There’s a peculiar myth suggesting that men are evolutionarily wired to “spread their seed” and could potentially impregnate 100 different women in 100 days. However, scientific evidence indicates that the chances of this happening are slimmer than being struck by a meteor. In reality, very few men father more than 12 to 16 children over their lifetimes, which is only marginally higher than the typical range for women, estimated at 9 to 12.

Let’s delve deeper into this claim, which is inherently odd, to understand why a man is unlikely to impregnate 100 women, let alone within a mere 100 days.

This notion stems from the belief that while a woman can only bear one child each year, a man possesses “unlimited” sperm that is biologically inexpensive to produce. However, this perspective neglects the fact that the man is just one part of the reproductive equation. Beyond the time and financial investments needed for seduction, mating with fertile women is challenging and involves various costs—both for humans and animals.

In traditional societies where women typically do not have access to birth control, a significant number of fertile women are either pregnant or nursing. For example, a Paleolithic woman could nurse a child for at least four years, sometimes extending to six. In a community of 100 women, about 20% may not have reached menarche, while another 20% could be menopausal. This leaves approximately 60% of women available for reproduction. If 80% of this group (about 48 women) are either pregnant or nursing, that further reduces the pool to just 12 potential candidates for impregnation.

Among the remaining women, a man must find those who are single, interested in him, and ovulating, which dramatically diminishes his chances.

As anthropologist Augustín Fuentes from the University of Notre Dame cautions, relying on exaggerated figures of male reproductive success is misleading. There is no evidence that such a drastic reproductive disparity occurs regularly in humans or other primates. Using these flawed assumptions as a foundation leads to unrealistic scenarios that fail to hold up under scrutiny.

In simpler terms, good luck to the so-called “Evolutionary Psychology Fantasy Man.”

A sultan with a vast harem might achieve such a feat, but the average man faces almost insurmountable odds. In fact, a monogamous man who consistently engages with the same partner has a greater likelihood of fathering children than a promiscuous one. Moreover, prior to the advent of dating apps like Tinder, how would a man manage to meet and woo a hundred women, especially if he lived in a small hunter-gatherer group similar to our Paleolithic ancestors?

In essence, fathering a hundred children within a year is an unattainable goal for any ordinary man. A promiscuous male would need to engage with over 130 women just to have a 90% chance of surpassing the one child a monogamous man might be expected to father in a year.

The concept of a man impregnating numerous women in such a short span not only seems implausible; it also reflects a deeply ingrained androcentric viewpoint that dismisses the role of women in reproduction. The idea that a man could strategically time 100 seductions is excessively optimistic. Even if this remarkable scenario could somehow be realized, the probability of producing a hundred offspring is astronomically low, quantified as 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000748.13.

To provide context, a man’s likelihood of being killed by a meteorite during his life is approximately 0.000004.

Thus, on average, a year of competitive courting would see only about three out of a hundred women become pregnant.

Beyond numerical limitations, the underlying assumptions about mating behavior are misaligned with current scientific understanding. Research shows that in numerous instances, female mating behavior can be quite promiscuous, serving as an effective evolutionary strategy that enhances the likelihood of healthy offspring. Under certain circumstances, males can also exhibit selectivity in choosing mates, countering the notion of indiscriminate mating.

Mikael Puurtinen, an academic researcher, notes, “The new research helps to understand when and why male choosiness evolves.” By simulating a system where females mate with multiple males to improve fertility, it has been demonstrated that male selectivity can evolve. When females engage with numerous males, the value of each mating opportunity diminishes for males. By being discerning and judicious with their mating choices, choosy males can gain a distinct evolutionary advantage.

Charles Darwin initially posited the idea of choosy females and promiscuous males without thoroughly studying primate behavior, which is often characterized by female sexual promiscuity.

Even in supposedly “monogamous” species like gibbons, females may mate with other males when their partners are absent. Research highlights that a desire for variety is the most prevalent trait among the sexual behaviors of female primates. Contrary to stereotypes, female primates are not merely passive or focused on finding a singular “best” mate.

Darwin’s theories were later supposedly validated in 1947 by Angus Bateman’s study on fruit flies. Despite being scientifically discredited due to flawed methodologies, Bateman’s conclusions continue to influence public perception. His work perpetuated a narrative that favored a cultural stereotype of male sexual behavior, which has often gone unchallenged.

As noted by researchers who attempted to replicate Bateman’s findings, “We argue that human mating strategies are unlikely to conform to a single universal pattern.” This assertion is supported by numerous studies on human and animal mating behaviors, which reveal that cultural and ecological factors play significant roles. The idea that males are evolutionarily predisposed to promiscuity while females are not primarily reflects societal attitudes rather than biological imperatives.

If Bateman's conclusions about sexual roles and selection seem to portray an overly nostalgic narrative of active males and passive females, it’s because they do. As real advancements in gender equality emerged, leading women to take control of their reproductive choices and economic futures, Bateman's theories were periodically revived, often as a response to anxieties about social change. Whenever women exhibited independence, the idea that they should merely choose the strongest male for protection became more pronounced, reinforced by a variety of scientists, writers, and politicians whose interests aligned with such views.

© Copyright Elle Beau 2023