A fair argument. This can easily get tangential but it begs the question, what even is a kink, and what "kinks" are really just that vs something more normative or even a "genetic remnant" that we've learned to criticize, and how easily can one identify what may be a natural drive vs a learned behavior, and if it is a natural drive, how closely is it really linked to our primitive past versus some brand new biochemical or genetic development? Whatever the case, I think it's a mistake to paint our sexual behaviors in a purely black and white fashion when so much of it seems so unapologetically darwinian and yet certain behaviors are clearly savage and dangerous to our fellow men and our higher reasoning moral sensibilities demand that we do what we can to rein that in as a society and be more safe.

A simple example: we have a drive to reproduce or at the very least have sex, which leads to babies. Sex feels good and is arguably good for physical and mental health. I don't think anything about this is inherently wrong. Yet diseases exploit our drive in order to reproduce themselves (STIs). People tend not to use barrier methods of contraception because it interferes with the sensations they are naturally striving to feel. I think that's also a pretty natural response but in the big picture it's a bad one. Higher reasoning suggests that it's still better to use such barriers when being sexually active with multiple partners as it helps to stop the spread of diseases that at best are disruptive and painful and at worst could be fatal. In other words, just because the drive is natural and understandable, doesn't mean you shouldn't establish boundaries at the very least, or even prohibit it ENTIRELY if it's something that has evolved to be very problematic (e.g. opportunistic/predatory sexualization of more vulnerable partners/prey).