[globular-toast]

Presumably the presence of risk-taking males is advantageous to the species as a whole. If our species was asexual each individual would have to be fairly risk averse as any individual lost is lost breeding capacity. But in a sexual species a lost male is fine and happens all the time. Just losing males is, of course, pointless but presumably the advantages brought by the successful ones outweighs any disadvantages brought by the unsuccessful ones. This seems to be true when you look at unsuccessful males who just tend to sit out on the sidelines or whither away in silence rather than actively leech on society while successful males can be great leaders, innovators, visionaries etc.

It's perhaps easier to see why risk-taking behaviour is less common in females, though. In a sexual species each female is required to carry at least two children, on average, to merely replace the current population (it's also beneficial if she survives the final birth). The loss of a single female is therefore quite significant. A population with more risk-taking females would be less successful than one with less.

[sjducb]

Natural selection operates at the gene level, not the population level.

There has to be a positive expected return for the genes of the individual that takes the risks.

If it’s beneficial to not take risks then populations will be full of individuals who play it safe.

[globular-toast]

The existence of gay people is a good example of something that can evolve in a population despite drastically lower chances of being passed on genetically.