Your post literally says: "the reason for your creepiness is that your intentions are to attract someone". GP's post never refers to intentions or situations or behaviors or anything. You are castigating GP for intentions and behaviors that exist entirely in your imagination.

I qualified that statement by saying "If you're saying that your attractiveness is the reason you've been told you're creepy...", because if that's what he's saying, he's admitting his intentions and I don't have to assume. If he's not saying that, then my statement doesn't apply.

Your "statement" is hopelessly wrong even if GP is saying exactly that. You have failed at logic, probably because of your privilege. You cannot imagine being conventionally ugly (poor, unstylish, socially inept, etc.) enough that your every communication would be viewed with suspicion. GP informs us that GP is at least that conventionally ugly. If GP says "good morning" while maintaining eye contact and smiling slightly, GP is seen as creepy. You have not lived like that and cannot imagine it.

Next, you'll be claiming that those who suffer racism should cultivate less racial intentions.

For someone accusing me of making assumptions, you sure are making a lot of assumptions about me. You've made assumptions about;

* My privilege * My attractiveness * My style * My social skills * My life experiences * GP's actions * GP's experiences

Not having a woman be attracted to you is not systematic oppression, or even oppression at all. No one is entitled to the attention or affection of another. People are, however, entitled to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their race or gender.

Anyway, you're an obvious troll. Your profile even says so. So I'm done with this conversation.

You're still arguing with your imagination. GP did not complain that women aren't attracted. GP complained that because GP is unattractive, GP is destined always to be "creepy", which presumably entails a variety of social difficulties. Why don't you care about those difficulties? I really don't know! Privilege was merely the most charitable explanation. You're free to correct the misunderstanding. What you can't correct are the literal assumptions you typed about "intentions". We can read.

Any ethical person knows that no one is entitled to affection. No one has suggested otherwise.