she had needed this phallic hunting Out

[longxianchen]

Hi,
Here are some words from the novel Lady Chatterley's Lover(page 365, chapter 16) by Lawrence (planetebook,here):
(background: Mellors and Connie experienced anal sex, and Connie enjoyed it, even though it gave her terrible and desirable thrills. Then the narrator said……)
And how, in fear, she had hated it. But how she had really wanted it! She knew now. At the bottom of her soul, fundamentally, she had needed this phallic hunting Out, she had secretly wanted it, and she had believed that she would never get it. Now suddenly there it was, and a man was sharing her last and final nakedness, she was shameless.

What's the meaning of hunting Out please?
Thank you in advance

Error corrected

 

[PaulQ]

to hunt out something - to hunt something with dedication/determinedly until it is found (usually with the idea of doing something with the found object.)

 

[longxianchen]

I thought it means drive something out. Thank you. Now I know it is close to search.

 

[PaulQ]

Mellors and Connie experienced a anal sex,

 

[longxianchen]

And here: anal sex

 

[PaulQ]

I have given my opinion of another, similar piece of gratuitous criticism and interpretation in a related thread/post. This other author, John Sutherland, makes a different argument, not based upon the "I don’t want a woman as couldna shit nor piss” " argument, or even mentioning it. To me this confirms that, at the very least, one author is wrong. The author you now quote, John Sutherland, is too ready to add, via speculation, his own meaning for his own ends. He has not grasped Mellor's dialect at all, and this is demonstrated by his inability to reproduce it at the link you gave: "And yet, Mellors is not made to say something along the lines of ‘Eeh, ah laks a bit o’ arse fucking.’" You may not think that this is important, but, without that grasp of the dialect, Mellors' character is not as clear as it could be.

I am unimpressed by John Sutherland's argument, especially as he adds: "Diplomatists are hired to lie abroad for their country; so do ‘experts’ lie in court for literature." What Sutherland has done here is no more than written down an unsubstantiated accusation of lying. The accusation is only true if he is correct - and yet Sutherland's statements are mere speculation and no more likely to be true than anyone else's. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well", i.e. disparaging the source of information but not providing a real argument.

If you persist in your belief that the passage describes anal sex, then the very most that you can say in the footnotes is "Some critics have claimed that this passage relates to anal sex, however, this is disputed."

 

[longxianchen]

If you persist in your belief that the passage describes anal sex

No, In fact, I'm not quite clear about the meanings of the two articles. So I posted it here so that I can get your further help.
Thank you again