The fact that contraception might have a reasonable place for gene propagators is not the issue. The point is that much, and possibly the vast majority, of contraceptive use is contrary to the goals of gene propagation.

I can see what you think the issue is. What I don't see is where in the context you are getting that impression from.

No contraception can easily result in things like this - which really doesn't help. That using contraception is "silly" from a genetic perspective is a popular myth.

Not really. Remember, evolution doesn't care about your happiness. Indeed, regarding the example you linked to, from an evolutionary perspective,a one night stand with all the protection is utterly useless. It is very likely in that male's evolutionary advantage to not use condoms.

Your example is stacked to favour your conclusion. What you need to try and do in order to understand my position is to think about an example that favours my conclusion.

So: get rid of the one-night stand, and imagine that the girl is desirable - that having safe sex with her looks like the best way to initiate a pair-bonding process leading to the two of you having some babies together - and that the alternative is rejection, and her walking off and telling her friends what a jerk you are when it comes to protecting your girl.