My original point was that sex was a negative experience, for the characters, ie it made them unhappy. It does figure as a motivator in a major way, and I do mean sexual encounters. So even though the encounters are not shown on stage, the experience is definitely a negative one. Your original remark about the Aristocrats and zits &c sugggested Eliot would never show sexual matters negatively. It seems to me the plays provide evidence to the contrary. It might well be that he wouldn't show the actual encounters. So?
The sexual interlude between the typist and her pimply lover was depicted as sordid because of it's working-class character. Note the one-room bedsit the typist occupies. If you believe Eliot's subtext, aristocrats don't get zits and their sexual activities are never approbrious. Never mind all those Irish servant girls who had their master's babies.
Eliot would never find sex between poor people natural or good. Or even between Lady Chatterly and Mellors, even though it was mutually satisfying and desired. Sex between Lord and Lady Chatterly was presumably acceptable, no matter the dissatisfaction of either or both parties, because it was sanctified by class and the law.
The scene between the bored shop girl and clerk always struck me because in most novels and TV Shows and movies depicting the early and mid twentieth century, a story involving sexual intimacy between umarried people is always depicted as a big deal, a secret, etc. One would think that no one had sex until the 1960's. Eliot was able to see and reveal the truth in this area of human life, but yet, he did not appear to realize that people of different ethnic origins and races were much the same in the basics and that differences were the result of upbringing, environment, education, etc. Bizarre.
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. Find out more.
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.
With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. Click here.