If you typically try to convince people with competent argument or being kind, then you are less likely to reach for the physical intimidation toolkit of gorilla masculinity.
I consider competent argument to be far more representative of gorilla masculinity than whatever the other category is. Viewing conversations in certain communities (for example, MENSA mailing lists) I’ve seen patterns that look remarkably like what I would expect from gorrilas—guys trying to dominate each other with verbal sparring while girls are competing via asserting moral control and creating social alliances with other women and undermining the status of targets. Depending on your physical self confidence the physical forms of intimidation can seem gentle and benign in comparison.
I consider competent argument to be far more representative of gorilla masculinity than whatever the other category is.
I think there is more than two categories here. Gorilla’s don’t talk much in general...
I’ve seen patterns that look remarkably like what I would expect from gorrilas—guys trying to dominate each other with verbal sparring while girls are competing via asserting moral control and creating social alliances with other women
There is plenty of that in Europe.… so I’m not sure if it contributes to what activates SarahC’s hindbrain. As gorilla masculinity’s top hit in google is SarahC’s comment, it is up to her to say what it means. To me it had hints of a pure physicality (rather than verbal) to it which she may not have meant to impart.
As gorilla masculinity’s top hit in google is SarahC’s comment, it is up to her to say what it means.
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.
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.
I consider competent argument to be far more representative of gorilla masculinity than whatever the other category is. Viewing conversations in certain communities (for example, MENSA mailing lists) I’ve seen patterns that look remarkably like what I would expect from gorrilas—guys trying to dominate each other with verbal sparring while girls are competing via asserting moral control and creating social alliances with other women and undermining the status of targets. Depending on your physical self confidence the physical forms of intimidation can seem gentle and benign in comparison.
I think there is more than two categories here. Gorilla’s don’t talk much in general...
There is plenty of that in Europe.… so I’m not sure if it contributes to what activates SarahC’s hindbrain. As gorilla masculinity’s top hit in google is SarahC’s comment, it is up to her to say what it means. To me it had hints of a pure physicality (rather than verbal) to it which she may not have meant to impart.
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.