INSULT TO INJURY: VALENTINE'S DAY: A NEW WAY TO LOOK AT RELATIONSHIPS

Move over, Monopoly. There's a new game in town. And for couples searching for a distinctive Valentine's gift that promises to enrich their relationships by increasing their understanding of each other (blah, blah, blah), this may be just the ticket.

"Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus -- the Board Game."

The game, from Mattel, is based on John Gray's best seller of the same name. First published in 1992 with already more than a gazillion sales in 40-plus languages worldwide, Gray's tome has spawned not only the game, but tapes (both audio and video), TV infomercials, a CD Rom, Mars and Venus Counseling Centers and even a calendar.

Central to Gray's whole touchy-feely spiel is a truly shocking revelation -- namely, that (gasp!) men and women are different.

No kidding.

I suppose Gray's pitch has its share of devoted disciples. It certainly has helped Gray rake in beaucoup bucks. But if he really wanted to make an impact, Gray should have quit with the namby-pamby line and told it like it really is. My suggestion? A new title for the book:

"Women are from Venus, Men are Scum."

True, the title doesn't have quite the same catchy ring to it, but it's probably much more accurate. Without a doubt, the idea, despite its accuracy, isn't going to be nearly as popular as Gray's, especially with men, who don't take much of a shine to being called scum.

Indeed, my theory has sat none too well with the testosterone-laden crowd whenever I've talked about it. And I doubt many of the fellas are going to slap me on the back when they see it in print or offer to buy me a round next time I run into them at the local watering hole.

I've also noted that few women are impressed by the argument either, albeit for much different reasons. "Men are scum," I tell them, and they stare blankly at me with that "Well, Duh" look in their eyes, as if I just graduated top of my class from the school of the bleeding obvious. My profound new thought, I am told, is neither exceptionally profound, nor especially new, but something women have known all along. Of course men are scum, they say. Are you just now figuring that out?

One woman sneered at me when I told her my theory -- she actually sneered -- and proceeded to accuse me of trying out the line in a vain attempt at "picking up chicks." But trust me here. I say it only by way of confession, not as a way of schmoozing the ladies.

The theory is also hardly politically correct insofar as it begins by positing a basic difference between men and women. In an egalitarian society where we are encouraged to celebrate our "sameness," any talk of differences between the genders, no matter how true, is verboten.

But face it, we are different.

Underlying my theory is not the pscyhobabble of Gray, but the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes, a 17th-century political philosopher, believed that all actions are intrinsically selfish, that all motivation is essentially egoistic. Even seemingly benevolent acts are done for selfish reasons, Hobbes said, because of the reward we believe we will receive, either in this life or the life to come.

While I've come to believe Hobbes is basically right, I would add a qualification. The actions of men are basically selfish, the actions of women less so.

Women, it seems to me, are much more giving than men, much less self-absorbed. I don't know if it is the result of biology and the fact that women, as the child-bearers and the ones who suckle infants, are forced by nature itself to be giving; or if it is because of the demands of a patriarchal society in which women are routinely subjugated to the whims of the tyrannical male. Nature or nurture -- which is it? I don't know and I don't care.

Men, on the other hand, are ruled by appetite. A quick think back to yesterday's Super Bowl party and the sight of pizza-eating beer-swilling guys gawking shamelessly at the cheerleaders should prove my point. Men are governed by their stomachs and the nether regions further south (wink, wink).

Mind you, despite how it sounds, I'm not making a value judgment here when I say men are scum. It may sound like just so much more liberal male bashing, but it isn't. I leave the value judgments and the ethical questions to the philosophers and theologians to wrestle with. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. It just is.

Still not convinced? How about Bill Clinton?

As much of a slack-jawed yokel as he seems at times, Mr. Clinton is no dummy. He attended Georgetown University. He was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. He graduated from Yale Law School You may get elected president based on boyish charm and an aw-shucks grin, but you don't go to the Ivy League from Arkansas without some smarts.

It's not his lack of intelligence that got Clinton in trouble, but his inability to rein in his appetites on any sort of consistent basis. Quite frankly, the man hasn't met a woman or a cheeseburger he didn't like.

The surprising thing is not what Mr. Clinton did, but that we haven't heard of many more similar cases. There but by the grace of God and all that.

So, gentlemen, let's be honest. Time to fess up. Despite our protests to the contrary, we are much more selfish than women. And when we complain of a woman's being a spoiled brat, what we really mean is that she won't let us have our own way.

Pity, isn't it?

~Jeffrey Jackson is a staff writer for the Southeast Missourian.