial Day (the day before the story appeared).

Gee, DC, wake up. The reason WaPo editors decided to run this 'regional california feature' is because it's interesting, unique. Here, let me make fun of you - have you ever read one of those 'meteor-crashes-thru-roof-hits-two-headed-baby" stories? And did you then exclaim, Gee, this two-headed baby doesn't live around here - why is my paper running this?

Anyway, another point - for better or worse, the teen-ager in this story is an adult. Perhaps we'd be better off teaching our 18-year-old "girls" to be ready to respond, instead of responding for them. I'm oversimplifying her situation, but you get the idea.

The parents made a mistake in talking to the Post, and the Post made a mistake in running the story - both of these mistakes only serve to perpetuate the unwanted attention on Ms Stokke. In this day and age - anyone can post pictures of anyone else and everyone gets to make anonymous comments. In this case - we have a very attractive young athlete - of course there will be lots of commentary from over-stimulated males. But that will fade. Let's let it fade by not continuing to focus attention on this issue. That would be the only action that I could think of taking if this were to happen to my daughter. Good luck with your future college career, Ms Stokke.

The many comments posted to the article pretty much say it all.

Check 'em out.

She is hot, thanks WaPo for tipping me off. Plus, now she has many career choices available to her if she wants some extra college money. I bet Playboy would offer her some fat cash, not to mention Maxim, Stuff, all the men's mags, the sports mags, plus the teen girl mags. This chick could easily pay all her college expenses thanks to this little bit of exposure.
Maybe someday I'll get my pics on a blog and ladies can obsess over me. Someday.

I think it's an important story and that it should serve as a warning. I feel very sorry for that girl and her parents. I have a teenage stepdaughter who is a very attractive young woman and it has been very creepy to see men, in the mall for example, leer at her. She handles herself well, though.

These parents know for sure that all kinds of creeps are cyber-stalking their daughter and blogging about their sexual fantasies. I hope I never have to go through that. I think they wanted the article published so that people realize what can happen.

Cash in!?!? They live in Newport Beach!

I have a daughter a few years older than Allison so I have a protective instinct. That said, I don't think the Post took advantage of her or the situation. The pictures we've seen are appropriate for a family newspaper and the story is that a bright, attractive, athletic and (most important)young girl will always generate this type of voyeurism. In this case, Allison is obviously in the top one percent of her generation and she can handle anything except crackpots. I'd guess she would have very mixed feelings about this publicity but I would not violate her privacy and ask.

"How would I feel if it were my daughter that got this unwanted attention? Well, I don't know. I'd like to think I'd feel fortunate that my daughter was a record-breaking athlete and honors student with no physical or mental deformities."

Matt Ufford is either lying or doesn't have a daughter. This is the most self-serving response I could imagine. This girl did not ask for this kind of attention, and to act as if it is acceptable or something to "get used to" is obscene. He's just avoiding taking responsibility for the consequences of his actions - consequences that hurt and threatened the safety of an 18 year old student athlete who was minding her own business. Her picture didn't just magically begin circulating on the internet - he hawked it, loudly and lewdly.

Hmmmm, I just finished filling out a permission slip for a school field trip that included a box you could check or not check -- depending on whether or not you want the pictures the museum took of your child enjoying the exhibits to become public property. I admit this article gave me pause -- because normally I just check the box and figure if my kid's picture ends up on the Girl Scout calendar or something, then that's nice and sort of fun. But now you have me wondering . .
Do the rest of you always check the "yes" box on the camp form regarding distribution of your child's picture? the "no" box? I admit I'm really creeped out by the notion that this girl somehow became public property while doing something as innocent as playing a sport she enjoyed. Are you guys worried this could happen to you and your kids -- or is it just a fluke?

What I fail to understand is WHY can't the parents be BOTH angry that their daughter's image was exploited without their knowledge (remember someone set up the website allisonstokke.com with no knowledge of Allison Stokke- which is a big violation of personal space) AND want to promote their child's sports career at the same time. Let's put it this way, Allison Stokke has a chance, perhaps a left-field chance, but one nonetheless of competing in the OLYMPICS. Being in the Olympics was the dream of everyone I knew, only just one of us was a best-in-state class athlete and most of us liked videogames better.

There is nothing the least bit hypocritical about wanting to keep a minor (or well, 18 year old) teenager away from lurid attentions of 30 and 40 yr old men. There is nothing the least bit negative about parents encouraging their daughter to be the best at sports- in fact, the idea that this is not at all novel, that parents encourage teenage girls excel at track and field, is a triumph of feminism. So why all the hand-wringing? It's obvious from the article that the Stokkes are getting multiple calls per day for interviews with their daughter, it's not like they sought out The Post.

I agree w/ Jive. I think it was a calculated move by the girl and her parents to get this story into mainstream media. Like it or not, the opportunities she now has in the field of skin for money are now endless.

Not that I think she would do it, but I bet she knows that one shoot at Playboy nets her 500k - 1 mil.

Guaranteed - Maxim, Stuff, etc will show her if/when she gets into the Olympics.

The owner of "allisonstokke.com" closed it down the day after the Post article appeared, leaving only a graceful apology to Stokke. So we shouldn't assume that an article of this kind results only in more unwanted attention.

If she was a boy or a stockier, not-so-cute girl you would never hear much mention of her. Look at the comparison of Danica Patrick and Sara Fisher both female Indy car drivers. Yes, Danica is a great driver but even before she proved that, her sexuality and petite frame was way more publicized than the more tomboyish look of Sara who drove in Indy a few years before Danica. Both of these women are tremendous athletes but are judged in a different way than their male counterparts.

That said, I have a daughter who I would love to be all she can be but I do think in the back of my mind that if she excels in a way that makes her more public will her safety suffer. I know some city papers no longer publish names of students in the local papers because of stalking cases.

The article was a good move. She's rescuing her online reputation, establishing that the attention was unwanted and that she has nothing to do with the sleazy aura surrounding her online. It's classic PR: fightn bad publicity with good. What's so confusing about that?

You should also consider the fact that Allison herself is 18 and agreed to the interview. If I were in her shoes, I'd be *pissed* and would not hesitate to share my views with the world.

I hope the Post continues to expose the dark side of a googleable world, with the XOXOth/Autoadmit story, the Kathy Sierra story, and now the Allison Stokke story. There's little we can do about jerks online except to make them socially unacceptable. The Post's coverage is a good start.

I'm a 28 year old married man, no kids. I would be livid if my daughter were presented in that light before she finished HIGH SCHOOL.

I'm also in the target audience of these websites, and admittedly out of curiosity I checked out the website from the link provided on Washingtonpost.com. Allison is indeed a beautiful and obviously talented girl. But just that: A GIRL. When I saw how incredibly young she looked, I was appalled that there are men my age or older who would find her sexually attractive or put up pictures of her. She looks like a kid, and that's what she is: a KID. I think what's happened to her is sick. In five or ten years, she will be a beautiful woman, but for now, she's a girl. Stop ogling her, and if you are ogling her, get help, and applaud her fantastic achievements.

I was glad to hear her parent's side, and if they read this: keep it up, you're raising a talented and mature girl and I'm sure despite this she will be a talented and successful woman, whatever her future career.

To Donna:

Allison Stokkes is hardly the first person to be a victim of viral trends, and it doesn't happen just to attractive young women.

Google "numa numa kid" and you'll find another example of a young adult who took a picture/made a video/played a sport for their own personal amusement or edification, and then had that photo/video noticed by someone who told their friends, who told their friends, who put it on their blog, etc.

I think the bigger lesson here is that everything you do can be made public, and you may have no control over what happens to the information once it's out in the broader world. It's kind of a form of identity theft. Protect yourself as much as you can to prevent, then deal with it with as much strength and grace as you can muster. People have to deal with all sorts of events in their lives that they did not invite or want in any way, and you learn to cope or you don't. In the bigger realm of "bad stuff that can happen to you", being inundated with unwanted publicity may be up there, but can't possibly trump the unexpected death of a spouse or child for example.

I think therefore that the Post's article was less about heaping more attention on this girl, or about this girl and her family seeking "mainstream" attention, but about shedding light on this increasingly frequent phenemenon.

my 24 year old son is an up and coming hip hop artist with a national level of celebrity. it's been unnerving to look at his myspace page, to the point that i won't even scroll down and look at the messages. i've been shocked at what young women will post, the graphic nature of photos and the language they use. and then there are the 'haters'...they're a scary bunch. i'm not sure what this family can do other than what they're doing. monitor what's out there, and try to keep personal info off the web. it's a time when things should be fun and exciting, but the internet has introduced the darker side to celebrity that much more quickly.

Bob and others who refer to Allison's age at 18. One thing that struck me about the story is that the photo that started this whole thing was taken at a high school sporting event when she was 17. So, did someone hold onto that photo until she turned 18 and then feel they had the right to post it?

Armchair Mom: I check the "No" boxes on forms about taking pictures of my kids that can be used elsewhere. Maybe it's because of my media and Web background, but I'm very cautious with the kids' personal information. I've never given their social security numbers out either and don't plan to let them use those numbers until someone can prove to me a reason they need them.

People have to face that the legal age of majority in the United States is 18 years of age. Why is this all about her parents? "Her parents shouldn't have talked to the Post" or "How would her parents feel?" The truth is that we should be talking about Ms. Allison.

The premise of this blog post is seriously flawed when it questions what her parents should have done. She is a full, legal adult people. Treat her as such.

People have to face that the legal age of majority in the United States is 18 years of age. Why is this all about her parents? "Her parents shouldn't have talked to the Post" or "How would her parents feel?" The truth is that we should be talking about Ms. Allison.

The premise of this blog post is seriously flawed when it questions what her parents should have done. She is a full, legal adult people. Treat her as such.

The article got (as of a few moments ago) 20,027 views from the readers of Fark.com alone. Their comments, noting the irony of devoting front page coverage to an issue that is only front page news because someone has tired of front page coverage, is here:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2831952

The idea that grown men are sexually attracted to teenaged girls is just sick. They are still kids! This is really just a step away from pedophilia, and anyone who says differently is just trying to make themselves feel better. I would suggest that any adult male who feels these kinds of impulses needs to get counseling to find out where these feelings come from. This is NOT normal or okay.

Ms. Stokke is not exactly the first victim of this "instant celebrity" phenomenon, nor is this exactly the exclusive domain of the internet. The internet may have increased the frequency of these occurances, but I dare say that most communications revolutions probably do.

That said, what can you do as a parent? From the perspective of prevention, I think the answer is not much, which can be a bitter pill for those that do not like the attention. I think there are worthwhile strategies for coping with fame (or unwanted attention of any kind for that matter), however, that might be worthwhile to instill in a child, particularly if (like Allison) they are highly talented. I am thinking of things like creating "private space" for you to escape from the pressures of fame and using the tools at hand to cultivate the image that you wish to project.

I think there is also something to learning a lesson from others who managed to become famous. You can choose to take fame by the horns as well, hiring media consultants, lawyers, etc. In the case of Ms. Stokke, she is almost to the point now where she will be managing such things without her parents, so they would need to show her how to managed that fame to work to her advantage. Of course, the other thing that the famous will sometimes do is become a secluded hermit, which given what the internet can look like might not be such a bad thing.

I don't pass any judgement on the post or the parents on this issue. Somebody has to have the courage to call the bullys out. We may not be able to change them, but at least we know their out there. Makes it a little easier to protect your own.
Anybody have any opinions on how a slimebag becomes a slimebag? Are there more or less of them than their used to be? The kind of creepiness you see outing on the internet is just astonishing to me. Somebody not get held enough as a child? Daddy treated momma like a dog, and little Johnny would rather be in the dog trainers shoes? There are psychology departments in every hospital and university in this country, but nobody seems to have a clue what to do about these guys. As a society we are still in the dark ages when it comes to dealing with this stuff, and its just sad.

As a society, we've basically decided that public figures -- celebrities, athletes, politicians -- have forgone their right to privacy, simply by becoming public figures. And, for the most part, those public figures oblige us by giving interviews, allowing their pictures to be taken and published, all the while making money from the exposure (or, in the case of politicians, spreading their ideas through the exposure). Some celebrities choose to be more quiet about their activities than others, and there are always cases of paparazzi going to far; but, mostly, the system seems to work.

The problem with Allison Stokke is that she wasn't a celebrity before all this began. She's a talented, intelligent, attractive young woman just living her life, similar to millions of other people around the country. And I think that's the unfortunate thing. She didn't decide to become a movie star or sing on American Idol or otherwise promote herself. It was done without her consent and without her knowledge. Thus, this situation was truly a violation of her privacy.

I applaud her courage for taking her story public. The Post article educated readers of one of the country's premier papers that 1) this young woman is a living, thinking person, not just a pin-up 2) this same infringement of privacy could happen to anyone.

If I was Allison's parents, I would be so proud of my daughter for dealing with this situation with her head held high, for trying to make the best of a nasty situation, and for warning others of what could happen to them.

I also have to say that I hope she does find a way to profit from this whole situation. Not necessarily by posing for a magazine (unless that's what she wants). Perhaps she'll become a writer herself with this situation as material, or use the exposure to help herself and her team in college (or beyond). Or maybe she'll become a voice for removing pictures used without permission from the internet.

In any case, I give her a lot of credit, and wish her much luck.

Oh, and I think the creators of the unofficial website who immediately replaced the site with an apology to Allison behaved classily. In a situation like this, it's nice to see some people doing the right thing.

This is isn't new, just a little different. A couple of yearrs ago the Internet became obsessed with a girl named Amanda Wenk. This young lady was niave enough to post suggestive but not pornographic photos of her and her friends on the internet, and she was soon the object of desire for a vocal minority of male users.

The difference here is that Allison was "discovered" through no action of her own. (There is more discussion of this at www.thet-dude.blogspot.com) She is just an attactive young woman who completes at the college level in a sport that wears a tight, figure-revealing uniform.

I hope that the Stokke family decides to use this opportunity to educate young women about the dangers of the Internet and the downside to fame.

I applaud her parents' concern and active vigilance over the attention their daughter is getting, and I'd react the same way: on the lookout for anything that would compromise her personal safety. Also in asserting the right to privacy, to whatever extent they are justly entitled to it or can reasonably expect it.

But frankly they need to be careful about how far they take this - you can drive yourself crazy trying to push that rock back up the hill, and to a certain extent this is just a tempest in a teacup. This WILL blow over and life WILL go on. To internet gawkers, it's just a photo, most people realize that, and (as far as I know...) there are others.

She has a college career to look forward to, and if and when her star rises in athletics or academics, that career - not to mention the family's mental health - could be compromised by an obsession with her privacy and public image.

I also have to wonder if this young woman was not the product of a privileged background, whether the family would just try to exploit the publicity instead of running from it! They should count their blessings.

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that, with new opportunities popping up for women in sports, media, academia we have to keep in mind that the new obstacle for women will be electronic sexual harassment. A new and improved way to intimidate women and girls from doing their best in various arenas of life. Because you win a sport, or a contest, that now means you no longer have a right to your own image and how it is being presented? Will that drive girls to try to blend in, not do their best, and avoid the spotlight in their field? Possibly.

The internet is the dream of cowards and criminals. All you need is a mouse and a hookup somewhere. Now, closet creeps can get in on the action.

I feel a bit sorry for my daughters because this is the world we've given them. A place where, if you excel in sports, then you can't wear shorts or a tank top because some perv is going to dedicate a website to you.

Let's hold the ISP providers responsible. If you cannot monitor your own webpages to keep out the child porn and unlawful use of images, then don't provide the platform for them in the first place. I find it hard to believe that with all this technology, there isn't a way to stomp out this kind of harassment.

Being a young woman myself, I find it kind of surprising that anyone around my age (hello, Matt) would be shocked that people thinks she's hot (and, if she is 18, the term "girl" is semantics).

But, she _is_ hot! That photo looks almost posed, and if that's a candid photo of her, wow! - And I'm married, so this isn't a personal interest in her, either.

So, I think it's funny and the outrage a little disingenuous when one ignores the fact that is attractive and, poor her, very smart and athletic, too!

Please. What I didn't like about this story was that she said she felt herself a victim who's been violated (and her body used).

Um, no. She's pretty and talented, and that's great. But, she wasn't actually attacked violently and, despite the caution, there was no indication she was actually being stalked by anyone (unless I missed it). That some people leer at her (hello, I get that, too), isn't unusual.

How would I feel if this were my child? I would be mad if someone pretended to be her (as that one web-page claimed to be). I would be angry and worried if people made threatening comments about her, or our address were posted.

But that people just thought she was hot in and of itself, I'd say, that's the way life is, and be glad that her problem is that she's just pretty and smart, and ignore the websites.

In hindsight, talking to the Washington Post was a big mistake; they should have just said "no comment", but probably the Post would have run the story anyway, quoting previously published material (I would be curious if the Post would have respected a request not to run the story at all -- I'm pretty sure the answer is "no").

And while it's nice that allisonstokke.com folks shut down their site, it's also meaningless in the big picture -- once stuff like this gets out onto the Internet, a handful of sites deleting the material will make no difference.

I think that some student athletes might have less difficulties if the high schools and universities put in some regulations regarding athletic wear at sports practices and games. I ran men's cross country in high school in the 1970s, and we had to wear shirts during practices. Some of the neighbors had complained about shirtless runners. Perhaps the high school and university athletic programs might prohibit bare midriffs, for example. I understand that some high schools regulate clothing during classes, so why not during athletic events? I realize that some might say that some extra clothing might hinder athletes. Yet, how many high school athletes are so good that they are within seconds of breaking records?

f you cannot monitor your own webpages to keep out the... unlawful use of images, then don't provide the platform for them in the first place. I find it hard to believe that with all this technology, there isn't a way to stomp out this kind of harassment.
-----
the first webpage, surprisingly, got the photos from the photographer entirely legally and had every right to post this photographer's pictures of this athlete. The website didn't violate any laws. Remember that news agencies traditionally have been able to saw whatever they want about a "public" figure outside of libel and take photos of public figures even when they don't want them taken (see the "perp walk"). There is no law to stop freelance journalists from taking photos of someone at a public track meet. Google has pictures of your house online at http://maps.google.com.

Also within the law is the idea that the host of the electronic forum is not legally responsible for the behavior of those in the forum. the forumites must take legal responsibility for their words and actions. This is a sticky wicket, because it's not entirely different than a nightclub dealing with violent patrons. Sometimes a nightclub contributes to the problem, sometimes it's entirely the patron's fault.

I think that the publicizing of these issues as high-profile as possible will tame these online "fans."

OMG Think of the children!!!
Her is picture on the internet. Some people thinks she looks hot. BFD! You folks need to get a life. In a few weeks or months (at the worst) She, and the incident will be forgotten.

"The idea that grown men are sexually attracted to teenaged girls is just sick."

"This is really just a step away from pedophilia, and anyone who says differently is just trying to make themselves feel better."

"I would suggest that any adult male who feels these kinds of impulses needs to get counseling"

What planet are you from?

"What planet are you from?"

The planet where, if you're pushing thirty and you're lusting over the picture of a then-17-year-old, you're kind of creepy and gross, dude.

> The planet where, if you're pushing
> thirty and you're lusting over the
> picture of a then-17-year-old, you're
> kind of creepy and gross, dude.

From a Post chat ...

And HERE is the photo that started it all for high schooler Allison Stokke. I can see why it happened, can't you? The pole is a very good prop.

So do 50+ years old (unidentified) Post columnists get a pass?

Ms. Stokke is an adult. If she was 17 yrs 11 mo or younger all these people would have a point about trying to protect her from all of the evils in the world. But guess what, she's old enough to vote and die for her country, so if dirty old men want to leer at her picture, in which she is fully clothed and not in a sexually suggestive pose, on the Internet, she's old enough to figure out how to deal with it.

And think of all the extraordinary opportunities that will become available to her as a result of all of this media exposure. Her potential lifetime income just went way up. Rather than trying to protect her from the generalized, unspecific threat that goes along with being in the public eye, her parents and friends should be trying to help her make lemonade out of lemons.

To Jake

"What planet are you from?"

"The planet where, if you're pushing thirty and you're lusting over the picture of a then-17-year-old, you're kind of creepy and gross, dude."

That ain't Earth, dude.

Defending Jake: He's on the planet where "adult male" includes anyone over 18, for pete's sake. To insinuate that all the people fawning over this girl are 50-y-o pedophiles instead of - most likely - teens and young adults themselves, is ridiculous.

It isn't sick to be attracted to someone pretty. Acting out on an inappropriate relationship may be, but simply finding someone hot is not a crime, people!

Our whole society favors attractive people, and that we're down to defending that this one girl should not be looked at in _that way_ is stupid.

And by the way, "Pushing 30" is not exactly old (now that I'm closer to it), but it doesn't mean that guy is going to go after her just because he thinks she's pretty. It's human nature that we never stop finding people attractive, however old we get.

Personally, I think it was brave of Allison and her family to participate in this article. It's "speaking back" to the perpetrators of this harassment, kind of like looking directly into the eyes of a person cat-calling you on the street and saying "what do you want?" or something. It's making people think about their internet leering and obsession...

This is why reporters should write their own stories and not rely on "bloggers" for story ideas.

This is not news nor did it deserve the prominent space in the newspaper. The Post should offer a quiet apology to the family and move on.

"if dirty old men want to leer at her picture, in which she is fully clothed and not in a sexually suggestive pose, on the Internet, she's old enough to figure out how to deal with it."

That's the easy part. She can just ignore the Internet stuff, as long as it stays on the Internet.

The trickier part is dealing with stalkers that will inevitably show up at her tracks meets, her house, her college (eventually) and probably anywhere else she ventures into public.

That's directly a result of the unwanted Internet attention, and she can't just ignore it (not if she values her safety).

I don't know about you, but I'd get pretty stressed out if I had to be on guard every second that I was out anywhere in public.

She's not a public figure by choice, and didn't ask for any of this attention.

"When I saw how incredibly young she looked, I was appalled that there are men my age or older who would find her sexually attractive or put up pictures of her. She looks like a kid, and that's what she is: a KID."
"The idea that grown men are sexually attracted to teenaged girls is just sick. They are still kids!"
--Actually, MattDC, it's quite normal for grown men to find post puberty females attractive. What's abnormal is if they are attracted to PRE-puberty females. And at 18, one is an ADULT. Not a kid. And this is coming from a 24 year old female not some 50 year old dude.

Jake, stop trying to justify your creepy grossness already.

Armchair Mom: I always say no to photos or to my kids being observed for research. This has come up frequently even tho my kids are 4 and 18 mos and only in daycare. My career is in marketing and I know how valuable this information is and what happens to it. I would never allow my kids to be "used" for free. Kids are very connected and media-conscious these days but necessarily media-savvy. It's parents' responsibility to help them understand the bigger picture. (Altho it's sometimes hard for parents to keep up!)

How would I feel if it was my child? Well, given that my older child is autistic, I think the quote in the article from the guy responsible for the first web-site has a small point. If my kid were "normal" and getting this sort of attention, maybe being grateful for that normalcy would be part of the wealth of emotions I'd experience.

My younger child has been approached by those so-called talent agency scouts in shopping malls. He's a very bright, pleasant, great-looking, fun little guy, and one of the leaders and popular kids in his 4th grade class. But he's NOT going to be going to any of these supposed auditions or screen tests.

When I was 17 I was approached by a "creepy middle-aged" man while on a family vacation at a gas station stop in Reno NV. He was looking for a prostitute, and I was too young and naive to know that, but my dad sure made it clear to the creep that he'd better leave his daughter (and my younger sisters) alone if he wanted to keep breathing.

That's my attitude too now. You get near my kid - either of them - and when I'm done with you, the authorities will never find your body. You want to gawk and comment while hiding in the anonimity of the internet? I can ignore that, and teach my kids to ignore it too, but don't ever come out of hiding where we can find you and fight back.

Apparently you and I (the other young woman writer here) see this for what it is: that she's 18, not 12, and that she just happens to be attractive, so it's normal for people to _find_ her attractive.

What is with all the indignation here? Has she actually been approached by a creepy old guy, or are we now just throwing out scenarios to make the argument work that we shouldn't look at her?

Success is the best revenge - and at this point the best personal protection, too.
Follw the lead of the successful young ladies of tennis.

POSE for more pictures and get PAID for endorsements. You're in the public eye now and there is no going back, so get bigger than life asap.

Stokke could help moribund track and field in a major way while she gets rich via winning meets with her considerable training efforts and talent, combined with earning dollars in a respectful way from her natural beauty.

Legalities aside, 18 is just as much a CHILD as 17 (frankly, so is 21, but I digress).

I've done a few websites for groups my kids are associated with and wrestle with this issue. Pictures make a website interesting to its primary users and is often the draw to get people to see the information we're trying to distribute. I have an email full of kid pics that parents have been sent to me from last weekend's competition (I won't say what).

I do take certain precautions. I only put up large pictures when it something like a team shot. If the focus of the picture is one kid, I put up a small version. I never include names with pics. We have a number of team photographers, including my spouse, who take lots and lots of shots of the kids in action so there are shots of each kid. We encourage these photographers to implement a friends and family form of protection.

I am fine with my teenager participating in myspace but I talk to him about using judgment in what gets put online and every now and then I check to see what's going on.

The genie is out of the bottle and we all have to face some of the realities of the web. I'm going to contiue to say "yes" to the forms that ask for permission to publish.

Mr. Stokke is scum. A sleazy defense attorney who helps get sexual predators off with no punishment. Please, what goes around come around Mr. Stokke. Not that I am wishing any harm on his daughter, just pointing out his basic hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong with people finding your daughter attractive. It is no different than any of the hundreds of the other attractive female athletes who have a fan following.

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/?page=1

Mr. Stokke is scum. A sleazy defense attorney who helps get sexual predators off with no punishment. Please, what goes around come around Mr. Stokke. Not that I am wishing any harm on his daughter, just pointing out his basic hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong with people finding your daughter attractive. It is no different than any of the hundreds of the other attractive female athletes who have a fan following.

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/?page=1

"No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.

When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn't responsible for making sticky all over the woman's sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess--after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

"She got what she wanted," said Stokke"

Not having heard anything about this before now, I'd have liked some more background on exactly what happened. But then again, I'm too lazy to click and read the link provided which explains.

The idea that a person goes from incapable to handling issues to fully capable to handle issues by turning 18 is stupid.

So is the idea that having sexual thoughts about someone is ok the day they turn 18 but wrong before that.

I do feel bad for someone to get a lot of unwanted attention when they did nothing which would have caused it.

But it's not that big a deal in the end of things and I'd hope her family and friends would all be supportive and just focus on living life and dealing with the next big thing.

And really- if she wanted to cash in, the idea on posing for pics is a great one. No reason she can't exploit her own succes, even if undesired originally.

armchairmom - Yes, I check the box that says I do not want pictures of my child used from whatever she is participating in - but it doesn't stop anything. I checked the box on the on-line application for her sports team and they still posted pictures of her from her play-off games. I didn't call them, although probably I should have.

I just want pictures of my kids online - who knows where they will end up? We had a really nasty neighbor threaten to take pictures of our kids and my husband and I addressed it right away. It was creepy to have an adult make that kind of threat and we took it very seriously.

And more from sleazy Mr. Stokke. So your job is to get sexual predators out of jail time and your all up in arms that people are looking at your daughter because she is hot. Maybe you need to keep her away from your client list, Sir.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_937056.php

I have mixed feelings about the WP writing this and esp. putting it on A1. Seems more like a Style section item. But it is a legigimate "Internet" news item not so much different than the $27,000 grilled cheese sandwich that appeared to have Mary's pic in it. I know what I'd do if I were Alison's parents. Find her some different clothes to wear for when she goes vaulting. I can believe that she has to have the 2-piecer in order to maximize her performance. They could have done that a long time ago when she started getting all the attention.

"The idea that a person goes from incapable to handling issues to fully capable to handle issues by turning 18 is stupid.
So is the idea that having sexual thoughts about someone is ok the day they turn 18 but wrong before that."

--Some 16 and 17 year olds are fully capabable of handling issues such as the one Allison Stoke is handling now.
And it's not wrong for a 35 year old man to find a 16 and 17 year old attractive. After all, they have been or is going through purbery. POST purberty is the key people. It' INAPPROPIATE to engage is sexual relationship with an underage. That's all. Learn the difference people. C'on. You guys act as if you are slow.

"The idea that a person goes from incapable to handling issues to fully capable to handle issues by turning 18 is stupid.
So is the idea that having sexual thoughts about someone is ok the day they turn 18 but wrong before that."

--Some 16 and 17 year olds are fully capabable of handling issues such as the one Allison Stoke is handling now.
And it's not wrong for a 35 year old man to find a 16 and 17 year old attractive. After all, they have been or is going through purbery. POST purberty is the key people. It' INAPPROPIATE to engage is sexual relationship with an underage. That's all. Learn the difference people. C'on. You guys act as if you are slow.

Chiming in as an attractive 23-year-old: It's frustrating enough having some guy on the street check me out or make a comment. But at least in that situation I have the option of some kind of a response, of interacting with them as two people rather than one person and one thing being looked at. The idea of thousands of guys ogling me online in photographs that I had no idea were being taking, doing something I love and feel safe doing, wearing something because it's utilitarian and convenient, gives me the willies. I shudder to think of feeling that powerless. And I feel perfectly comfortable emphasizing that publicizing those photographs of Allison was NOT okay because it was dehumanizing. The assumption that attractive women should be okay with being ogled is dehumanizing.

Through our interactions with others, we teach people how they can treat us. I realize people will think about and be attracted to whatever gets them off, but that does not give them carte blanche to act purely in consideration of their impulses.

boston liz

"I realize people will think about and be attracted to whatever gets them off, but that does not give them carte blanche to act purely in consideration of their impulses."

Does that mean they avert their eyes? How should they act?

Hi Jake

"Oh hey look at this picture of this hot chick -- hey man check this out, look how hot she is, and she doesn't even know her picture's being taken!" That was Matt Ufford acting on his first impulse upon seeing Allison's picture. And regardless of whether she was seventeen or twenty at the time, I don't think it was okay of him to do.

To Soguns:

"--Some 16 and 17 year olds are fully capabable of handling issues such as the one Allison Stoke is handling now."

Yes- my point was that a person doesn't go from "totally incapable" to "totally capable" just by turning from 17 to 18.

More specifically, capability is not a pure easy factor of age.

"And it's not wrong for a 35 year old man to find a 16 and 17 year old attractive. After all, they have been or is going through purbery. POST purberty is the key people. It' INAPPROPIATE to engage is sexual relationship with an underage. That's all. Learn the difference people. C'on. You guys act as if you are slow."

Isn't that what I said? That is is ALSO a stupid idea to think having sexual thoughts about another person based on age?

"Chiming in as an attractive 23-year-old: It's frustrating enough having some guy on the street check me out or make a comment."
--LOL! Yeah right. I'm sure it's "fustrating" for you to deal with.

"The assumption that attractive women should be okay with being ogled is dehumanizing"
--No one is saying that women should be okay with it. The message is, DEAL WITH IT. What harm is being done if dirty construction workers leer and wistle at you as you pass? Your integrety? Self-esteem? Keep your head up high and keep walking pass or say something snappy to them next time one of them makes a cat call at you. Good grief.

To Soguns:

"--Some 16 and 17 year olds are fully capabable of handling issues such as the one Allison Stoke is handling now."

Yes- my point was that a person doesn't go from "totally incapable" to "totally capable" just by turning from 17 to 18.

More specifically, capability is not a pure easy factor of age.

"And it's not wrong for a 35 year old man to find a 16 and 17 year old attractive. After all, they have been or is going through purbery. POST purberty is the key people. It' INAPPROPIATE to engage is sexual relationship with an underage. That's all. Learn the difference people. C'on. You guys act as if you are slow."

Isn't that what I said? That is is ALSO a stupid idea to think having sexual thoughts about another person based on age is wrong?

LizD-My comment was directed to anybody who is like: *gasp* OMGZ!11!!1! Those 50 year old men are sickos for being attacted to an 18 teenager.

We obviously agree with each other here.

Three points:

1. This chick is hot.

2. She is over 18, so even if she wasn't wearing anything, it would still be legal for me to view her picture.

3. Therefore, I am free to leer at her picture all I want.

That's all there is to it. To all you losers who are trying to tell me this is somehow "wrong," go get a life...

It's unfortunate that a high school kid has to endure the kind of exposure this kid is, but it's out there and nothing anyone can do at this point is going to be able to pull it back in. The more her parents or anyone else may try, the more impetus to the paparazzi to keep on truckin! Let the whole thing die the most natural death it can.

In fact, if she is able to handle this well, she will be all the better prepared for what's inevitably to come when she hits college. If nothing else, it shoul be a valuable life experience.

In fact, if she is able to handle this well, she will be all the better prepared for what's inevitably to come when she hits college. If nothing else, it should be a valuable life experience.

"That's all there is to it. To all you losers who are trying to tell me this is somehow "wrong," go get a life..."

lol...dude, you're the one getting off looking at photos of some young kid you don't even know. So what's wrong with you that you can't have a real relationship with someone your own age?

"lol...dude, you're the one getting off looking at photos of some young kid you don't even know. So what's wrong with you that you can't have a real relationship with someone your own age?"

See, you are the real pervert here -- you are trying to turn normal sexual attractiveness into something evil. You assume that there has to be something wrong with any man who would (oh, the horror!) look at another woman besides his wife. I am quite happily married -- and monogamous -- and plan to stay that way. I see no incompatibility between this and leering at a picture of an 18-year old, fully clothed, incredibly beautiful woman.

Maybe you would be happier living in a land where all women are clothed in burkhas...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B361KLb_PlI

here is a interview of her

There are some really bad misconceptions here that I have to address:
1. Pornography and sexual lust from afar has zero to do with carrying on a normal relationship. I've been with the same woman for 15 years and been married almost 10. I still turn my head at billboards, women on the street and at porno websites. So what? What is the connection between looking at attractive women and having a normal marriage? There is none!
2. Sometimes I will look at pictures of women who are innapropriate to have a relationship with and there is a jolt of excitement there. I am in my 30s and married, #1, I cannot cheat on my wife, #2, I should not use my sophistication or power to seduce a 20 yr old. HOWEVER when I imagine this in my mind I have committed no crime! The other day I watched Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys and got incredibly turned on. Does any woman literally think that because I was turned on by Audrey Hepburn that means I want to desecrate her corpse? I looked at the Stokke photos and that woman (yes WOMAN, she is 18 so live with the fact she is legally able to get married and have kids) is seriously attractive. That has zero connection to whether I will cheat on my wife. No connection.
3. I have a second cousin who, in 1964, was 16 years old. She ran away from her parents home in Oklahoma and moved to Dallas where she married an Army private and LEGALLY became a waitress in a topless bar. In 1964 in Texas it was legal to become a stripper IF you were married and your husband gave written permission!

1964! 16!

Her husband got shipped off to Vietnam and died in Da Nang in 1965. Then SHE WENT TO GO LIVE WITH MY COUSIN AND FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL!

I have no problem with not fetishizing teenagers, but women at the age of 16 could be strippers in 1964. This was the law. Do not act like an 18 year old is a shocker. Almost all pornography is aimed at men under age 28 and almost all pornography features women under age 30 and a fair amount, at least 40% features women under age 25. Same thing with fashion models and hollywood actresses.

Lastly, I have a friend who is a woman. At age 32 she got dumped by her longtime boyfriend, got PO'd and started dating a guy who JUST TURNED 20! No one can say that men look at younger women and women don't look at younger men

I forgot one more thing. I lost my virginity to an 18 yr old woman when I was 17. Does that make that woman a creep because I was 17 and seduced her? I don't think anyone would think that an 18 yr old woman doesn't have the capacity to make these kinds of decisions. People need to get off their high horse about how we function as human animals.

" I am quite happily married -- and monogamous -- and plan to stay that way. I see no incompatibility between this and leering at a picture of an 18-year old, fully clothed, incredibly beautiful woman."

Ok... think of it this way. Imagine someone takes a photo of your wife, without her permission, say in the grocery store. Then he posts it online, along with her full name, the name of her hometown, and the name of the place she works, along with comments about how "hot" she is. People all over the internet then start posting all their fantasies about the (sometimes disturbing) things they'd like to do to her. Whenever she leaves the house, people recognize her. Would you honestly defend the men who are "leering" at her picture? The one that was taken without permission?

I think this is great exposure for the sport of pole-vaulting. As a former vaulter myself, it's nice for others to see the grace that vaulters exhibit.

I also am very impressed with how far female vaulters have come. When I was in high school, the female WORLD record height would not have even qualified for entry in a conference-level boys high school competition (let alone state or national).

I checked out some action shots of Ms. Stokke, and she has great form. She has a lot of talent and she has obviously worked very hard. I hope she sticks with the sport.

Man, this is something I haven't thought about in a while. I wonder if there are any local pole-vaulter's clubs for old fogies like me. It'd be fun to do some jumps.

P.S. For those of you who think her outfit was risque, please grow up. Have you never seen a woman working out in a sports bra? Sheesh.

Ms. Stokke has had stalkers and press at her meets. That's legitimate, and she should not have to "get over" it. Since people are sometimes posting rape fantasies (and the comments at the original site include non-consensual stuff), I'd say she has a right to be upset.

Besides, some people don't understand CONSENT. The blogger did NOT have the consent of the photographer- a regular sent him the photo. The blogger did not have Stokke's CONSENT either before exposing her to every sick pervert on the web. If she was getting paid, like a topless waitress or stripper, it would be her choice. This was not her choice.

Having had to punch out men who think they have the right to "handle" as well as "leer" because the objections weren't loud enough, I have to say that I don't belive the "women" posting the "deal" comments are either real women or attractive enought to have had this kind of unwanted attention. Otherwise they would be far more sympathetic. Those "women" sound like 14 year old boys.

She's not allowed to use a .45 to deal with some of the more aggressive ones. That's the real shame.

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! xqhcgcxygbet

ifxlnun

jtrjw

http://zeihbqyzenb.com

The reason this got published in the Post is pretty obvious to any sensible reader--Stokke is a good-looking young woman from a priveleged family, and the story will clearly outrage most Post readers, who have sons and daughters like her. Newspapers and magazines are pretty desperate to hang on to readers--they know that they're losing circulation pretty fast. So they resort to old-fashioned scare tactics to get you to read, captivating the over-protective baby boomer parents that make up their readership: "What if this was YOUR daughter?"