[LINK TO THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION]

I’m truly surprised in the hostile reactions to her article — people are indeed  proving her point via the hostile reaction.

People who are attractive and unattractive ARE treated in completely different ways — some good, some bad — and just because one is complimentary does not make it wanted.

As a male I’ve been hit on by gay guys so many times – it is complimentary, and I take it as a compliment, but I don’t necessarily want it, or that kind of attention!

Does everyone really lack the empathy to understand how annoying it can be to be treated special simply because of your appearance, and that the sword can cut BOTH WAYS {i.e. to affect both ugly AND attractive people}.

We are judged on a slew of superficial criteria, from the shoes we wear, the car we drive, our hairstyle, our fucking phones, and a myriad of other kneejerk observations that don’t actually say much about a person’s true nature, heart, or personality.

But when someone who comes from the advantaged class of attractive people dares tell it how it is, we have a bunch of people who react, call her “Fugly”, and reduce her to her looks – WHICH JUST PROVES HER POINT that one’s looks controls how others treat you.

These people also seem clueless that different people find different things attractive. A skinny 41 year old blonde at the the local DMV or courthouse would most certainly be in the top 10% of attractive people present, even with her “odd British looks”.

Hell, her face could be mangled, and that body alone would make her more attractive than most of the overweight american females at the local DMV.

Of COURSE she’s been hit on and had experiences to that over the course of her life.

Not everyone’s experience in life is the same. That her experiences are met with such skepticism just shows the general lack of empathy that humanity has.

What I am mostly hearing is that “If she looks like X, she can’t possibly have experienced Y, and therefore is full of shit”.

The X in the above sentence can be either “beautiful”, “ugly”, “plain”; but the sentiment is the same either way: People act like they can judge someone else’s experiences because they read an article that person wrote and saw a picture of them. In truth, nobody actually has the knowledge or authority to actually claim that about another human being.

Samantha Brick could be full of shit, but neither you nor I would ever be able to truly judge that, because we aren’t her, and did not live her life, walking in her shoes.

So how about people speak to her point, rather than personally attacking her (which partially proves it to me)?

—-

Addendum: Her article wasn’t about garnering pity for herself, it was about pointing out a very true facet of the human condition. But instead of people taking what she read and thinking about the words she said, and what they mean, they turn around and say, “Her attractiveness level is too [low|high] to be saying this”, or, alternately, “any woman who has enough confidence in her looks to mention them in an article is arrogant, and that’s really why everybody hates you”.

Oh really? Confidence is suddenly bad now? I think the people who say/think that are the ones who want attractive people to not be confident, that way they have less of an edge on less attractive people [more important to women], and also are more easily bangable by guys out of their league [more important to men].

—-

Addendum 2: There ARE some women (and men!) threatened by confidence. Whether it is 5%, 50%, or 95% doesn’t matter; there are enough that the woman in this article’s experiences are not out of the realm of possible experiences a human being might have. What she wrote was a personal testimony, not an indictment of every woman on the planet.

—-

Jeremy Turn3r adds: “I see her point. A good-looking woman of my acquaintance once told me that the worst thing a guy could say to her was “I’ve wanted you from the first time I saw you,” because it suggested to her that the guy had only ever been interested in her looks.”

—-

Desi from Failblog commented: “Funny how everyone goes on and on about how arrogant and self centered they think Samantha is… all of the people interviewing her barely let her talk at all, and made no attempt to treat her with any respect. I do not think Samantha is a good or bad person based on this. But I do see a lot of people who aren’t helping their case at all. Every single person has problems of their own. More attractive people do not necessarily have easier lives, or less problems. Perhaps they may have an easier time in some areas, but they also have troubles unique to them. Just like anyone else. It all comes out to the same thing. We all have different problems, not less. She’s simply trying to explain her personal experience. Just because it isn’t a popular point of view doesn’t justify an attack. Sure, some people are just nice to others… interesting how those nice people have all been male, isn’t it? If you people really want to prove her wrong so bad, here’s what you ought to do: Just leave it be. Really. All this hate is only proving her point. And look, I didn’t mention my personal opinion of her looks once. It just plain doesn’t matter to me.”