Note to those drawn above to “sexual immorality, impurity, passion . . .” (you know, but Paul says . . .): These have more to do with how men treated women and little boys as a matter of attitude, class, and sexual enjoyment (i.e., “evil desire”), especially around the deipnon (or evening banquet-supper) common in Roman-Greco homes of advantage. Paul is most certainly applying the gospel to the hierarchical relationships where men was at the center of everything and apt to do as they want, which did not bode well for women and children (especially young, pubescent boys). The sexual references were to undo such male (especially, advantaged male) proclivities assumed and accepted in social relationships. This is what needed to be changed; thus, the references point to the sins of inequality, class, misogyny, pedophilia, and male pride.
So . . . perhaps we simply go with what is easy to condemn, i.e., sexual sins, because the English words give us power to do so and we love our greed (idolatry) and think ourselves better than others at way too many levels than we, that is advantaged Christians [dare I say, advantaged Christian men?], care to admit or to confess. No wonder the Beatitudes [yes, I know I am making what seems a long jump at a cross reference here, but it's a fair one] were centered (at least initially focused; cf. Matthew 5:3-5) on the poor, mourning, and meek, for Jesus (“seeing the crowds,” Mat 5:1; cf. 4:24) was turning the tables [yes, that’s a pun on the Lord’s Supper stolen and recreated from the cultural supper-banquet where such sins occurred]–turning the tables on us all.
We, especially advantaged Christians, need to rethink sin and perhaps lament, confess, and repent of the idolatries that reside in our hearts and behaviors before we focus on the to-easy-to-condemn sexual sins of others.