Should sin be fun?

I am currently reading Elizabeth Woodham's book about sin. It's entertaining, provocative and thought provoking, all at the same time. It seems to be saying that sin is okay really because it is fun. This is a refreshing sentiment. Indeed, it is liberating in that it suggests we can enjoy ourselves without being eternally damned; in this life or the next.

As I was living the life of excess, which led to the writing of 'The Trouble With Girls', I constantly had to rebuff the criticisms of people who had more conservative, or restrained, tastes. I did not act with abandon, though. I tried to avoid sin by avoiding temptation, but Eve always seemed to find me with her nice ripe fruit.

Perhaps this new liberalism is the result of e-readers and greater access to the market by unknown writers. I hope so. However, I am concerned that if we endorse sin and make it acceptable because it’s fun, it won’t be so much fun. Is sin fun because it is sin? If that is the case, why is it called sin?

Who says it is sin? Chloe Thurlow's review of this book explains that it was Medieval monks who defined and proscribed sin, but ancient Greeks such as Plato (to whom I have referred before in this blog) suggested that love without lust was pointless; sin is necessary to perpetuate humanity. Does that suggest, then, that sex for pleasure, not procreation, is sin, whereas sex for making babies is laudable? That is certainly what my wife seems to think.