anyone else think Mellors is a rapist?!

[thepixiefrog]

OK, I know I'm probably going to get a flaming for this, but I just read Lady Chatterley's Lover for the first time and Have come away feeling upset and confused about Mellors' treatment of LC.

I can't help but think he is an opportunistic rapist who didn't seek consent before having sex on LC.

AND, is it just me jumping to ridiculous conclusions, but doesn't he anally rape her during their last night together before she goes away?

please tell me I am being ridiculous and totally misreading the novel, because I was expecting to read something tender and beautiful and lovely, and instead I found something else!

Have just bought it on Kindle as I've never read it either. Will report back, but I remember seeing some of a dramatisation once (with Sean Bean??) and thinking along the same lines as you. I suppose that's why I've never been hugely tempted to read it....

I bought it on kindle recently too. Will get round to reading it some time this year. I also saw the dramatisation with Sean Bean, but don't remember a rape scene. Doesn't sound like it's going to be a pleasant read, but at least I can tick it off the tbr list then.

I expect you're probably right, hence the original ban on it. I haven't read it yet and nothing could get me to watch Sean Bean in it (or anything else for that matter - sorry to any SB fans - !)

No he doesn't do anything for me either anonymosity :o

Anon, I think it was banned because it included graphic descriptions of sex rather than anything to do with rape. I don't think it was ever meant to be a tender book. But it's been way too long since I read it to remember details.

i dont think it was the right book for tender, romantic etc. quite possibly it is one of those 'forceful' romances we now call something quite different, it wouldnt surprise me, but its a long time since i read it and i didnt like it. be interesting to read the comments

it was definitely not considered rape and so banned tho. that was for the graphic sex, for the time

The original ban was a reaction against the detailed description of two people having sex, and the very intimate physical knowledge of each other even when not engaging in sexual intercourse (threading flowers into each others pubic hair etc!).

As far as I know the passage when Mellors and Connie first have sex was not banned as it did not include any profane language, and didn't actually say much beyond 'Mellors has sex on Connie'.

Also, the passage (no pun!) that I read as describing anal rape was not one that was banned either, because the language remained 'decent' and it alludes to the act rather than going into the intimate detail of previous chapters.

Anyway, the whole book made me cross, because it basically says that a woman's duty in a sexual relationship is to be submissive and passive, and to take what is thrown at her. She also has to orgasm simultaneously, and if she doesn't it is her own fault and she is doing him a disservice.

Grrrrrr! How can this be hailed as a tale of passion and tenderness?!

i havent seen it lauded for its passion and tenderness before, to be fair.