Apocalypse of Peter as canon: perceptions of female sexuality

So I was doing some reading on apocryphal early christian texts, and it made reflect on the possible doctrinal implications that some of these making it into the Biblical canon could have had in the Christian world's perception of the sinfulness of certain acts, and by extension, that of some aspects of human nature and morality.

The Apocalypse of Peter, in particular, has the peculiarity of explicitly mentioning "women who lay with one another as a man with a woman" sharing the exact same torment side by side with male homosexuals (being repeatedly thrown off a cliff for all eternity, in case you were wondering). It also depicts adulterers of both genders enduring pretty much equivalent punishment, and in that it makes a pretty clear divergence from the traditional Jewish stance in the matter.

All of these made me consider, would it be possible that, despite the obvious unpleasantness that it would bring to female homosexuals, is it posible, or even probable, that having this book as part of the canon might have affected early Christian thought in such a way that could had had a, in the long term, positive (from a OTL modern perspective, ofcourse) effects in the way female sexuality is percieved in the western world during the ALT middle ages and modern era.

Quite simply, it would go like this: "The bible clearly states that a woman who lays with another as a man does with a woman will recieve the same punishment in eternity as the the man who lies with another man, thus, by the perfect judgment of the Lord, both are equally sinful"
From that we can concievably get: "The sexual act of a man is equal to that of a woman: were it not so, the perfect judgment of the Lord would not deem those who misuse it as decerving of the same punishment". The main point would be that women could be percieved as subject of sexual desire and agency, rather thn just object of men's sexual desires (this is only concerning sex).

Now, I don't think this would bring a significative change in societal gender roles, but it could bring about some where marriage and views of chastiy are concerned. I'm thinking something like the early Roman Republic. Also, knowing for sure that the clitoris is a thing and where it is would be great.

So, what are your thoughts?
 
So I was doing some reading on apocryphal early christian texts, and it made reflect on the possible doctrinal implications that some of these making it into the Biblical canon could have had in the Christian world's perception of the sinfulness of certain acts, and by extension, that of some aspects of human nature and morality.

Quite simply, it would go like this: "The bible clearly states that a woman who lays with another as a man does with a woman will recieve the same punishment in eternity as the the man who lies with another man, thus, by the perfect judgment of the Lord, both are equally sinful"
From that we can concievably get: "The sexual act of a man is equal to that of a woman: were it not so, the perfect judgment of the Lord would not deem those who misuse it as decerving of the same punishment". The main point would be that women could be percieved as subject of sexual desire and agency, rather thn just object of men's sexual desires (this is only concerning sex).

So, what are your thoughts?

Okay, I snipped a bit and highlighted the sentence that is problematic. In the early days of the Catholic church, women were regarded as weak, devious, lustful, daughters of Eve who led men astray - obviously projections, but considered true. This was one of the reasons women weren't equal to men (per the church), they 'fell' first and brought sin into the world. This was why they went from the protection of their father's home to either marriage or convent, they couldn't be trusted on their own. Women were perceived as subjects of sexual desire and agency - they were evil subjects of the same and could lead good men astray if not controlled. Women were not, under this theory, the object of men's desire, they were temptation and the lures of the devil that had to be subjugated so that men could be good, Christian men. (It's also this erroneous thinking that make it 'sowing wild oats' for men and 'whoring' for women throughout centuries for the same thing AND the blaming of rape victims for their plight.)
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . The Apocalypse of Peter, in particular, has the peculiarity of explicitly mentioning "women who lay with one another as a man with a woman" sharing the exact same torment side by side with male homosexuals (being repeatedly thrown off a cliff for all eternity, in case you were wondering). It also depicts adulterers of both genders enduring pretty much equivalent punishment, and in that it makes a pretty clear divergence from the traditional Jewish stance in the matter. . .
It would be a "promotion" and might help, just a question of how much.

And beliefs and feelings about human sexuality have been so illogical, so anti-joy, so anti-human throughout the ages, yes, even if we get the ball rolling with seemingly small and mixed improvements, it might actually have big effects.

Especially, as you suggest if Roman society had more shadings of modern views at the same time.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
and maybe just the idea that after five to twenty years of marriage, broad range, the wife might prefer sex more often than the husband, and that's perfectly okay.

Instead throughout human history, we have thrown down on the woman as a 'shrew,' 'wanton,' 'lewd,' and every other negative label. And even the theories of Freud continue this sorry tradition, just in the cloaking of scientific language.

Maybe just the idea of seasons, that a person has different seasons in their life, sometimes higher sex drive, sometimes lower, and it doesn't need to be a reflection of a person's character. This is a little bit Buddhist I guess, the idea of riding the zen waves. Although the Book of Ecclesiastes also talks about seasons in a person's life.

What I understand doesn't work is trying to push yourself to have sex when you really are not in the mood. Bertrand Russell wrote briefly about this when his first marriage was breaking up. Maybe giving your partner stimulation by hand in a low-key, gently affectionate, and matter-of-fact way? But I'll have to leave it to someone more familiar with long-term relationships than I to give the verdict and polite details on this one.
 
Top