I have recently had the unique experience of reading Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Venus. For the three people who have not yet read this classic, it aims to solve only one of the many points of contention between the sexes. To wit: what men say to women and hear from women are not at all what women hear men say or mean when they talk to men. Follow? While it sounds complicated (and, despite the books simplification, it really is) this unceasing "lost in translation" can be, with diligent attention and study, mastered. And, presumably, this singular act of bi-lingual gymnastics can improve the effectiveness of inter-gender communications. In any instance, the idea that men and women mean different things when they might be saying the same thing is, I suppose, a valid premise on which to write a book.

The problem I see with a book like MAFM/WAFV is that misinterpretation of the spoken word is the least of the yawning and unbridgeable canyons that separate men and women. Surely, knowing when a women wants to cuddle as opposed to being despoiled and, conversely, sensing the verbal clues that signal when a man wants to Ago to his cave@ (a phrase from the book) would be a quantum leap forward in male-female dynamics. But, just as surely, it is merely the tiny blip on the radar when it comes to the biological disconnect that is the root and branch of male-female dissonance.

In what will surely come as a startling revelation to millions (rivaling the discovery of the New World in 15^th Century Europe or that politicians are not in office for the public good in the 21^st Century), this must be said: men and women differ not only in their mode of communication but in the basic priorities they want out of life and, to the point, what they want from their mates. When it comes to the visions of life ever-after, women might be from Venus but men are from a galaxy far, far away.

I know, I know. This is an dizzying hypothesis to anyone above the intellectual level of, say, a spiny lobster, a snail, a divorce lawyer or a Congressman, but it is true. Men, when thoroughly and dispassionately examined, are driven by strictly primitive biological urges; women ride hard upon their cerebral yearnings. In brief, men feel (and seldom think) what they want from a female and women cerebrate (and feel little) what they want from their men. It is a sharp and, often, impaling difference. The dissonance is not simply rooted in the divergence of their common language. Instead, it is polar differences in urges, expectations and drives that produces the disequilibrium. In brief, this disconnect, not dysphasia, is the actual source of conflict between the sexes. If I might paraphrase, "Men and women are one species separated by much more than a common language." They are, indeed, seeking entirely different ends.

Take, for example, the most pressing difference between the sexes. To wit: the unfettered grace with which women perpetuate monogamy and the absolute, total, unwavering failure men make at the exercise. Since the union of Adam and Eve, presided over by the Creator, Himself, men – not women - have made a complete mess of the proposition of monogamy. This ignominious tradition was perpetuated throughout Biblical history and reached its climax, so to speak, with King David. Young David was the scourge of married women throughout the Sinai and his treatment of Uriah and his wife, Bathsheba, are legend. It has been, in a phrase, downhill ever since.

You see, in my analysis, the concept of monogamy is a monumental failure. (By the best estimates, 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women have had extramarital affairs - and, remember, these are just the ones who are willing to admit to the societal taboo). It has failed because it has been artificially imposed upon a species ill-equipped (dare I say, genetically disqualified?) to follow the demanding dictates of matrimony. Seeded in religion and sanctioned by civil law, it has never been successfully driven home to the congregation, whether they be rich or poor, young or old, black, white, yellow or brown. It must be admitted, that women have, because of their superior intellect and grasp of survival, been able to blithely slither into the robes of union with grace and aplomb. The stumbling block comes from the hairy-knuckled half of the species. That is to say, Homo erectus (pun intended). Men, coerced by their conflicting biological urges, continue to spit the bit. And those men who manage to stay in harness do so at great cost - literally, physically and fiscally.

Men, those bumbling, graceless dullards whose minds fixate on making money, impressing their fellows and the next beer, always have their primitive parts aimed at other priorities. Further hamstrung in their noble pursuit semper fidelis, they are relentlessly flogged off the golden path by primal biological imperatives long cast off by their more evolved women-folk. The war that has ensued has filled the ledgers of the civil courts (and the pockets of the profligate shysters) for centuries. It is this war - the war between the sexes - that is the stuff of Shakespear and legend and not the bloody wars between mere nations.

In the extensive research done for this discourse, both personally and from afar, I feel faintly qualified (if limited to only single, decidedly male point of view) to delve into why this Greek tragedy continues to bedevil human society. We may have conquered space travel, defined the speed of light, unearthed the mysteries of Egypt and stood tall and upright against male ED, but we, as a civilization, have been conspicuously impotent, not to say flaccid, against the bedevilment that is man versus woman. It is high time to get to the bottom of this. And I, never one to shy away from the mysterious and occult, propose to make the attempt.

The basic and, indeed, driving dichotomy between the sexes is the differing outlooks on the carnal aspects of union. Women, while enjoying, to infinitely varying degrees, the sex act are, at their core, indifferent to it. The majority, indoctrinated with the understanding that carnality is simply a means to an end (i.e. procreation) tolerate the interplay but, for the most part, see it as a "duty" rivaling cooking, cleaning, ironing and balancing the family checkbook. Women, dutiful creatures as they are, fully understand that the desires of the flesh are important to their mates and, unless they can come up with a suitable excuse, generally yield, not to say anticipate with eagerness.

The male, on the other hand, is infused with the urge to explore the carnal. This overwhelming coercion is rooted in several hard-wired misconceptions and one exigent biological impulses. Allow me to elaborate:

1. Let us dwell, first, on the most primitive: the biological impulse. Man, like all males of all lower species of animals (not excluding fish, fowl, serpents, politicians and faith-healers) have, firmly seated in their DNA, the aptly-named "biological imperative." This is the drive to spread one’s unique DNA to as many receptacles as time and breath allow. In brief, man is driven to procreate. But not with just one individual gene pool but with as many as possible. Millennia has taught the species that the best chance for perpetuating the species is not to count on the sanctity of any one X chromosome donor. A single X chromosome from a single female may be defective, coding for fair skin or blue eyes in a tropical climate, short stature (thus, reduced speed) on the Serengeti or any host of maternally-transmitted genetic abnormalities. Therefore, the male primally seeks multiple X’s to give his progeny the best chance at survival.
2. The first misconception that men succumb to is the notion that the most interesting part of a female’s anatomy is subject to structural variation. More to the point, men truly believe that, by exploring enough female holdings, they will, eventually, come upon the perfect female organ. Some may actually hold that one might be found that is bejeweled or, perhaps, inlaid with gold. In any case, they are convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that - somewhere - they must be a receptacle that is the perfect fit and, as such, will bring supreme and unrivaled ecstacy to the discoverer. Perhaps, and I am only forming a logical argument here, this notion is founded on the male’s acute awareness that, within his own sex, there is great variation in the distinguishing feature. His shower time, cohabitated in his school years by fellow gym rats, has given him insight that runs directly counter to popular opinion: men, indeed, are not created equal. Thus aware of the existence of subtle biological nuance, it would be a reasonable premise to posit that the female must, likewise, show considerable variation. As a medical professional, I can summarily put this folktale to its final rigor. It is simply not seated in fact, science or anatomy.
3. Also, there is the primitive urge, dating to the times of cave-dwelling, face-painting and the sabertooth tiger, to conquer and take the female. In these ancient times, it was a male dominance drive. It was not sufficient to defeat a rival tribe in pitched battle. To truly assert supremacy, booty must be claimed and surrendered: trinkets, cooking utensils, hides, foodstuffs and the unfortunate’s females were the common treasures claimed. In the modern translation, this remains a drive to conquer. It has become a slightly less hazardous endeavor (since, there is usually no need to vanquish a male opponent) but, nevertheless, it remains an integral part of maleness and his perpetual search for adventure. Instead of welding clubs and rocks, the 21^st Century caveman relies on guile, gentle manliness and Gucci as his weaponry. The opponent to be subdued is the female, herself. Success, declared upon bedding said female adversary, completes the act of subjugation. Barring the actual discovery of jewels or gold-inlay, the male moves on to yet another opponent. His virility, thus reaffirmed, leads him forward to new battlefields and a renewed quest for the Holy Grail.

As we can see, there is much more to the never-ending struggle between men and women than merely a failure to communicate. The female urge for the safety and security of monogamy is in constant strife with the male’s deeply innate rebellion against it. Books may be written, all purporting to build bridges and bind wounds, but they will all, ultimately, be for naught. The accursed apple from the Tree of Knowledge made us aware of more than our nakedness before God. It irreparably defiled and tarnished the eternal dream of man-and-woman-as-one and dashed all hope of ever returning to the Garden where, once, the dream was reality. The urges, too strong, the biology, insurmountable and the behaviors, too long ingrained, will forever make wedlock a perpetual battlefield on which only the strong, the dedicated and the compromising will see victory. Marriage can work for the elite few but it is not the natural state of Homo americanus.

But, as ever, that is just my menial and modest opinion.