Introduction
The distinctive bell or mushroom shape of the human glans penis has puzzled scientists for years. One prominent theory, the semen-displacement hypothesis proposed by Baker and Bellis in 1995, suggested this shape evolved during a promiscuous phase in human evolution to displace rival males’ semen. While this hypothesis sparked considerable debate, it has faced strong criticism from primatologists and evolutionary biologists. Despite the critiques against the semen-displacement theory, a compelling alternative explanation for the glans penis shape has been lacking. This article delves into the semen-displacement hypothesis, examines the criticisms it faces, and proposes an alternative, more plausible evolutionary advantage for the mushroom-shaped glans penis.
The Semen-Displacement Hypothesis: A Promiscuous Past?
Baker and Bellis’s semen-displacement hypothesis posited that the shape of the glans penis is a product of sperm competition, a scenario where females frequently mate with multiple males in quick succession. This is observed in highly promiscuous primates like chimpanzees, where sperm from different males compete to fertilize the female’s eggs. According to Baker and Bellis, a similar promiscuous phase occurred in human evolutionary history.
Their theory suggests the existence of two types of human sperm: “egg-getters” and “kamikaze” sperm. Kamikaze sperm were hypothesized to engage in warfare with sperm from rival males, sacrificing themselves to incapacitate competitors. Furthermore, they argued that the glans’ shape, particularly the wider coronal ridge at its base, acts as a semen displacement device. The thrusting action of the penis during intercourse, they claimed, would physically draw out semen deposited by previous males, increasing the chances of fertilization by the more recent male.
Critiques of the Semen-Displacement Hypothesis
The semen-displacement hypothesis, despite its initial appeal, has been challenged on several fronts. Firstly, the very foundation of the theory – the existence of “kamikaze” sperm – has been refuted by scientific research. Moore, Martin, and Birkhead conducted extensive in vitro studies and found no evidence to support the claim that human sperm selectively target and incapacitate sperm from other males. Their findings directly contradict Baker and Bellis’s assertion, undermining a key component of their hypothesis.
Secondly, comparative primatology offers compelling counter-evidence. R.D. Martin points out that human biological characteristics align more closely with monogamous or polygynous mating systems, rather than promiscuous ones. Testis size is a crucial indicator in this context. Species with high levels of sperm competition, like chimpanzees and bonobos, possess significantly larger testes relative to their body size compared to monogamous or polygynous species. Human testis size falls squarely within the range of unimale mating systems, suggesting limited or no sperm competition pressure during our evolutionary history. Chimpanzees and bonobos, known for their promiscuity, exhibit the largest testes among primates, further highlighting the discrepancy with human biology.
Figure 1. Examples of penile morphology in primates with polygynous (A–H) or multi-male/multi-female (I–N) mating systems. This image illustrates that a glans penis is not exclusive to promiscuous species.
Furthermore, the size of the sperm midpiece, which houses mitochondria providing energy for sperm motility, also contradicts the promiscuity argument. Anderson and Dixson’s research demonstrates a correlation between midpiece size and mating systems. Species experiencing sperm competition generally have larger midpieces. Human sperm midpiece volume is among the smallest in primates, falling well below the typical values seen in multi-male mating systems, reinforcing the idea that humans did not evolve under intense sperm competition.
Adding another layer of complexity, Alan Dixson highlights that a helmet or acorn-shaped glans is not unique to humans or promiscuous species. It is commonly observed in various Old World monkeys, including colobines, macaques, baboons, mangabeys, and guenons, regardless of their mating systems. This widespread presence across diverse primate mating systems weakens the argument that the glans shape is solely, or even primarily, an adaptation for semen displacement in promiscuous contexts. Dixson proposes that specializations for sperm competition, such as the loss of a distinct glans shape (as seen in some species), emerged after the evolutionary split between the Pan lineage (chimpanzees and bonobos) and the Homo lineage. He argues against equating the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees with modern chimpanzees, especially concerning reproductive and sexual behaviors. Genetic analysis further supports this, showing that semenogelin genes, key semen proteins, have undergone significant changes in chimpanzees compared to humans and gorillas since their common ancestor. This suggests that traits like copulatory plug formation in chimpanzees are evolutionary novelties, not ancestral features related to the human glans shape.
The “Parting Squeeze” Hypothesis: An Alternative Evolutionary Advantage
Given the compelling criticisms against the semen-displacement hypothesis, an alternative explanation for the glans penis shape is warranted. The persistent popularity of the semen-displacement theory may stem from the lack of a convincing substitute, despite its shortcomings. It’s improbable that the glans is merely an evolutionary spandrel or a random byproduct.
One overlooked aspect of the glans penis is its lability, or flexibility, compared to the penile shaft. This flexibility has led to the suggestion that the glans may serve a protective function during intercourse, acting as a cushion or shock absorber for both partners. However, the fact that promiscuous chimpanzees and bonobos thrive without a prominent glans diminishes the likelihood that protection was the primary driver of its evolution.
Here, we propose a novel alternative hypothesis: the “parting squeeze” hypothesis. This theory suggests that the mushroom shape of the glans, in conjunction with the female introitus (vaginal opening), plays a crucial role in optimizing semen retention. Post-ejaculation, as the penis withdraws, the narrower introitus involuntarily constricts around the labile glans. This constriction, or “parting squeeze,” compresses the glans, which in turn gently squeezes the urethra. This action facilitates the extraction of a final fraction of semen from the urethra and ensures its deposition deep within the vagina. As Dixson aptly notes, a “close fit between complementary genital structures is essential for copulation to succeed.”
This “parting squeeze” mechanism offers a different kind of “semen-displacement” – not displacement of rival sperm, but displacement of the last portion of the male’s own semen, ensuring maximal transfer to the female reproductive tract. This hypothesis aligns with the evidence against human sperm competition and suggests that the glans evolved within a less promiscuous social context. Here, the evolutionary pressure would be on maximizing fertilization success with a single partner, rather than outcompeting rival sperm within the female reproductive tract.
Drawing from Baker and Bellis’s observations, we can further refine this hypothesis. They noted that human ejaculate coagulates into a spongy mass within minutes of insemination, later decoagulating and partially flowing back out. The first part of the ejaculate is prostate-rich and promotes decoagulation, while the latter part, dominated by seminal vesicle fluids, encourages coagulation. We propose that the “parting squeeze” specifically targets and extracts this later, more coagulating fraction of the ejaculate. This fraction, while not directly involved in fertilization, may play an indirect role by coagulating in the lower vagina and creating a temporary barrier, delaying semen flowback and prolonging sperm exposure to the cervix.
This contrasts with chimpanzees, where the final ejaculate coagulates to form a substantial copulatory plug, a strategy to physically block subsequent insemination by rival males. It’s been theorized that the chimpanzee’s pointed penis evolved to dislodge such plugs. However, as previously discussed, copulatory plug formation appears to be a derived trait in chimpanzees, representing an evolutionary divergence from the human-gorilla ancestor.
Conclusion
This article has critically examined the semen-displacement hypothesis and presented a compelling alternative: the “parting squeeze” hypothesis. While the semen-displacement theory has faced significant scientific challenges, it has inadvertently highlighted the intriguing question of the glans penis’s evolutionary purpose. The “parting squeeze” hypothesis proposes that the mushroom-shaped glans, through its interaction with the introitus during withdrawal, optimizes semen retention by extracting and depositing the final, coagulating fraction of the ejaculate deep within the vagina. This mechanism enhances fertilization probability in a context of less intense sperm competition, aligning with the biological and primatological evidence regarding human mating systems. While further research is necessary to fully validate this “parting squeeze” hypothesis, it offers a more robust and biologically plausible explanation for the evolutionary advantage of the mushroom-shaped human glans penis. It also doesn’t preclude other potential functions of the glans, such as a protective role during intercourse, but suggests that semen retention optimization may have been the primary selective pressure shaping its distinctive morphology.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments
My thanks to the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and thanks also to Alan Dixson for his encouragement.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Smith, R.L. Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1984.
[2] Baker, R.R.; Bellis, M.A. Human Sperm Competition: Copulation, Masturbation and Infidelity; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1995.
[3] Moore, H.; Martin, R.; Birkhead, T. Lack of evidence forрак of human sperm сратеgy of sperm incapacitation. Nature 1999, 397, 447–450.
[4] Martin, R.D. Primate Origins and Evolution: A Phylogenetic Reconstruction; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1990.
[5] Harcourt, A.H.; Purvis, A.; Liles, L. Testis weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Funct. Ecol. 1995, 9, 464–476.
[6] Anderson, M.J.; Dixson, A.F. Sperm midpiece volume and mating system in primates. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2002, 269, 1411–1419.
[7] Dixson, A.F. Primate evolution of penis shape. J. Zool. 1996, 240, 339–355.
[8] Dixson, A.F. Primate Sexuality: Comparative Studies of the Prosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Human Beings; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998.
[9] Gibbons, A. Which of our genes makes us human? Science 1998, 281, 1432–1434.
[10] Hatzichristou, D.G.; Pescatori, E.S.; Savoca, G.; Salonia, A.; Perimenis, P. The protective role of the glans penis during coitus. Int. J. Impot. Res. 2003, 15, 141–144.
[11] Silber, S.; Johnson, L.; Olive, D.; Maclin, V.; Moffatt, O.; Rheinhardt, J.; Toner, J.; Balmaceda, J.; Copperman, A. Semen cryopreservation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection for patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens. Fertil. Steril. 1995, 63, 1103–1109.
