In today’s round-up, I offer you a potpourri of topics for discussion.
First, a few blog shout-outs. Tami Gill, inspired by me to read the Harry Potter books, currently is on Book 5. Surf over and welcome her to the fandom. (And no spoilers!) For you Harry-Potter-is-evil folks, check out Laura Mallory and the Misguided Crusade.
Welcome Christian Harry Potter fan and professor John Granger to the blogosphere (and I’m thrilled to see my Christian fantasy fiction blog on his roll)! Also see “Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians” and Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?
The Carnival of Homeschooling celebrates one year of existence. Loyal reader and trackbacker Nathan Bradfield at Church and State celebrates his one-year blogiversary. And welcome commenter and new blogger (relatively speaking) Thomas Nguyen to the blogosphere.
Next on the list is Steve Sailer’s “Fragmented Future” article in American Conservative. Some folks call Sailer a racist; I call him a realist. His latest article is not as controversial as others, but it’s worth checking out. Also see his notes on the Great White Defendant.
Sailer surmises that people tend not to trust people who don’t look or act like them. Citing a study that concludes cultural diversity engenders distrust, Sailer says it also tends to inhibit social cohesion, to the dismay of those who worship the multiculti god. If you live in a “diverse” neighborhood, what’s been your experience?
According to yet another study, women tend to seek “less masculine” men as mates and masculine men for casual encounters. Why? They say men with more masculine features engage in riskier activities, i.e., prone to cheat and invest less time in childrearing. True? Actually, there are two things going on here. Does “more masculine” necessarily mean “more attractive”?
Allow me to offer my five cents. Although I desired the extremely handsome man from afar, I never wanted to date him. Why? Because he was highly sought after and heavily valued by other women, at least at the surface level. Being no prize myself, I figured he’d want an equally attractive woman on his arm.
What is or isn’t handsome is relative, I suppose. And some very attractive men may not even know how beautiful they are. For instance, I once heard Denzel Washington say he had no idea he was considered “cute.”
Yeah, right. 
What I like about Washington, besides his face, is that he’s still married to the wife of his youth.
Gary Dourdan, on the other hand, must have known from birth that he was attractive (those eyes!). Hey, I’m as superficially attracted to good-looking faces and fabulous smiles as the next human being with functional eyes.
What do women want as far as a mate is concerned? Well, this Christian woman wants a godly man who isn’t averse to working, is socially conservative and moderately ambitious (family comes first), can deal with my strong opinions but isn’t afraid to tell me when I’m wrong or out of line, and wants his wife (as opposed to day care or a nanny) to raise his children. [Double secret coded message: I think that describes you. 
]
“The ideal mate” is relative (how many times have I used that word today?), of course. Our ideal mate probably is not classically handsome or high earning, but he’s ideal for us based on qualities like good character, the ability to patiently put up with us, etc.
Ladies and guys, if you’re still single, what qualities would your ideal mate have? If married, are you with your ideal mate?
