2.

A word of warning: Wendell's Crazy Ex was definately a 2.

Perhaps I'm asking for too much here, but if I had to choose between #1 and #2, I'd take a cat instead.

3. Retain them both as occasional drinking partners, but keep looking elsewhere. You've still got the rest of the world to explore, and if both like you enough, you'll never have to buy a bottle during the holidays for as long as you live.

Sure, but we could have 50 responses saying "3", and they'd all be right... but I'm curious about what people would choose between these two. (And also, I should have said... this thread isn't advice for hot little pancake - I just borrowed her question because it seems interesting.)

I suspect that, if hot little pancake told both people how she thinks of them, she might not have this problem any more.

Consider options 3 & 4:
3: Find someone new.
4: Be on your own.

Sure, but we could have 50 responses saying "3", and they'd all be right... but I'm curious about what people would choose between these two.

Honestly, I have been in this situation TWICE in my life and both times they both got kicked to the curb. There is an old adage about unhappiness:
If I find myself to be unhappy I would rather it be because I am alone, rather than because I am with someone that makes me unhappy. Oh, and there are always more fish in the sea. My Step-mom and I have a little adage of our own for every time I find myself single: NEXT!

If limited to those options, I would choose 2. They both have their inherent frustrations, but the laughter (particularly) and the good sex would trump the intelligence. You can always make friends with other intelligent people for that part of your life.

One with Two on the side.

Like Wendell, I married a #2 (Heh. In more ways than one.) and I say RUN, little pancake! Run far away! Option 3 is the only good option because any other decision you make is going to gnaw at you forever.

I am always suspicious when there are only two choices offered. There's always other choices.

I feel sorry for people who are so afraid of being alone that they'll settle for someone. That's not a good way to live.

I've tried both options, but number 2 is slightly better. But when the sex is all over with, you end up sitting there all night hoping they stop prattling on about whatever shiny gee-gaw caught their eye this week so it's not much of an improvement over number 1.

"I feel sorry for people who are so afraid of being alone that they'll settle for someone. That's not a good way to live."

Depends upon what "settle" means. I've never found, much less lived with, someone who meets all my strongly desired and important criteria. I'm always "settling" in the case of one or a few attributes.

But I haven't, and wouldn't, "settle" in the sense that I've felt generally disatisfied every day.

I do think that most Americans have unrealistic expectations about romantic love. In particular, I think that we don't understand how to learn to love someone who doesn't completely fit our profile, or why that's important. I think that Americans tend to think that the blissfull time of falling in love is what the entirety of romantic love should be. I think that's false. I also think that in our zeal to (correctly, in general, I think) affirm the importance of things like "self-actualization" and "independence" we have devalued the emotional importance and healthiness of needing romantic companionship and interdependence.

I have had each of these, in combos, in my life. .. I tend to choose #1 because of my formidable and accomplished older sister (methinks) but there has been both attributes, throughout the years. . .I married a combination of the two. . .ebbs and flows. . .right now, she's been wanting sex more than I have but that will change. . .always does.

I can't complain.

Hard choices and I'm glad I don't have to choose (the mister is the perfect* combo of #1 and #2). But if someone held a gun to my head (I'm looking at you taz!), I'd pick #2.

*And by perfect I mean perfect for me. I'm quite aware that he would be #1 or #2 for other people.

"...but the laughter (particularly) and the good sex would trump the intelligence. You can always make friends with other intelligent people for that part of your life."

It depends upon what is most important to an individual person in terms of what the think is integral to their experience of romantic love. Me, in contrast to you, sharing a "life of the mind" is more important than sex or even sense of humor.

I'd love a really good sex life with my partner. To be frank, I've never really had that. I think that the characteristics that would make for a really great sex partner are so rarified for me that I'd have to make that my only operating criteria in a search for a partner and even then I'd have to look far and wide. I've not been, and will not be, willing to do this. Maybe if I thought it was realistic to (moderately easily) have that with a partner who has most of my other desired traits I'd rate that as something I'd never compromise on. But I don't, and so I do. And although I've never tried this, I think I'd be happy in an open relationship where I can "make friends with other...people for that part of [my] life".

Intelligence is important to me. It's not so important that it makes all other characteristics unimportant, though.

I've had three long-term, live-in relationships in my adult life. All three women are quite intelligent. Two of the three are measurably genuises (whatever that means). The one that isn't, my ex-wife, isn't a genius, but she's above average. However, of the three, I think I was happiest with her. It's hard to say which of the other two is the smartest—both test well over 155 on standard intelligence tests—because their intelligence is very different. I suppose the astrophysicist is the smarter of the two; although her intelligence is so alien to mine that I am probably overawed by it and overestimate it. Anyway, the point is that that's the relationship I've been least happy in. So my experience somewhat runs counter to my point. But notice that all three can certainly be characterized as being intelligent.

There was a girl in high school who was younger than me and quite attractive, especially to me with regard to what I find sexually attractive. But she was pretty unintelligent, below average. I wanted to date her, and I did occasionally in high school and then more seriously for a few months several years later. But I always felt like I was using her. I always looked down on her, and I felt guilty about that. In the end, that was a deal-breaker. She was a very nice person.

Fast forward more than twenty years, and here she was, locating and getting in touch with me last year. She's not as attractive as she used to be, but still looks pretty good, and we got together a few times. And she's still a very sweet person. And she practically idolizes me; somthing which is both oddly attractive and repulsive at the same time. Anyway, after seeing her a few times, it became obvious to me that I really couldn't sustain any strong feelings for her, and a large part of the reason was that there was nothing we could talk about. In many ways she seemed like an alien life form to me. And she embarassed me a little. Relative to cmonkey's point/question, she's still right there and available to me (I've been honest with her and subsequently given her the cold shoulder, but I've not been able to bring myself to be deliberately hurtful), and I've been very lonely and in need of romantic company the last year—but there's just no question of "settling" for her. It couldn't possibly work.

Okay, sorry this was so long. Just is stuff that's been on my mind.

Sex is never as important as intelligence, in my humble opinion. If I can't keep a conversation going past a certain point with someone, even a funny someone, that's a deal-breaker.

Personally, neither option would appeal to me, as I know people like 1 and 2 in real life, and neither choice would do me any good.

My order of importance is: intelligent, funny, creative, sexy. Looks fade, lust fades, but what makes a person bedrock real is what they have to offer me with their mind and heart. Then all that other stuff comes rushing up and carries you away.

To quote an otherwise ghastly person I know: "The intellectual is the erotic".

I pretty much echo LT on this issue so I won't repeat.

Okay, I have Mr. #3-best-of-both-worlds, because I must have done something really great and selfless in another life, but for the sake of the question, here's my take on it: #2 is uneducated and uncultured, but he's not stupid. He's making me laugh, right? So he can't be stupid... and if he's in love with me, then he's not a pro-wrestling and beer nuts guy. And I'm choosing him (I think), because I gotta go with the joy.

Life is tough. Even when it's an "easy" life, it's tough... You have to deal with frustration, depression, disappointment, loss, pain, illness... And in my estimation, the main reason to be with someone long-term is joy, comfort, and aid; you help each other through the hard parts, you stick together and stick it out. You make each other's lives better, happier, warmer. When I'm sad or sick or scared, I don't want Mr. Leave-Me-Alone-I'm-CREATING; I want the guy who can't be happy if I'm not happy, who's going to bring me treats and make me giggle and kiss me and make it all better. I want to wake up every morning next to someone who rolls over, looks at me and smiles like sunshine.

This thread turned out to have some very beautiful, and some very thought-provoking, sentiments in it. Thanks, everybody.

I will choose Freewill.

I choose the Quaker Oats guy. That's right, the one right there on the box. Just because many of you have had him in your homes for much of your lives, you think he's yours, but he's not. He belongs to me.

Choice 1 sounds like a real asshole.

And the description of choice 2 makes the question asker sound like a real asshole.

Yeah, I agree with SassHat.

I would pick number 2, after getting a personality transplant.

Good grief, people, has "Big Love" taught us NOTHING??!! Poly is your friend, so assimilate #1 and #2, but in separate wings. And don't forget the remote electronic locks, kay?

Next question?

birdherder has it - very American Way.

I'm with Sassy.

But if stuck with these to options, I'd take #0 (which is a more accurate number to give the "neither" option.)

I agree with SassHat, too. The asker needs a personality transplant. And as Brandon Blatcher said, people aren't checklists.

Granted, he seems to be in favor of 2. I'm in favor of 0/3/cats. :)

Warning: long, overthought Miko-answer ahead.

I read this question this morning, and have been thinking about it, on and off, all day. It's a strange thing to think about -- in part, because I think just about all of us know that a #3 is the only real goal for anyone wanting a true partnership. The 1s and 2s of this world are those that become the non-permanent relationships.

In GunToTheHeadWorld, it's almost a false choice. If a permanent choice between 1 and 2 had to be made, the outcome would probably be misery either way. There are fatal flaws in each combination that would probably cause the two parties to grow increasingly estranged from one another as time went on. In the first, the aloofness and coldness of the handsome artiste would eventually hurt the Asker; and in the second, when the passion grew less intense, the Asker's basic contempt for the potential partner (thinking he was dumb and uncultured, wishing he was 'slicker') would become hurtful for him.

(I think it's only setting aside this contempt problem that allows taz to answer as confidently as she does -- taz, you're right about everything there, right about the toughness of life and the need for laughter and support and joy and passion and generous love - but unlike the Asker, you of course have the ability not to feel contempt for 2, which seems to be a key issue in the question. Respect is an essential ingredient in love; contempt kills love. That's why I think 2 wouldn't work here in the long run, either. Not because there's anything wrong with 2 himself - it appears not - but that the potential mate looks down on him. I think we have to assume that the disdain is part of the laundry list.)

So what sort of choice is that? In a coldly logical way, no choice at all, since either relationship is likely to end in dissatisfaction. But these choices are really about individual people, not abstractions. Spending time in any relationship is in some way instructive. In a real-life scenario, the Asker will do some learning no matter which choice is made, and the things learned in each relationship may be very different.

Like many people, my life has included, at various times, some 1s, some 2s, some 1.5s, some significant alone time, and some outliers. Each one was a choice that made some degree of sense at the time. The fact that I'm not Mrs. 1 or 2 is important - it means that there never was a gun to my head, and each thing ended when the essential flaws in the match could no longer be overcome. But I certainly learned a few things from each one.

As people grow older and wiser, we are, in a way, working our way through the 1s and 2s in search of our 3s. As my grandmother would have said, you've got to shuck a lot of oysters before you find a pearl. Our attempts and experiences with our 1s and 2s teach us things that gradually sharpen our image of what a #3 might look like, allowing us to know #3 when we find it. So perhaps the best way to choose between 1 and 2, if a choice had to be made, would be: accepting that it might ultimately fail, in which relationship would you learn more, grow more, maybe even be painfully challenged more, and finally emerge more ready for your best possible partner? Of course, that isn't really something we can know in advance.

On my fridge is a quote torn from a magazine, saying "People who are looking for a perfect life end up being miserable." When we choose to love, we always love imperfect people, and of course we're always imperfect ourselves. Good thing love isn't only for the perfect.

But self-knowledge is important in understanding which kinds of imperfection you can live with. Decisions like this one, if forced, become so much easier when you know which qualities in a partner you can let go of or compromise on, and which you truly need to make a good fit. The Asker seems to pose the question as though there is an objective, external answer, when really, the answer is within her. Which of the two does she love? Which of her seeming requirements can she compromise on - status seeking, sex, 'cultured-ness'? Which quality in a partner is her sine qua non? Would she rather hold out for number three? This self-examination element is, I think, the only way for each of us to answer these kinds of questions for ourselves in a way that makes us happy. You have to know what you want in order to know whether you want someone.

For me, the qualities LT listed are excellent and well-ordered ones, indeed, and to them I'd add shared values, because that's so important in decision making.

Damn, I really wish we could mark "best answers" over here because Miko just got my vote.

#0 for me too. Either of those is going to make me miserable in the end.

*sigh*

Well, yes, in real life I would choose #0, but I answered #2 because the question was a choice between the two.

many thought provoking answers in this thread.

Without seeing what the rest of you wrote, I would choose #2, if only because I could relax and not have to live up to anyone else's standards. I have enough problems satisfying my own.

Besides, anyone that can make me laugh regularly and have exciting and satisfying sex with me (assuming it is so for both) is worth spending time with. #1 looks to be too high-maintenance.

After seeing what you all wrote, I feel shallow and selfish. Whatever.

No, see... That's why I thought this was such an intriguing question: two options, more or less opposites, and each missing a crucial aspect. Do you sacrifice intellectual stimulation or affection?

That's why I wasn't really interested in option "3" or "0" answers, since this wasn't actually advice for hot little pancake; I was just curious what people would pick if they had to choose between the two.

Well, intellectual stimulation you can get pretty much anywhere and a relationship doesn't have to be the only place you stimulate your brain. Not so much with the body - for me, if you are in a relationship, it should be your sole source of this kind of nourishment. So it was a no-brainer really.