And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis?

Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man)

Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a narrow age range considering men can reproduce for most of their lives and women most do so within a narrow range.

Looking at the same graph at the head of the page in 1998ish there was about 20% of the most effected age range who hadn't had sex in a year. It's now 28 and in fact the graph goes up and down and it seems that other age ranges are less effected.

I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available.

Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.

> throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm

As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...