Why not both?

She's already abandoned her class and husband, so what's a little anal? The elite have no defense against the earthy proletariat.

If you do a 'compare and contrast' with "the Story of 'O,' the idea that a woman should be repulsed by her own sexuality until and unless she is monogamous and subservient was a strong theme in contemporary erotica.

I always imagined it was anal, but the ambiguity is the point. Lawrence makes you build your own fantasy.

In victorian times, they believed a woman had to orgasm to become pregnant. WWI changed so much.

The Supreme Court's ruling on what is obscene is very vague. The 1930s were a complicated time in the US. But we were always public prudes. In part, a backlash against the roaring 20's and empowerment of women and LGBTQ led directly to prohibition and the Hayes movie code.

Victorians are known for their porn, brothels and sexual kinks.

The different classes is really what the author is skewering. Lord Chatterley is invalid and impotent. His employee is earthy and virile.

It's the literary equal of film's train going into the tunnel. The unspecified acts are there to allow the reader to insert their own desires unto the characters. The essence of good porn. The scene where he weaves flowers into her pubic hair tears down the idea that women's bodies are dirty and shameful

She didn't write "all I want for Christmas is you." Vince Vance did, before Maria had braces.

There goes that ecosystem

Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love."