The beautiful Samantha Brick: 'Are you serious?'

Mechele R. Dillard's picture

On NBCs Today Show, Ann Curry asks the question everyone has been asking each other about Samantha Brick's assertion that she is so overwhelmingly beautiful, men approach her continuously in the streets and women shun her: "Are you serious?"

Samantha Brick, a part-time columnist with The Daily Mail, has infuriated—and, to be honest, amused—readers around the world with her recent article, “There are downsides to looking this pretty: Why women hate me for being beautiful.”

This morning, on NBCs Today Show, host Ann Curry asked simply, “Are you serious?”

Earlier this week, after Brick’s article bemoaning the burdens of her insatiable beauty went viral, Curry mentioned that she had assumed the article was written tongue-in-cheek—that no one would really write something that audacious with the intention of it being a serious commentary.

Would they?

Today, Brick spoke with Curry, and initially appeared to be clinging to Curry’s “spoof” suggestion—but, the more she talked, the more clear it became that, indeed, Brick really does blame women for torturing her based on her, um, overwhelming beauty.

“Obviously part of it is tongue-in-cheek and part of it has been massively misconstrued," Brick told Curry. “I’m not saying that I am attractive. I’m talking about the perception of someone who is considered to be attractive by other men and women and what that does to our society.”

But, the more Brick continued talking, the more obvious it became that her “tongue-in-cheek” assertion was simply an idea that she was trying to spin as a way out of the viral hole she has dug herself into with her overt narcissism.

After Curry—a truly beautiful woman herself—pointed out to Brick that she had used the word “I” at least 60 times in the 1,200-word article, and asked, “Are you aware of how narcissistic your piece sounded?", Brick answered by saying, “The piece is a first-person piece. It’s about my experience and my life.” But, she then backpedalled, spinning her answer with, “Really, it was just to trigger debate. It wasn’t to have a global vitriolic attack on me as an individual, which is what happened.”

Ah, the sacrifices one must make to shed light upon the injustices hurled against the beautiful, such as herself.

It’s hard, really, to imagine why Brick thought this article would be well-received, or why she seems baffled that people are now, as she said, attacking her as an individual. The fact that she basically slammed all of womanhood in her original article—“If you’re a woman reading this, I’d hazard that you’ve already formed your own opinion about me — and it won’t be very flattering. For while many doors have been opened (literally) as a result of my looks, just as many have been metaphorically slammed in my face — and usually by my own sex”—does not seem to register with her as anything other than jealousy on the part of women. Brick presents herself as being incapable of understanding that her tone and presentation are condescending and flaunting, as well as conceited and, yes, narcissistic. In fact, Brick’s response to the ongoing outcry in a follow-up article indicated that, in her view, the growing rancor toward her just proves her point, that women hate her because she is a threatening beauty.

But, then, it stands to reason that a true narcissist would not understand negative interpretations of her, um, exposé on the plight of the beautiful.

Women don’t like her? They don’t allow their partners to even talk to her?


Since she put such statements out there, I would suggest, politely, that this would likely be due more to Ms. Brick’s actions than discourse triggered by her radiant beauty. As a twist on the old saying goes, actions speak louder than beauty, and it’s not beauty that women are threatened by in situations such as the one Brick describes in her article, but by someone making a play for their significant other—particularly someone doing it not necessarily to “steal” a mate, but to just show other women, “See, I could have him if I wanted him—luckily for you, I don’t.” It’s rude. It’s disrespectful. It’s condescending. It’s arrogant. And, yes, it is narcissistic.

And, as to her assertion that, “I have lived and worked in Los Angeles and I doubt that such a reaction to my piece would have happened there. For in the U.S. you're expected to look good and you're rightly applauded for it.”

You know, there is a lot of shallowness in the world, not the least of it being in the United States, it’s true. But, Ms. Brick, no one—no, not even Americans—applauds a self-centered narcissist as she applauds herself.

It’s amazing, really, that anyone could be as self-absorbed as Ms. Brick presents herself to be, but, at this point, it appears the most revealing question has already been asked and answered:

“Are you serious?”

Apparently, yes, she is.

Image: Wikimedia Commons


Submitted by Cammie (not verified) on
I think you were spot on when you said that most likely it is her attitude that most people don't like and not her beauty. I'm not saying she is beautiful or not. I look around and I've noticed that when I believe someone is ugly, it's usually their attitude and not their face. I find beauty in many faces. I have been thought beautiful by some but all those things Samantha gets for free like coffee, champagne and opened doors I have always believed that it was my inner beauty not my outer beauty that warranted it. Now that I am almost 50, I have to say that it must be true because I don't look like I did in my 20's but still many people find me beautiful yet not everyone loves me and some people downright dislike me. Sometimes it's because I am human and I can be not nice or just not in the best of moves. No one likes ugly but just like beauty it's from the inside out. I think Samantha needs an attitude adjustment. Just my two cents.

Add new comment