An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".[1] It is generally considered to be a bad argument because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" is typically irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined within a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.

Appeal to nature is a well trod logical fallacy. You would have to answer the question "Why would attraction being more natural make it better?"

For that matter, how are you even measuring better or worse?

And those are more useful lines of inquiry that can lead you to an interrogation of phenomenon like hyper-sexualization and the commodification of sex and aesthetics under capitalism. But those things aren't bad because of where they exist on a scale from natural-unnatural, those things are bad because of the harm that they manifest for the people that experience those things.