There's nothing perverted about this. The problem with this analyst (and the likes) is that he compares paradise to our worldly perceptions and conditions within which heavenly possibilities indeed seem ridiculous and absurd. There are however profound philosophical explanations for heaven and hell thanks to the efforts by Muslim Philosophers such as Mulla Sadra.
I personally can attempt to provide a detailed philosophical explanation of the above tradition based on metaphysical principles that govern hell and heaven according to Mulla Sadra's metaphysics, but I reserve an extensive answer for a separate, more focused question in case you are interested. But generally one doesn't need to know beyond one commonly-accepted assumption about heaven and hell to go past these negative judgements which is that Paradise is a realm where everything comes in perfect form, hence the ability to enjoy things without bore or degeneration or decay.
This perfection depending on its particular objects is inevitably communicated in religious scriptures with concepts of perfection that we humans normally use to refer to this-worldly instances of perfection and wholesomeness, such as virginity for women, despite the fact that there's a substantial difference between, for example, this-worldly virginity and next-worldly feminine perfection. This is in brief because next worldly manifestations of perfection are not natural things, but through association we tend to think of next worldly things accounted in scriptures as natural things that have been somehow stretched beyond their normal limits, and this way of thinking in combination with some common anti-religious or anti-Islamic prejudices (such as the assumption that those accounts result from salacious aspirations of a backward tribal society) result in the kind of knee-jerk interpretations that renders those accounts sound ridiculous, but these assumptions are far removed from the highly intellectual interpretations of Muslim traditional meta-physicians and mystics .
I think what came above is sufficient for the purposes of this question except with respect to one particular claim in the video which is the problem with the heavenly person's perception that the virgin woman he is presented "is the best thing in heaven" which is resolved by the doctrine that heaven has many levels, and people's perception in heaven is bounded by their respective rank therein. Hence to the person for whom the highest deserving heavenly reward is not the utmost reward (as granted to more virtuous), his own particular enjoyment can seem like the best possible enjoyment since even though he might know through conceptual knowledge that there are higher enjoyments and better people in heaven, since he can't actually enjoy and imagine those higher levels, upon his personal euphoric experience of his own rank-specific enjoyment, his concrete and immediate feeling would be like he's enjoying "the best thing in heaven."