> Nancy Gish wrote: > > Dear Carrol, > > It was, though, Eliot who said that without a spiritual meaning sex > was no more than the coupling of animals. He didn't, one might note, > know much about sex or passionate sexual experience--unless maybe long > after with Valerie. All those pontifications came from someone who > was still a virgin at 26, married suddenly, had a horrific experience > of sex, and then took up celibacy. > > So that he called it animals only tells us how he saw it, but it did > come from him. I guess my response was mostly to the crudity of "making a point." "Spiritualized sex" was a 20th c invention that was rapidly disappearing even at mid-century. It was probably an improvement of "Close your eyes and think of England," but not by mucy. And I think Eliot was a better poet than he was a moral critic.