I think there is some mission creep in the ism neology. To me, the ism must suppose my set is superior to the other. For the formula to work here, I would have to accept that beauty is demeaning, so if I prefer the pretty to the truck-drivery, then I'm sexist.
Anyone, given a free choice, prefers the pretty to the not-sos. You will notice they do have roles for the aged and the infirm in movies: character actors. A child raised in a small town with only movies or TV to reel in the great outside would be convinced that no one is capable of deep feeling tragedy or romantic comedy who isn't alluring.
At the animal shelter, the pups and felines they have the most trouble moving are the less-cute.
Do I, a hetero male whose glands are still in working order, prefer to watch Sharapove to either of those two alibi artists in the finals at Wimbledon? Certainly. And that goes for all the boys on the other side, though they be quicker with more powerful strokes.
When I was young, I could play on public courts without notice, whereas the muscular young blades would be eyed from all sides. Had you asked the girls and women if they were expressing sexist proclivities, they would deny it, as would most anybody. But all you have to do is watch the eyes, and it's the same all over.