This Easter I hosted a potluck dinner and was plagued not only by a surplus of hard-boiled eggs and leftovers, but, more surprisingly, an exercise in contrasts. I’m not talking about Protestant vs. Catholic conventions, although I experienced that too. No, this contrast was much more  marked, much more visceral, much more testosterone-laden.

Men. Two men who might, if their powers were combined, create the perfect specimen of the human male. As it is, I’m weighing the pros of intellectual spark vs. pursuits of a less cerebral nature. It’s the classic question: If you can’t have it all, what do you want more?

Guy #1 is smart, funny, into the same stuff as me, shared values, etc etc. He’s a good, solid guy, one that looks perfectly datable on paper and someone who has made my pulse quicken not with romance or unadulterated lust, but with references to metaphysical poets and other delights that only a few (a very few) have been able to appreciate. So score one for intellectual chemistry. But is it enough to want to date someone for their brain alone?

Guy #2. Eye candy? Yes. But also dripping with Western charm and a helpfulness that can only be described as dazzling. I’d known him a full 24 hours before he was carving chicken in my kitchen as if he’d been coming over for Sunday dinner for years (never had I felt more serendipitous timing with a potluck and a chance encounter in the local park!). He carved, he wrapped, he offered to put stuff in the ‘fridge…finally, I couldn’t resist the urge to put his chivalry to the test by asking him to get one of those hard-to-reach bowls off the top shelf. Which, of course, he did. #2 was attentive without being flirtatious – enough to leave a girl wanting more.

Infatuation or compatibility? Sustainability or a flash in the pan? Mind or matter?

And why the necessity to choose?