My moon is trine my Venus in second house (house of Venus!). My self-worth is see sawing.
My beauty too.
I have Moon Trining my venus and Pluto.Self worth see saws as well
My moon is trine my Venus in second house (house of Venus!). My self-worth is see sawing.
My beauty too.
FML,you remind me a lot of Eva Mendes She's definitely good looking (and has Ryan Gosling!)
In this way, you are right when you say my perception belongs to me, just as the perception of "some astrological components makes one more beautiful" and exude a "overall impression of beauty" to most people (often) belongs to you and other people who think the same way.
<...>
The enlightened and uncorrupted perception of beauty is that all things and beings are beautiful, both in form and in their inherent harmony with other things. The perception you are demonstrating, is not as capacious and comparatively lacks in depth.
... You are referring me to something which is not relevant.
Well it's my opinion that planets conjunct or aspecting the ascendant do modify physical appearance but not in a way that increases or decreases the beauty of the native as which features constitute beauty is a wholly subjective matter. Certain aspects to the ascendant definitely modify and change appearance, they also change how the native presents themselves.
How a planet's aspect affects the ascendant changes with every variable, both sign of the ascendant and aspecting planet if not the same (not a conjunction).
Basically if it's not a conjuncting aspect the planet aspecting the ascendant is going to blend the combined energies of that planet in its sign with the energies of the ascendant and on top of that it will blend them in a particular way depending on the aspect. Hard aspects blend them in a very chemically reactive, combustive way and easy harmonious aspects blend them in a very subtle way, like adding ingredients to a slowly simmering soup.
For that reason harmonious aspects in my opinion don't have a prominent effect on the ascendant. Their effect is more subtle. Hard aspects like conjunctions, oppositions and squares will create an explosive reaction with the ascendant's energies and greatly modify them.
http://reocities.com/athens/delphi/1601/physical.html really great page on ascendant effects nabbed from another post JUPITERASC made here.
Venus squaring the ascendant is going to give an effect that will show up more prominently in the ascendant as Venusian and will probably have a similar effect to both a conjunction and opposition. The link I pasted gives this as an effect of Venus modifying the ascendant
"[SIZE=+1]Venus conjunctions cause a soft and almost always a very good looking face with soft, red, sensuous lips. The lower lip is often fuller and appears to be pouting. Look for a very pleasant voice and very slow, measured speech. There is grace in both speech and movement, and this person loves to flirt. The complexion is often pale, with dimples on the face. The body is well proportioned and attractive, and this person is fussy about appearance. Angelina Jolie is well known for her acting career, as well as her famous father, John Voight.[/SIZE]"
I believe this effect holds true for both a conjunction, square and opposition though the effect may be more dramatic with a square and especially dramatic with an opposition. Edit: The page I linked explained this was the reverse, that a conjunction is the most dramatic modifier with a square and opposition being less so respectively. I think that's probably more accurate.
What you've written about the aspect is quite true since I have quite pouty lips,however I'm a bad flirt (this can be shown by other aspects in my chart like Cap Rising).I've become quite fussy with appearance these days and was quite stocky for being a Cap Rising (0' degree so first decan?).My jupiter's trine probably caused that.
lets not forget that attraction might not be ours, but a sociocultural phenomenon based on the psycho-existential broadcast of a certain rooted paradigm.
There are only two perceptions toward beauty, one is the enlightened perception I suggested and the other one is the basic human perception.
Incidentally, this is the logical fallacy of bifurcation, presenting an either or scenario when many others exist. There are many other percepts of beauty, and to say that one is enlightened (with the obvious implication that all others are not), and that clearly any qualification of beauty on a purely physically level is base and without merit does a disservice to the many fantastic artists of ages past. The "Statue of David," by Michael Angelo and the "Venus de Milo" are classic examples of physical beauty immortalized. And it would impudent to say that these masterpieces are not the creation of an enlightened concept of beauty, which is entirely physical and clearly not of a subjective nature. Because if it were purely subjective and subject to whim, millions would not come to the same conclusion: beautiful.
It is not coincidence that certain physical characteristics are continually displayed on the cover of magazines. There are arguments that this is simply the media driving the percepts of the populace, but this really ignores the role that market signals play in the media's operations. The fact of the matter is that there are those who are considered physically beautiful by many, perhaps almost all, and there are those who are considered ugly, perhaps by almost all. The element of subjectivity is minimal; it is objectively noticeable, objectively quantifiable. And if planets can shape a person's personality to compensate for a lack of physical beauty by portraying his or her self in an attractive manner, it follows that it is entirely possible that planets can influence a person's physical attractiveness, perhaps from a base point established by one's genetics.
Either way, I do not see why there is such a vehement attack on IleneK's point of view. It is uncalled for, especially since Ilene's argument is with merit.
Now, aside from all of that, the question that Summer asked was "Does a Venus square ascendant make a person feel unworthy/ugly." This is a subjective question and has nothing to do whether this combination makes a person physically beautiful or a person's personality beautiful but, rather, whether the person's own opinion of his or herself is beautiful. And I would say this has nothing to do with Venus. This is an issue of Sun and Mars placement and their relationship to each other and other astrological aspects. This is about one's opinion of self-worth being weakened by an emphasis placed on physical beauty. There are physically hideous people who feel absolutely beautiful. It is an issue with ego and really has nothing to do with whether they are or not. It stems from a preoccupation with how people perceive them, basing their worth on outside opinion. This is why I believe if one wants to feel worthy and beautiful, the first step is just to love one's self. And this comes from a strong ego, with is influenced by the Sun and Mars.
Hey Zonark:
I know this is loosely related to the topic of the post but I will chance a reprimanding from the moderators by making a reply.
I see what you are getting at, and I think your argument that beauty has changed over the years is fine. It might be true. I don't think it is, at least to the degree with which you are claiming, with the example of the figurine. But whether it is true, using the "Venus of Willendorf" to support your argument is not going to make it so. It's a poor predicate because (1) it is merely one example from a remote region of the world. And (2), it is a symbol of fecundity. As soon as I saw it, I knew what it was, with its swollen breasts and abdomen. It is a fertility figurine, probably used as a totem or in combination with "spells" to increase the fertility of the woman owner. These were commonly found by archeologists in the Mesopotamia region. Many were also used by the Egyptians. If you google "fertility figurines Mesopotamia," you'll see an assortment of small statues that resemble the "Venus of Willendorf." Clearly naming the figurine "Venus" was a joke on the part of the archeologist (or whoever named it).
The figurine is meant to be an exaggeration, a hyperbolic representation of a fertile woman. This is why the figure has no legs and a poorly developed face. The detail went into the vulva, the breasts and the stomach. The intent was to personify fertility, not to create a "beautiful woman," though I am sure a couple who wanted a family would think the figurine beautiful indeed.
As such, I am not persuaded that there has been a drastic change in beauty. There may be differing attire, hair styles and everything else that comes with fashion and its mercurial changes, but the base idea of beauty remains "carved in stone," so to speak.
You may be right about the Venus figurines being more totemic in purpose rather than being any sort of aesthetic marker however it being the latter is a strong possibility.
Consider the aesthetic ideal of sub Saharan African communities still living traditionally. Their standards of feminine beauty are drastically different from modern culture's and more closely mirror the kind of aesthetic depicted in the Willendorf figurine.
How about a quick study of the fetishes that have come about as creations of human sexual interest, which can only be said to be expanding in variety post sexual revolution.
physical function in economical exchange does play a role in the drive towards idealization, and some of it is naturally induced by simply working towards other already set functions. but the physical functions of societies change, and they are not universally equi-distant in function. for example aliens, they are portrayed as nerdy wirey uranian figures with limp masculinity and large heads. i dont think that physical functions are ever efficiently correlated in populations, or are suboptimal for the goal because of differentiation and ideological differentiation. even the part that ties it all together (in to the aesthetic) is not optimal for the individual populations and is self-effacing. aesthetics are rather archaic even for something like sexual reproduction. i do think that dissemination roles play some inherent goal. the counter-part to physical function is the mysticalization layer, jewlery, symbolism, etc. only a few genetic polymorphisms are needed to make something viable, or a change of location.
does this not overlook that certain physical characteristics allows one to discern whether one is a suitable mate? An old, obese man is unattractive. And many speculate that the reason women would find such a man unattractive is that he would not be a good provider. Such a man would have a higher likelihood of heart disease and other such infirmities, increasing the possibility for loss of consortium.aesthetics are rather archaic even for something like sexual reproduction.
well cultural anthropology does seem to inform insight in to the foundations of astrology, for example, what is the actual atomic substance of astrological distinction if there is cultural relativism, it looks like its more of a topographical spread function than the basis of position. which would have a physical location in relational dynamics with some presupposed hollow emblemic object-orientation. well reading astrology is also for example another division inside somewhere