See, that is part of the problem here, lee. You basically admit that our culture has a problem with pleasure for pleasure's sake, as if this invariably leads to something "negative." This is the same notion used by moralists of a fundamentalist religious stripe for denouncing people for having mutually consensual sexual relations for recreational purposes rather than strictly for procreation.

This is why so many civil rights advocates insist upon proving that demonstrable harm is being done to someone against their will before a pleasurable activity can be denounced; otherwise, you are admitting that you are denouncing it because you have a moralistic dislike for certain types of pleasure. Saying that the person may be harmed but not know it is a cop-out, because if the person is entirely asymptomatic and feels good from the experience, and no ill effects occur until other people tell them en masse that they should feel badly about having experienced pleasure from it--such as when females are castigated as "sluts" for giving and receiving consensual pleasure with males, or males are castigated as "fags" for giving and receiving consensual pleasure with other males--then you are hard-pressed to admit the pursuit of that form of pleasure is negative. When sociogenic harm arises, such as from the two examples I gave above, then no matter how you look at it, the blame lies on the cultural beliefs that underlie negative reactions based on moralism rather than anything objective.

If someone demonstrably hurts another person and the pleasure is entirely one-sided (such as the horrific work of serial killers), or someone engages in self-destructive pleasure seeking (such as thrill-riding or binging), or pleasure seeking that causes them to avoid or neglect responsibilities, then you can rightfully castigate the activities on objective grounds. Of course, I am not saying that self-destructive activities that someone willingly chooses to engage in (as opposed to the murderous activities of serial killers) should necessarily be regulated by law (unless they overtly lead to the harm of others), since that often tends to backfire, but calling that behavior negative would certainly be justified, and interventions may certainly be necessary if such behavior gets too out of hand.