I really enjoyed your post, but I don’t think it’s a mistake to read your article this way.
“Previously, when a “high-status” man was taken off the market, this represented a loss for every woman in the community other than the one the man married.”
This indicates that you assume the “one man-many women” model of plural marriage. Since a woman could be married to more than one man, there wouldn’t be any negative social effects because of unmarried men, on the other hand, considering there are more women in the world than men, there would be less single men out there. This is something that could prove incredibly useful to countries like China, where because of gender-selective abortions in the ’70s, there may be between 24 million and 33 million men who will remain single.
I understand that you respond to academic references, but it would be great if you examined it differently, since it is this side that we don’t see that often.
Thank you for starting this conversation