even in real life and more so online, hyperbolic humor and reduction to absurdity are risky strategies. People are apt to not get the context, or to not agree on what's absurd.

This is true.

I've also found, especially online, that characterizing the emotional states of my interlocutors for them is a risky strategy. On those rare occasions where the other person's emotional state really is important, I find I do better to explicitly ask for confirmation of my perception about it, rather than implying or referring to it as an observed fact.

Part of my reason for saying "ballistic" is that I don't think most people would consider a policy of kisses for putting clothes in the hamper to be such a serious infringement that if it isn't stopped after one request, it's a good reason for divorce.

That position sounds bizarre, I don't think it exists outside of pjeby's straw man. I believe my stated response was to shun the kisses.

As it happens I've never even had to escalate to the "ask politely" level. A smirk, a knowing look and a "Really?" avoided the conflict while keeping the interaction at the level of play, while still communicating the presence of a boundary.

I think there's a middle range between benign efforts at improvement and hostility-- the range where the person is fairly indifferent to the attempted behavior change. I'm guessing that it's the lack of respect for conscious choice by the person being reinforced which causes you to frame it as hostile.

Yes.