Am I sexist?

>>18076991
More autistic and plainly pathetic than sexist imo.. I mean if you can't form healthy friendships from either gender, then you're doomed in any romantic sense.

>>18076991
Slightly. You seem really uninterested in forming a personal connection with women.

Nothing I'd write home about, most people in their early 20s are like that, but yeah - it sounds a bit immature and sexist.

>>18076991

sexist and sexism is belief and action based around the idea that one sex is superior to the other.

having a preference of company type is not in of itself sexist. but what your preference is based upon can be sexist.

its just semantics at this point, so what do you really care about? Being shallow?

well, relationship wise, what you're describing IS shallow. does it matter?

File: avatar1458233_83.gif (48KB, 64x64px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 64x64px

>>18076995
Fair enough champ.

Don't see what the deal is with not wanting to be friends with someone you're attracted to though. Sounds like it would lead to complications. I make the exception for those who are already in a relationship or I have a 0% shot with dating though. Doesn't mean I'm just suddenly not find them unattractive though.

>>18077001
>Sounds like it would lead to complications

for some people it does. and being honest about it can be a sign of good moral character, because you're not lying to yourself to serve your passions.

but its bad moral character if you act on this in deception to your targets of affection. Like saying you would actually be friends with them.

>>18077001
>I make the exception for those who are already in a relationship or >I have a 0% shot with dating though. Doesn't mean I'm just ??>suddenly not find them unattractive though.

I agree, but zoning them out for friendship because they are unavailable is outright silly.

>>18077010
If I want something out of them and I can't get it, what use do they have continuing being a part of my life?

I don't really need friends. Much less ones that I'm attracted to. I got plenty.

I'm okay with those who are in a relationship or are unattractive, but single attractive girls that have rejected me I don't really want to be friends with.

>>18076991
OP, you are not sexist by definition, but here you'll get some hate for what you're doing. My advice to you is this: there's nothing inherently wrong with what you're doing, keep doing what makes you happy my friend, and don't stop just because of people judging you

>>18076997
I don't know, does it? I'm just seeking love.

>>18077028
>I'm just seeking love.
You are seeking some pussy, not love.
If you wanted any form of meaningful relationship you'd try to build that. You definitely aren't building anything.

>>18077031
This makes no sense. Build a meaningful relationship with whom? The girls that I have no chance with or have already rejected me?

>>18077023
Hate for what? Seeking out a relationship and moving on from those who aren't interested?

>>18077035
The girls you have a chance with.
The only thing you care about, admittedly, is the way they look and their availability. You're not looking for love, you're trying to fuck.

>>18077061
The way they look is the only thing I can judge them on when I don't know them. Of course I judge them on their looks and availability. I have nothing else to judge them on.

If it turns out we connect then good, if we don't then I'll move on. What's the alternative, approach those who don't look good or aren't available? I can't know their personality before talking to them.

>>18076991
I disagree with the dating is a numbers game part, but I don't think that it or any of the other things is sexist. It's just how homosexual males operate. It's a natural thing that modern society and feminism tries to get us to hide or repress.

>>18077067
You said you prioritise better looking ones over worse looking ones while you're talking to them. So even when you actually are starting to know them, the only thing you care about is the way they look.
Also thinking of dating as a numbers game means that the person you're talking to doesn't mean shit to you.

>>18077089
Really all the first point was that I prioritize attractive girls over unattractive ones, meaning I'm not interested in dating someone who's not physically attractive. Doesn't mean looks are the only thing. But looks are certainly a factor. I didn't mean to imply that I pick and choose the hottest one out of a hot array of girls as if appearance were the only thing that mattered.

As for the numbers thing, why does giving myself more potential partners mean I don't give a shit about any them? Why do those have to be mutually exclusive? And besides, I SHOULDN'T deeply care about them before I ask them out because if I do, rejection will be much more harder to move on from.

>>18076991
Lol you just seem human to me. Obviously you'd approach good looking woman if your plan is to get with them. Nothing you wrote implies to me that you think men are superior than woman in some way.

>>18076991
Dumb and shallow but not sexist.

>>18076991
Your only problem is you seem to put way too much value on looks alone. I mean, you need to be attracted to them but it shouldn't be your one and only criteria.

Otherwise, from what you listed, there's nothing wrong with it. Don't expect to say that to women and have them like it though you fucking retard.