Sonnet 142

If you condemn my sinful love, examine your own conduct—you are equally guilty of betrayal and seduction.

Original
Modern
1 Love is my sin, and thy dear virtue hate,
Love is my sin, and your virtue is hate,
2 Hate of my sin, grounded on sinful loving,
Hate of my sin, rooted in sinful loving,
3 O but with mine, compare thou thine own state,
But compare your state with mine,
4 And thou shalt find it merits not reproving,
And you will find it doesn't deserve judgment,
5 Or if it do, not from those lips of thine,
Or if it does deserve judgment, not from those lips of yours,
6 That have profaned their scarlet ornaments,
That have desecrated their scarlet beauty,
Wordplay: “scarlet ornaments”

Her lips, stained red with shame and kisses—a visual emblem of her betrayals.

7 And sealed false bonds of love as oft as mine,
And made false love-promises just as often as I have,
8 Robbed others’ beds’ revenues of their rents.
Stealing from others' marriages their rightful rewards.
Volta The volta shifts from the indictment ('you are as guilty as I') to a bargain ('let me love you as you love others') and a final logical trap ('your denial will prove your hypocrisy').
9 Be it lawful I love thee as thou lov’st those,
So allow me to love you as much as you love other people,
10 Whom thine eyes woo as mine importune thee,
Whom your eyes court as mine beg you,
11 Root pity in thy heart that when it grows,
Plant compassion in your heart so that when it grows,
12 Thy pity may deserve to pitied be.
Your pity itself may deserve to be pitied.
13 If thou dost seek to have what thou dost hide,
If you seek to have what you hide,
14 By self-example mayst thou be denied.
Your own example might deny you what you want.
Moral Inversion

The opening paradox—'Love is my sin, and thy dear virtue hate'—inverts conventional morality. Her 'virtue' is defined as hating his love, yet this supposedly virtuous hate is itself grounded in 'sinful loving' (her own illicit desires). Neither speaker nor beloved occupies the moral high ground; both are trapped in sin's logic.

The Economics of Betrayal

Line 8, 'Robbed others' beds' revenues of their rents,' uses commercial language: infidelity is theft, a violation of property and contract. She has seduced others' partners, corrupting 'honest' bonds of marriage. Yet the speaker argues he and she are equivalent perpetrators, making mutual condemnation impossible and mutual forgiveness the only option.

If this happened today

Like calling out someone who criticizes your infidelity while they themselves cheat: you're forced to ask, 'How can you judge me when you do exactly the same thing?'