Martian

Well, naturally.

I'm not getting into an 'omg teh science' discussion here. I don't feel it's the proper venue. I maintain my original position. Gene frequencies are only relevant at population level. Of course we don't pass on all of our genes. I cannot mate with myself, and would have no desire to even if I could; the whole point of a sexual species is to promote genetic diversity.

When discussing a mating pair (or a series of mating pairs, as in the source article) the vehicle is what matters. Really, one could argue that there's really only a small subset of genes that are relevant to genetic population and the rest are just piggybacking anyway. We aren't discussing individual gene sets here. This isn't a case where the genetic imperative is a be all end all to the degree that it is in some arthropods (or salmon, or whatever other mate-then-die/eusocial/non-monogamous pair-bonding species you prefer). When discussing evolutionary theory as a whole what you're saying has merit. When discussing it as it applies to the 'bad boy syndrome' it's not relevant.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame