it has to do more with availability of use. If everyone could afford a painter everyone will be getting selfies

Not true. Considering the ubiquity of portable cameras today, not everyone is a "selfie freak". Some people (and I argue here that it's loads of them) possess the uncanny ability to stifle their narcissistic impulses. The rest, do abuse the opportunity given - they are truly show-offs. OP's point is valid.

So there is no survival instinct because there is a teleological aspect to it but there is a social one. This is what we call intellectual dishonesty. Literally.

I would say that the term "social instinct" might not be accurately descriptive. If we rephrase it into "social trend" we can also attribute a teleological aspect to it and as such we can either accept or deny it ("put it to use - or not"). You are off the mark, again.

It's bullshit. It is not your "theory of use". You take the dictionary meaning of the word "use" and spin the words around in order to say pretty much "water is wet and its meaning is humidity'.

You are not arguing on point. It seems that all you are trying to do is discredit the OP for whichever personal reason or gain. The OP is plainly saying "what's the use of a toned, honed, muscular body if it cannot be "compared" with it's polar opposite?" I will not argue here whether this is true or false but I will heed you with this: Be contemplatively fair and mind your language.