I cannot think of a useful reply. I operate as if the words and phrases refer to common English definitions and refer to actual properties of the universe. You appear to be operating at a level of conversation that does not interest me.

Gorilla-type masculinity doesn't have any common english definition. It can have multiple possible readings. I read it as non-verbal, large physical presence, chest thumping, wooping.... things to intimidate foes. Because that is what I think of as male gorillas. To speak geek for a moment, Worf is an example of gorrilla-type masculinity and Picard is an example of a non-gorilla type to me. Both examples of masculinity, just different flavours.

Your reading expanded it to verbal domination, or any sort of domination. Which lost the distinction in my mind.

SarahC introduced it to differentiate between what she finds attractive in American men and lacking in European culture, so she had one of the two meanings in mind. Or a different meaning altogether.

It is what she meant that is important! She had something that she wants men to become more of, and the ability to win arguments on Mensa is not what she was thinking of, I think. Assuming her preference is shared by some other women, then it is important for people interested in dating to know exactly what she meant.

That is why I chose her as the arbiter, lacking a common meaning.