Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[prodigalson2011]

Look. I’m gonna cut to the chase. While there’s plenty of wonderful and worthwhile theology on sexuality, it’s really as simple as this:

Sex is the most powerful creative tool God has given us. It gives us the ability to create new life. That possibility is one that carries immense responsibility and must be accounted for by those engaging in the act. If a child is produced, it deserves to have a stable family, and the parents should be prepared to provide that. Marriage is the proper covenant that God has established for that purpose. If you are prepared to have sex, you should be prepared to have children. If you are prepared to have children, you should be prepared to stay with your partner. If you are prepared to stay with your partner, you should be married. Period.

We are not Buddhists, we are Catholics. If you want to follow Buddhist teachings, be a Buddhist.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I AM JUST SEEKING THE TRUTH.
this is something i have given a lot of thought, its because sex and pleasure in general mean a lot to me! i am not going to lie, yes i would like to be right, i would like it if fornication would not be a mortal sin. and i full well realise there might be a difference between what i want to be true and what actually is true, so you dont have to condescend to me!
but i am a thinking person with a mind of my own therefore if something doesnt seem logical to me, it is up to you to prove me wrong! i am making my argument and backing up with facts, while the majority of replies i recieved so far barely provided any facts and just appealed to tradition and authority. im sorry, but thats NOT a valid argument. you will not convince me by such methods. i require logic (and please, preferebly no sarcasm)/QUOTE
To begin with, your yelling i.e. use of all caps, will get you nowhere!
Secondly, you have already received all of the logical arguments vis a vie the Catholic Churches views of licit Sexual Relations in marriage, and fornication, which is hetrosexual sexual acts outside of marriage. Having read your responses, I believe either your raging hormones are getting in the way of seeing the truth, which is quite simple: Any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin… or, you are one of those trolls who can’t stand to lose an argument.
In either case, you don’t seem to be able to accept the truth from any of the well meaning people on this site.
I strongly suggest that you if you really want a difinative answer to your propositions, go to or call your parish rectory and make an appointment with a priest. If you want a really intellectual discussion, you might seek out a Dominican or Jesuit parish near you and make the appointment. Your problem, though is that either your hormones or your ego may not allow you to do this…but, you should because your arguments indicate that your immortal soul is in danger.
And all for something that within the whole scheme of your existance is rather petty.
I could go on, but anything else I could say would have no effect on you, and I don’t want to get banned for being uncharitable.

 

[just_came_back]

Guys, I appreciate all the responses. I was feeling very down and angry last night, plus I had a couple of beers in me. I realize everything the church teaches is the truth but it doesn’t make it any easier. I just hope I can endure. Still, seems kinda wrong to think I am “horrible” because I want to touch a woman. Oh well.

 

[Irishgal49]

That is not why the Church discourages fornication. The Church discourages fornication because it is not procreative in nature. It is merely for pleasure. One cannot separate the procreative and unitary aspect of intercourse from the physical act itself without being in sin.

Furthermore, I do not know how old you are, but I can say with a certain degree of confidence that human beings cannot have sex in a “temperate, responsible fashion.” Especially if they are not married. By virtue of being unwed and engaging in intercourse, they are already highly irresponsible and ill-tempered.

EDIT: The “third way” is not compatible with the Christian lifestyle if it relegates that which is evil, harmful, or sinful, as merely innocuous. On many social issues, the third way is little more than moral relativism. As Catholics, we are called to stand up for faith and morality with an absolute stalwart defence. If the world is going to hate us, and call us extremists for upholding that which has been upheld for 2000 years, may the Lord have mercy on us all.

If I sleep with my boyfriend who I love dearly and am committed to and intend to get pregnant that satisfies the procreative part. I’m in like Flynn correct?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Don’t confuse attraction with actually committing fornication. As long as you aren’t dwelling and fantasizing, any normal person is going to desire the people they are attracted to.

 

[Irishgal49]

Furthermore, I do not know how old you are, but I can say with a certain degree of confidence that human beings cannot have sex in a “temperate, responsible fashion.” Especially if they are not married. By virtue of being unwed and engaging in intercourse, they are already highly irresponsible and ill-tempered.

OK, tell me this straight up…you are actually boldly asserting that everyone who is married has sex in a responsible, temperate way??? Do you want to meet the 67% of married men who CHEAT? Do you want to see the married men who have sex with other men? Do you want to talk to the married men who have sex with underage girls/boys and use porn? What about rapists who are married and have a family and live double lives? Might as well toss this in: What about priests who are supposed to be married to the Church who have sex?

I know two people who are living together who both work HARD, pay their bills, are very responsible, loving to their children who have kids together and are more moral than some of the drug using, drinking and partying (cheating) married people I’ve seen. Your point is totally proven wrong in every way. Sorry.

 

[Irishgal49]

Guys, I appreciate all the responses. I was feeling very down and angry last night, plus I had a couple of beers in me. I realize everything the church teaches is the truth but it doesn’t make it any easier. I just hope I can endure. Still, seems kinda wrong to think I am “horrible” because I want to touch a woman. Oh well.

You’re not wrong for what you want, you are only held accountable for what you DO. Don’t let anyone tell you different. We have to use caution on entertaining thoughts for longs periods of time, but thoughts are not sinful. Temptation isn’t sin or Jesus would be guilty of sin. Don’t sweat it. I see tons of cases for adultery listed in scripture…but none have really been proved to forbid masturbation or other traditional teachings of the Church. Many are teachings, and those aren’t dogma or doctrine. It really helped me having a discussion with my priest. While I try to live my life based on the Church, I can relax knowing that most of the people ranting on here probably haven’t lived up to these standards either. EXHALE and pray for God to help you.

Hugs,

Lorrie

 

[WingsOfEagles]

OK, tell me this straight up…you are actually boldly asserting that everyone who is married has sex in a responsible, temperate way??? Do you want to meet the 67% of married men who CHEAT? Do you want to see the married men who have sex with other men? Do you want to talk to the married men who have sex with underage girls/boys and use porn? What about rapists who are married and have a family and live double lives? Might as well toss this in: What about priests who are supposed to be married to the Church who have sex?

I know two people who are living together who both work HARD, pay their bills, are very responsible, loving to their children who have kids together and are more moral than some of the drug using, drinking and partying (cheating) married people I’ve seen. Your point is totally proven wrong in every way. Sorry.

And if they love each other that much, why not get married and do things the right way, the way the Bible spells out? Otherwise, they aren’t ready to be having sex. Personally, if a man can’t wait to sleep with me, I feel he is trying to use me and doesn’t care about me the person all that much.

 

[Irishgal49]

Way off track here. I think you’d better gain a deeper understanding of the Church’s position before drawing conclusions that fornication is somoehow OK on occasion.

Please read the entirety of the following link:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

As for what the Church actually says regarding fofnication, here:

“2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.”

This needs to be understood within the context of the entire section I have linked to, but essentially fornication is wrong as it not the appropriate context for sex. Sex belongs in marriage, where it strenghtens a bond between people who have committed to each other for life, and it provides for the generation and care of children. Fornication is contrary to both of these purposes of sex.

The funny part is if the parents told their children they were married and lived that way all their lives and went to Church and everyone thought they were married, no scandal. No one asked for a marriage license when I joined the Church. No one. And you don’t always change your name when married and a court order can change a name without marriage. So…???

 

[Corki]

OK, tell me this straight up…you are actually boldly asserting that everyone who is married has sex in a responsible, temperate way???

No, you are falling for a logical fallacy. Just because there are people who abuse the gift of their sexuality that are both married and unmarried doesn’t mean that the use of sex is morally equal regardless of marital status.

Do you want to meet the 67% of married men who CHEAT?

Do you want to say that because some men and women commit the sin of adultery, the sin of fornication shouldn’t “count”?

Do you want to see the married men who have sex with other men?

Do you want to say that because some men and women commit the sin of homosexual acts, the sin of fornication shouldn’t “count”?

Do you want to talk to the married men who have sex with underage girls/boys and use porn? What about rapists who are married and have a family and live double lives?

Do you want to say that because some married men and women commit sins of impurity and other sexual sins, the sin of fornication shouldn’t “count”?

I know two people who are living together who both work HARD, pay their bills, are very responsible, loving to their children who have kids together and are more moral than some of the drug using, drinking and partying (cheating) married people I’ve seen. Your point is totally proven wrong in every way. Sorry

Non sequitur. They aren’t paying the bills, loving their children and avoiding drugs because they are fornicating. Lots of people do those things in a variety of states of life.

 

[Contarini]

ive been thinking about this for a long time now. i think i figured it out. if we deny that sex is intrinsically evil, then we cannot say that it is always a mortal sin. just think about it, if we need a license to engage in sex (marriage) then that would mean that sex is intrinsically evil.
now a good honest philosopher will try to get to the root of the problem. first we must ask, why is it that the church discourages fornication? the answer is simple, because it can easily lead to selfishness which can easily lead to pride which destroys charity.

HOWEVER, if a person can have sex in a temperant responsible fashion, then it shouldnt be a mortal sin.
ive been studying the buddhist concept of ‘the third way’, and i think it makes more sense than the christian teaching. dont get me wrong, im a christian catholic through and through, but i think the buddhist third way is compatible with a christian lifestyle.
in the bible jesus was mostly silent about sexual morality. i think this was because we cant be too legalistic about these things. he even warned us against being legalistic. which is why i came to the conclusion that simple fornication in a relationship between good friends may not always be a mortal sin.
and please understand, i make my argument in the most respectful way, i do not want to offend anyone, i am honestly just searching for the truth. so i would appreciate anyone’s discourse on this matter.

Well, first of all, if you are a “Christian Catholic through and through,” then you need to respect the authority of the Church, and you need to accept Scripture and Tradition as a whole rather than just the Gospels (as implied by your argument from silence with regard to Jesus).

Personally, if it were just my judgment, I’d agree with you that simple fornication is venial and not mortal.

But that’s not the historic teaching of the Church, and you don’t seem to have given much thought to the reasons why.

God created our sexuality for three reasons, according to Catholic teaching:

1. To procreate children who will be brought up in a loving, stable family (ideally).
2. To unite two people of the opposite sex (thus possessed of “affective complementarity”) together in love;
3. To be a sacramental sign of the union of God and creation and of Christ and the Church.

“Lilberal” views of sexuality essentially take the “unitive” aspect, in a very subjective sense, and exalt it as the only one that really matters.

Now with regard to simple fornication in particular, the question is why two “good friends” would choose to have sex without getting married.

What exactly are they expressing by this act?

Love? But if it’s not marital love, it’s not the kind of love that is appropriately expressed by sex. Even if there’s a good deal of affection and trust between the partners, it still falls short of the full commitment that makes sexual intercourse an appropriate physical expression of love.

I think a lot has been obscured by the overblown development of the “wedding ceremony,” so that people think that this ceremony is what makes people married.

Catholic teaching says that what is essential to make a marriage is an explicit, expressed consent on the part of the man and the woman to take each other in a lifelong union. That’s it. Intercourse consummates the union, but one can have a marriage without intercourse (as in Catholic teaching Joseph and Mary did).

The Church also requires that the couple receive the blessing of a priest, and priests normally require such things as a period of premarital counseling, but these are matters of discipline, not doctrine, if I’m not mistaken. In the language of the Catechism, consent is “indispensable” while a Church ceremony is something that the Church “normally requires.” (See CCC 1621-32.)

I think that going back to these basics gives us some moral clarity that is often lacking.

Are you defending sexual intercourse in the absence of a firm consent to take one another for life, forsaking all others?

Edwin

 

[someperson555]

This much is correct. Sex is not intrinsically evil; there are licit circumstances in which sex is good.

precisely, my question is though, are all these circumstances only within the marriage bond? what is it about a wedding ceremony that magically makes sex licit? if two unmarried people with a strong emotional bond wish to have a deeper physical relationship, what is mortally sinful about that? if they practice NFP then their procreation would also be unitive and procreative.

No, fornication isn’t a sin because it “lead(s) to selfishness”; fornication is a sin because it is the result of selfishness! It’s not a cause, it’s a symptom!

i disagree, i think you have it backwards. in the metaphorocal account of genesis, before humans sinned the flesh was completely subject to the spirit. but when adam and eve sinned, the flesh rebelled against the spirit thereby making people self-serving. now ofcourse this story was symbolism for the life of every human being, since we are born innocent but throughout our lives we give in to temptations and become selfish. (at least this is my understanding of the nature of sin, please correct me if im wrong)
fuurthermore if you were correct and fornication would be a mere symptom, then why would it be a mortal sin? then we should determine what is causing our selfishness and address that, wouldnt you agree?

You’re being a bit sloppy in your language; you conflate the notions ‘sex’ and ‘fornication’, and it hurts your argument. Do you mean to say that “if a person can fornicate in a temperant (sic) responsible fashion, then it shouldn’t be a mortal sin”? If so, what’s your argument? Please note that your argument should address what makes a particular sin (such as fornication), sinful. Your notion of “leading to selfishness” doesn’t work, so we’ll need something else to go with. In addition, your argument should speak to the question of the authority by which something is considered sinful. After all, if the definition of sin is an offense to God, then we need to establish who is able to assert what is offensive to God, shouldn’t we? Without this sort of ground rule, then definitions of sin turn into a simple exercise of “mob rules”…!

Blessings,

G.

what makes fornication sinful is the same thing that makes eating sinful. if you over-indulge, and if you get to the point where you are willing to sacrifice other people’s health and well-being to get your pleasure then its a mortal sin. this is true with sex, food, wine, wealth, etc. but if you are able to obtain your pleasure without it harming others, and if you dont treat it as the most important thing in your life, then how is it sinful?
that is my world view. so please tell me how this is incorrect. and please tell me how Jesus would disagree.
if something is an offense to God, it must be so for a reason. simply expreriencing pleasure cannot be what is sinful. therefore its logical to conclude that the sin lies in the effect it has on the individual.

 

[prodigalson2011]

what makes fornication sinful is the same thing that makes eating sinful. if you over-indulge, and if you get to the point where you are willing to sacrifice other people’s health and well-being to get your pleasure then its a mortal sin. this is true with sex, food, wine, wealth, etc. but if you are able to obtain your pleasure without it harming others, and if you dont treat it as the most important thing in your life, then how is it sinful?
that is my world view. so please tell me how this is incorrect. and please tell me how Jesus would disagree.
if something is an offense to God, it must be so for a reason. simply expreriencing pleasure cannot be what is sinful. therefore its logical to conclude that the sin lies in the effect it has on the individual.

Since it has thus far been overlooked, I would like to repeat what I said in my previous post:
**
Sex is the most powerful creative tool God has given us. It gives us the ability to create new life. That possibility is one that carries immense responsibility and must be accounted for by those engaging in the act. If a child is produced, it deserves to have a stable family, and the parents should be prepared to provide that. Marriage is the proper covenant that God has established for that purpose. If you are prepared to have sex, you should be prepared to have children. If you are prepared to have children, you should be prepared to stay with your partner. If you are prepared to stay with your partner, you should be married. Period. **

That is why it is a sin. Fornication ignores or attempts to avoid the inherent responsibilities that come with sexual relations. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, it’s wrong.

 

[someperson555]

Since it has thus far been overlooked, I would like to repeat what I said in my previous post:
**
Sex is the most powerful creative tool God has given us. It gives us the ability to create new life. That possibility is one that carries immense responsibility and must be accounted for by those engaging in the act. If a child is produced, it deserves to have a stable family, and the parents should be prepared to provide that. Marriage is the proper covenant that God has established for that purpose. If you are prepared to have sex, you should be prepared to have children. If you are prepared to have children, you should be prepared to stay with your partner. If you are prepared to stay with your partner, you should be married. Period. **

That is why it is a sin. Fornication ignores or attempts to avoid the inherent responsibilities that come with sexual relations. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, it’s wrong.

yes i was meaning to respond to you too. i agree with most of what you said there, but lets say a guy is a millionare and he can afford to provide for hundreds of children, therefore he should be able to father children with multiple women. i think this is actually quite a noble thing to do for a wealthy man.
and yes i agree completely that if two people engage in sex they should be prepared to deal with the possible outcomes! but again i ask, where is the need for marriage in all this?

the last part of what you said is simply not true, two unmarried people can indeed be responsible enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

[prodigalson2011]

yes i was meaning to respond to you too. i agree with most of what you said there, but lets say a guy is a millionare and he can afford to provide for hundreds of children, therefore he should be able to father children with multiple women. i think this is actually quite a noble thing to do for a wealthy man.
and yes i agree completely that if two people engage in sex they should be prepared to deal with the possible outcomes! but again i ask, where is the need for marriage in all this?

the last part of what you said is simply not true, two unmarried people can indeed be responsible enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Providing financial support is not the same as being a father. That is, frankly, ridiculous. Children need the physical and emotional presence of their father. This is something a man producing multiple children with multiple women could not do. It is also important to the psychological development and health of children that there be a strong, loving relationship between their parents, which would again be impossible in the scenario you’ve proposed.

I don’t think you’re even really thinking about this. It seems you’re grasping after any possible rationalization you can find. I’m sorry to be blunt, but you are very misguided.

How can you say that fathering hundreds of children and leaving them fatherless is “noble”?

The necessity of marriage is that God has ordained it. You say you believe in God and Jesus, so why don’t you obey them?

Two unmarried people can indeed be responsible enough to deal with the consequences of their actions. The responsible thing for a Christian couple with child to do is to be married.

 

[AdamP88]

excuse me,
but what do you know about how much i have studied my own faith? i know exactly what catholicism says about sex. i have read humanae vitae. i have read through various biblical passages.
the catholic teaching on sex is that it should be restricted as far as possible. that it should be only within the confines of marriage and even there be as chaste as possible.
so i am well aware of the catholic stance. if sex is holy and sacred then why cant the pope get married, since wouldnt this be a bonus to his holiness?
look, the catholic church is probably well meaning in its laws, but ultimately its an unhealthy repressive approach. and it led to the sexual revolution which is no good either.
the third way makes sense, it even says in the bible to practice moderation in all things…
if you want to believe that sex just for pleasure is a sin, then dont practice NFP. you can rationalise it all you want, but NFP is just sex for pleasure.
by the way sex can be open to procreation between two unmarried persons too.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand catholic sexual teaching…

The Catholic teaching on sex is not, in fact that it should be restricted as far as possible. It teaches that it should be respected as far as possible. It does preach that sex is designed for marriage and that it should be chaste. But you seem to state these things as if they’re negative. This is not an unhealthy teaching but a very natural one that allows people to view each other with respect as opposed to viewing the opposite sex with lust.

In terms of religious and priests being celibate, this is not a matter of church doctrine but a discipline that is undertaken by priests. I, myself am a Dominican Novice and hope to be a priest one-day…I’m embracing a life of celibate chastity, despite the fact that it’s a difficult thing.

NFP can be sex for pleasure but it should always be between two married persons, and always open to the POSSIBILITY of life.

The Church teaches that the proper context for sex is between a married man and woman.

When it comes down to it - we do not need sex to survive. The church teaching on sexuality is difficult because it challenges us to sacrifice a pleasure in order to respect the other person…to truly love the other. Chastity is an expression of true love.

 

[sw85]

Other posters here have done an excellent job pointing out some of the problems of reasoning through this thread. I’ll just add my one observation:

ive been thinking about this for a long time now. i think i figured it out.

This, my friend, is monstrous pride, of a sort not often encountered. Who are you, after all, that your lone opinion far outweighs the consensus of generations and centuries of saints, theologians, martyrs, and doctors of the Church – men who consecrated their entire lives to contemplation, prayer, self-sacrifice, and reflection? Aquinas was blessed at the end of his life with a miraculous vision of God Himself; what miracles have sealed your insights?

Reading Humanae Vitae and the Catechism are essential and good starts to understanding what the Church teaches with respect to sexuality and why. But reading them doesn’t make you into a parallel magisterium. It doesn’t even make you equal to the minds of the men who produced these things, much less the men who preceded those men. This is the hubris of a man who picks up a precalc textbook, works his way through it, and declares he’s mastered mathematics!

 

[FaithBuild18]

To Corki: Thank you.

The way some people try to reason is sometimes frightening. Good thing the standards of salvation are based on faith and not reason.

 

[underacloud]

The funny part is if the parents told their children they were married and lived that way all their lives and went to Church and everyone thought they were married, no scandal. No one asked for a marriage license when I joined the Church. No one. And you don’t always change your name when married and a court order can change a name without marriage. So…???

So the Church also teaches that it’s wrong to lie.

I don’t understand your point at all. Are you saying fornication would be OK if a couple lied about their marital status?

Naturally, the part about causing scandal was not the main issue. Note the language: “Moreover, it is a grave scandal…”. Moreover meaning in addition to…the scandal caused is not the primary reason why fornication is wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Sex is not intrinsically evil; there are licit circumstances in which sex is good.

precisely, my question is though, are all these circumstances only within the marriage bond?

Yes.

what is it about a wedding ceremony that magically makes sex licit?

Magic… LOL!

It’s the fact that a wedding ceremony is a covenant, in which you promise, to your spouse and in front of God and the community, that you make a life-long commitment to your spouse. It’s the fact that Jesus made marriage a sacrament, and by virtue of the wedding ceremony, you’re participating in that sacrament. It’s the fact that the liceity of sex proceeds from your explicitly expressed, legally binding, and sacramentally blessed commitment to the relationship “until death do you part”. No magic… just sacrament, though!

if two unmarried people with a strong emotional bond wish to have a deeper physical relationship, what is mortally sinful about that?

It’s that they’re taking actions that are only valid in the context of the sacrament of marriage (since physical intimacy is meant to strengthen that sacramental bond and make that life-long bond physically visible in the very lives of their children), and are ‘stealing’ them for themselves outside the sacrament. In a way, it’s analogous to an atheist taking Communion – he has no intent to participate in the spiritual and sacramental reality of the Eucharist, but is just taking the physical part (the bread and wine) on its own merits. It’s a denial of the reality of the sacrament of marriage.

if they practice NFP then their procreation would also be unitive and procreative.

It would be open to procreation, true, but what would that procreation be a sign of? It’s meant to be a sign of their life-long commitment to one another. (After all, what’s more appropriately a sign of life-long commitment than parenthood?) But, there’s no (sacramental) commitment there, for it to be a sign of! So, in a very real way, procreation outside of marriage is a lie.

And, it wouldn’t be unitive, either. What bond – what sacramental commitment – would it be uniting? None. So, although it might deepen their relationship, it wouldn’t be unitive – it would just be “fun”. It would be “loving”, but in a superficial and dishonest way: “Honey, I love you so much that I want to share my entire body with you. Umm… well, I don’t love you so much that I want to commit my entire life to you… but maybe we could pretend for a bit so that it makes me feel good for a little while…!”

we are born innocent but throughout our lives we give in to temptations and become selfish.

Well, let’s be clear here: it’s not that I’m saying that fornication doesn’t lead you to greater sin – it does! However, it doesn’t occur without having been led to the brink already. So, I’m willing to amend my argument, based on your assertions. Yes, fornication leads to (greater) selfishness. However, it’s a sign that selfishness already exists in the person. (In other words, you’re selfishly taking, for your own personal benefit, something that belongs only within the state of marriage. You’re taking it from yourself (and diluting your potential future experience of it), and you’re taking it from your partner, who should only be offering it in the context of marriage. Whether or not it’s freely given, it’s still sinful – it’s a gift that cannot truly be given outside of marriage, so even if both of you assent, you’re still ‘stealing’ from one another.)

fuurthermore if you were correct and fornication would be a mere symptom, then why would it be a mortal sin? then we should determine what is causing our selfishness and address that, wouldnt you agree?

You’re correct, in that in the case of any mortal sin, we need to see what’s causing us to separate ourselves from God and address that shortcoming. The fact that a person has a symptom doesn’t mean that they don’t suffer from the disease!

what makes fornication sinful is the same thing that makes eating sinful. if you over-indulge, and if you get to the point where you are willing to sacrifice other people’s health and well-being to get your pleasure then its a mortal sin. this is true with sex, food, wine, wealth, etc. but if you are able to obtain your pleasure without it harming others, and if you dont treat it as the most important thing in your life, then how is it sinful?

A-ha! That’s exactly the point! Fornication cannot exist without harming others! It damages your outlook, and your partner’s, and anyone you come in contact with who thinks to themselves, “well, I guess it’s ok – after all, someperson555 seems to be a nice guy, and look, he’s doing it!”.

The perspective that “it doesn’t hurt anyone” is exactly the rationalization of the sin itself!

simply expreriencing pleasure cannot be what is sinful. therefore its logical to conclude that the sin lies in the effect it has on the individual.

There’s some truth to that; sin exists in the effects that it produces; however, it doesn’t exist exclusively in the effects. For example, suppose I experienced pleasure by stealing your car and driving it. Wouldn’t the experience of that pleasure be tied up in the sinfulness of the act? (Yes, there’d be sinfulness in the effect it has on me down the line, but that wouldn’t be the only place where the sinfulness would lie!)