Imagine what the world would be like if women's minds really were the same as men's.
Men have an absolutely omnivorous attitude to sex. A friend of mine the other day said, without trying to be provocative, offensive, or shocking, just in casual conversation: "I slept with a lot of biffas before I realised that pretty girls need sex too."
('Biffa' is British slang for an unattractive woman.)
This is the sort of comment that has women spitting feathers. It just doesn't make sense to them. Why would anyone act like that? Men are pigs.
Of course, any male not only instantly recognises the inner truth of the statement, but also catches the subtext, which is that the reason that the biffas are no longer being attended to is that the speaker has a lovely girlfriend who is likely to leave him if she suspects infidelity.
There is nothing as attractive as a woman you haven't slept with recently.
I'd imagine that most men's vision of paradise would be a place where they could have sex as many times a day as possible, with a different beautiful woman each time. If a balance needed to be struck between quantity and quality, I'm pretty sure that balance wouldn't be one very beautiful woman. The attitude of the women towards the man would not be a big consideration, although orgasms would be nice. There might also be cricket.
Whereas I'd imagine that most women's paradise would be a place where they could have sex as often as they wanted with one particular supremely attractive man who loved them. And if a compromise had to be struck, they'd take one man who loved them and one gorgeous lover who didn't particularly. And orgasms would be reserved for the second one. Cricket would be illegal.
Very different aims.
So if women's minds were the same as men's, the world would be one big clusterfuck. In warm countries every available surface would be covered in strangers fucking. In cold ones there'd be lots of warm places that could be rented by the hour.
After you'd shagged yourselves silly, you could go out and get drunk and talk about cricket. And have proper arguments where you argue for the fun of it without anyone taking it as a personal insult. No one would ever want to have a long complicated minefield of a conversation about feelings. Or shoes.
According to the excellent 'Tales of the City' novels of Armistead Maupin, this is a fair description of San Francisco in the days of gay liberation, but before AIDS put a stop to free love.
If you're a straight male, take a moment to imagine what it must be like to be gay. All you have to do is to imagine that everyone you know is a woman, and they all want to sleep with you.
Why would anyone not choose to be gay if they could?
It makes me worried for the sort of conservatives (always religious) who think there's some sort of choice involved in sexual orientation. That it's a temptation that can be resisted.
If it was any sort of temptation I wouldn't be resisting it for a minute.
But imagine that you were gay, and you were as attracted to all your friends as you now are to all your female friends. So you were surrounded by an infinite sea of willing partners.
But you had a magic book that told you that it was wrong to fuck boys, and that the little baby Jesus who loves you and watches everything you do and misses nothing would set fire to you if you did. And the fire would never go out and burn for all eternity. Because he loves you.
I imagine that your life might be a bit frustrating.
You might absolutely hate anyone who somehow hadn't got the message about the magic book, mightn't you? You might worry for their souls. You might think them weak and corrupt. You might want their activities illegal. You might want their temptations gone so that you wouldn't have to face up to denying yourself every day.