Earlier quoted context omitted.
This notion (step 1: be attractive, step 2: don't be unattractive) comes up a lot in male-dominated online spaces. It's a fallacy, and actually a self defeating one since it causes guys to ascribe their failures to something out of their control (looks) instead of what is actually in their control (behavior.) Here's a pretty good deconstruction of the concept IMO: https://www.doctornerdlove.com/understanding-the-hot-…
The article is more a takedown of the strawman "hot guys can't be creepy". It seems obviously true that certain behaviors are hot if they're performed when there is mutual interest and creepy when there isn't any. And being hot has a huge impact on whether or not there is mutual interest. In addition hot people are just given more latitude than ugly people in terms of social faux pas.
No no, that's exactly the point. If an advance is welcome, it's wasn't a faux pas. If it's not welcome, it's a faux pas. This is true regardless of hotness level.
Are hot people more likely to be welcome to a larger set of people? Sure, that's nearly tautological. But the expected behavior is the same: be sensitive to context, read signals, don't violate boundaries. Hot people and ugly people can both do this (or not.)
Hot people are more likely to find people that are into them. But nobody owes or is owed anything regardless of attraction level, and it's every guy's responsibility not to act like a creep.