I have started reading a new book, "Lady Chatterley's Lover," by D. H. Lawrence. Some of you might recognize that title as a book that was banned because it was considered pornographic. Well I am only in the first fifty pages, and I can tell you that it is worse than pornography!
It's not the sex, at least so far. There's been only one sex scene and by today's standards it isn't graphic at all. And the F-word has been used at least once. But that's not the problem.
"Lady Chatterley's Lover" is worse than pornography because it is subversive. It questions the morals of Lawrence's day and also ours. It does so by telling the story of two young people who had just gotten married when the war came and paralyzed the husband from the waist down. Meaning no sex. Ever.
Now for someone who hasn't much of a sex drive, like myself, the temptation is to say, what is the big deal? But then I thought about things I really enjoy doing, like driving, like reading--especially reading. To say I am obsessed with reading is an understatement. I read most anything I can get my hands on. I basically taught myself to read before I entered school, though with the help of my mother who said she had never seen a child so eager to learn to read. Now supposing someone said I could never read anything again, not because my eyes were bad, but because of some social rule, how would I feel? This is the situation Lady Chatterley is in. And she is young.
Since Lawrence's day we have gone to the opposite extreme. There is free love to a degree its most ardent early proponents never dreamed of. And I am not so sure that we are any happier as a result, but that is another subject.
As I wrote in another blog about when should protected human life be considered to begin, going to the Bible for answers is not going to work. You can search the Scriptures all you want and you will not find any advice for those in situations like Lady Chatterley's. If sex belongs only in marriage, then what about those who are unable to marry or don't want to marry? Paul talks about it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire but he never says what do you do if you are burning and unable to marry. Or in Lady Chatterley's case, married and still burning. First of all, most marriages were arranged when the bride and groom were fairly young. And they also went to work fairly young as well. There was no college, no higher education to speak of, although there were cases where people did delay marriage until they were able to support a family. But that was not the norm. Secondly, in Paul's time they were expecting the end of the world at any time, and when you think that your stay is only temporary, some of these issues become irrelevant, pushed aside. The early Christians were not planning to be around for the long haul.
Have you never wondered why the following situations are never to be found in the Bible? There are plenty of cases where women are barren and pray desperately for children, but no cases at all where a woman is worn out from childbearing and prays desperately that she is not pregnant once again. There are no cases where someone desperately wants to be married but cannot find a spouse. There are no cases where someone is married to a brutally abusive spouse. Yet we all know these situations are real.
"The world is supposed to be full of possibilities, but they narrow down to pretty few in personal experience," writes Lawrence. "There's lots of good fish in the sea . . . maybe . . . but the vast masses seem to be mackerel and herring, and if you're not mackerel or herring yourself, you are likely to find very few good fish in the sea." He was talking primarily about finding a mate, but he could be talking about other things as well. He's realistic. He knows that there are limitations, and that the sky is the limit only for a very fortunate few. That is what makes "Lady Chatterley" so subversive. If you stand out, if you are not mackerel or herring, you pay the price. If you aren't willing to settle for mackerel or herring, you pay the price. And this is something I don't think the abstinence movement is willing to face.
It's not the sex, at least so far. There's been only one sex scene and by today's standards it isn't graphic at all. And the F-word has been used at least once. But that's not the problem.
"Lady Chatterley's Lover" is worse than pornography because it is subversive. It questions the morals of Lawrence's day and also ours. It does so by telling the story of two young people who had just gotten married when the war came and paralyzed the husband from the waist down. Meaning no sex. Ever.
Now for someone who hasn't much of a sex drive, like myself, the temptation is to say, what is the big deal? But then I thought about things I really enjoy doing, like driving, like reading--especially reading. To say I am obsessed with reading is an understatement. I read most anything I can get my hands on. I basically taught myself to read before I entered school, though with the help of my mother who said she had never seen a child so eager to learn to read. Now supposing someone said I could never read anything again, not because my eyes were bad, but because of some social rule, how would I feel? This is the situation Lady Chatterley is in. And she is young.
Since Lawrence's day we have gone to the opposite extreme. There is free love to a degree its most ardent early proponents never dreamed of. And I am not so sure that we are any happier as a result, but that is another subject.
As I wrote in another blog about when should protected human life be considered to begin, going to the Bible for answers is not going to work. You can search the Scriptures all you want and you will not find any advice for those in situations like Lady Chatterley's. If sex belongs only in marriage, then what about those who are unable to marry or don't want to marry? Paul talks about it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire but he never says what do you do if you are burning and unable to marry. Or in Lady Chatterley's case, married and still burning. First of all, most marriages were arranged when the bride and groom were fairly young. And they also went to work fairly young as well. There was no college, no higher education to speak of, although there were cases where people did delay marriage until they were able to support a family. But that was not the norm. Secondly, in Paul's time they were expecting the end of the world at any time, and when you think that your stay is only temporary, some of these issues become irrelevant, pushed aside. The early Christians were not planning to be around for the long haul.
Have you never wondered why the following situations are never to be found in the Bible? There are plenty of cases where women are barren and pray desperately for children, but no cases at all where a woman is worn out from childbearing and prays desperately that she is not pregnant once again. There are no cases where someone desperately wants to be married but cannot find a spouse. There are no cases where someone is married to a brutally abusive spouse. Yet we all know these situations are real.
"The world is supposed to be full of possibilities, but they narrow down to pretty few in personal experience," writes Lawrence. "There's lots of good fish in the sea . . . maybe . . . but the vast masses seem to be mackerel and herring, and if you're not mackerel or herring yourself, you are likely to find very few good fish in the sea." He was talking primarily about finding a mate, but he could be talking about other things as well. He's realistic. He knows that there are limitations, and that the sky is the limit only for a very fortunate few. That is what makes "Lady Chatterley" so subversive. If you stand out, if you are not mackerel or herring, you pay the price. If you aren't willing to settle for mackerel or herring, you pay the price. And this is something I don't think the abstinence movement is willing to face.
