>>712807392
>>712807424
>>712807664
All of you are correct but also fundamentally misunderstand the female gaze.
Incels like you guys love to bitch about things women want like height and strong chins and shit but fail to realize why.

Women don't masturbate to pictures of men's chins like men masturbate to pictures of women's butts.

The limbic system in women (subconscious sexual preselection) is triggered by dominance cues.
Dominance, in this context, means strong and calm in high-pressure situations, not sexual aggression or physical hostility (Think how dominant animals are calm and the ones who feel threatened are violent).
Women aren't purely visual like men are because men are aroused by fertility cues, which can be easily deduced from sight. The female gaze is mostly cognitive, and is arousing due to associations they draw with appearances.

You are assuming;
>"Women will tolerate any fucked up behavior, as long as the guy who's doing it is [physically] hot"
The biologically correct version is this:
>"Women will tolerate any fucked up behavior, as long as the women subconsciously detect Dominance cues from the guy the entire time he's doing it"

Another thing Incels fail to realize is that dominance cues aren't always enjoyed DESPITE fucked up behavior, but often times the 'fucked up behavior' Is the dominance cue, because it alludes to dominant traits like risk-taking, strength, and even Intellect.
For example; Jeffery Dahmer isn't 'hot despite being a murderer', rather he's hot BECAUSE he's a murderer.

Women sexually crave the feeling of being slightly afraid of their sex partner, because strength and dangerous mystique is a perfectly healthy sexual fantasy for women to have. It's not superficiality in women like you Incels think, it's actually the polar opposite; high selectivism