Is my VENus square saturn valid

Love2Know said:

I have a hard time connecting to people. Even my husvhusband says I can treat him like a stranger. I randomly lose my connections to people. I can feel emotionally cold and awkward. Especially in romantic area. I also think it might be jjupitur esque issue.

Click to expand...

That is most likely because the ruler of your ASC, the Sun, is in the 12th house, completly disconnected from how you relate to other people, the 7th, ruled by Saturn.

No aspect, and bad reception from Sun to Saturn.

People that are usually "cold" to others, in the manner that they just don't realise it, tend to have a similar configuration.

THank you all! I think honestly I am just very self focused and I can lose sight of others in my lower momments. I also read people with sun op mars are likely to have limb injuries shot and or stabbed?

Love2Know said:

Yeah I always feel restricted by everything. Work love family friends lol it gets ridiculous. I love my mom but she can be mean without "realizing" it.. especially since I gained Weight But she always helps me out. My fantasy is to live by the ocean on a tropical island with my son Lol. He has moon conjunct chrion which pisses me off but also moon trine saturn. I am very focused on him. My husband Is very nice but I am very controlling of what he says to our son. I feel he will be too achievment focused on him. Also I get really angery when people think I should have more than 1 child. my mom also thinks I am not emotionally strong enough to handle children and be happy. No one expected me to have kids.. not even me.
My family history is all bizzar and mysterious.

Click to expand...

Can I come live on that island too?

There seems to be differing opinions on whether your aspect is trine by sign or square by orb. My advice is to Google and read about each of those aspects and see which one actually fits your experience. You may wish to do the same for Moon square and trine Saturn as well.

Love2Know said:

Yeah I could relate to it very strongly.

Click to expand...

Then this is your affirmation of it as a square aspect.

I am just confused because the signs are of the same element. I relate to it more than venus conjunct ascendant.

Click to expand...

No need for confusion. The planets can express themselves just fine in any signs. This affects interpretation, but does not change the geometric dynamic. Again, aspects are geometry. A square is formed by 90 degree angles whether in astrology or in carpentry. There are no special astrology-only rules for geometry.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_square

Oddity said:

Traditionally speaking it's not a square, because those are determined by sign, and yours isn't in sign. If it were one or two degrees out, I'd be asking some questions about it, because occasionally they do work out-of-sign despite theory, but not at the range yours is. Saturn is detrimented in Leo, so if Venus was squaring it from there it would be pretty ugly.

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

As Oddity mentions, from traditional perspective, they are not in square.

Both are in fire signs, of the same element (triplicity).

Aspects are not lines in the sky. They represent the position between planets, and how they relate according to the sign they find themselves in.

From traditional perspective, your Saturn and Venus are actually trining each other. This means they are still related, they just happen to have a different kind of relation, rather than the square.

Click to expand...

This reliance on what is written in a book defies common sense. By this same reasoning, a conjunction of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Virgo would be rationalized to be some version of a semi-sextile, and an opposition of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Pisces would be rationalized to be some version of a quincunx, tossing both into the 'minor aspect' category in total defiance of common sense.

Astrology is not such a mystery that common sense should be thrown out, as many seem to do when they are loyal to a particular author/school/text. That would be astrological fundamentalism.

Love2Know, the aspect is a square and you have undergone the Saturn return in recent months that would demonstrate this. This aspect simply operates in more energized fashion since both planets are in fire signs. Venus' approach to the end of Leo particularly adds a flavor of 'endings' to this aspect for you, which adds an urgency to your Values/affections (Venus) to take on a consideration of the long-term viability (Saturn)of your choices and emotional investments with the big picture in mind (Sagittarius).

This sets up a dynamic of at least small potential failures at different points if such considerations are bypassed. Not a 'likable' or fun aspect, but your attention given to it at this stage of your life is very appropriate. You'll be able to better integrate the lessons of this aspect post-Saturn return with a bit of patience and determination that the investments of your heart are a treasure and worth long-term happiness rather than shorter-term gratification.

The challenge for a Leo/Venus type is to get over the seemingly innate tendency to assume that you can make anything work if your heart is 'all-in.' But relationships are more complex than that. A study of compatibility in relationships along astrological lines could be very helpful to you, so long as it is not based on superficial assessments or unquestioned assumptions.

Kannon said:

By this same reasoning, a conjunction of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Virgo would be rationalized to be some version of a semi-sextile, and an opposition of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Pisces would be rationalized to be some version of a quincunx, tossing both into the 'minor aspect' category in total defiance of common sense.

Click to expand...

Great point, Kannon.

Kannon said:

This reliance on what is written in a book defies common sense. By this same reasoning, a conjunction of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Virgo would be rationalized to be some version of a semi-sextile, and an opposition of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Pisces would be rationalized to be some version of a quincunx, tossing both into the 'minor aspect' category in total defiance of common sense.

Click to expand...

This may be true in modern astrology, but it's not true of traditional. The two non-aspects you're speaking of are non-aspects. They're planets in aversion.

Aspects go by sign because of the affinity or lack thereof of the signs involved. If it's by sign only, say planets at 12 Sagittarius and 27 Virgo, there's going to be a sense of discomfort when the things those planets represent come into contact in the chart. It's not likely going to manifest as an event, at least not unless by some directed technique the aspect perfects, but it will still be there. The houses those planets are in or rule will never quite work well together. Aversion means that the planets can't see each other, so those parts of the native's life can be at loggerheads.

Traditional VS Modern discussion again. Lets drop it before it ignites...cause it never ends well.

Oddity said:

This may be true in modern astrology, but it's not true of traditional. The two non-aspects you're ...

Click to expand...

Don't bother. Trust me.

Dirius said:

Traditional VS Modern discussion again. Lets drop it before it ignites...cause it never ends well.

Don't bother. Trust me.

Click to expand...

Might have to add a third one to the list since I'm neither traditional (use all planets) or modern (do predictive and don't care about natal psychological analysis) and seem to fit best under a contemporary label ....

Lets drop the Modern Vs Traditional Vs Contemporary debate before it ignites, cause it never ends well.

Dirius said:

Lets drop the Modern Vs Traditional Vs Contemporary debate before it ignites, cause it never ends well.

Click to expand...

I was enjoying it

Yes, traditional adherents like to quote texts and rule and get adamant about their position until it clearly defies common sense and then let's just drop it. Astrological fundamentalism.

There are no special rules of geometry for astrology.

If a carpenter looked at a 95* angle they'd say it was 'a little off square.' There would be no reference at all to any other sort of angle.

You can argue amongst yourselves all you want. But I'm intelligent enough to keep my common sense and not kneel at the feet of big names from astrological history and toss it aside.

Dirius said:

Lets drop the Modern Vs Traditional Vs Contemporary debate before it ignites, cause it never ends well.

Click to expand...

Well said

Kannon said:

Yes, traditional adherents like to quote texts and rule and get adamant about their position until it clearly defies common sense and then let's just drop it. Astrological fundamentalism.

Click to expand...

Ok. We do, and we offer that point of view. I'm glad you use your own methods, and I hope they work for you.

We merely offered the OP the traditional perspective regarding the aspect, without offending anyone. If you find that to be so bad....well, I really don't care.

Its not that we choose to drop it because we think we are wrong, but rather because it will create another forum argument in an improper thread.

So...you are more than welcome to create a topic specifically for this if you wish to continue this discussion. Most of us will gladly comment on it, and explain you the "logic" behind it.

If you don't wish to do that, then by all means, drop the subject.

Kannon said:

There are no special rules of geometry for astrology.

If a carpenter looked at a 95* angle they'd say it was 'a little off square.' There would be no reference at all to any other sort of angle.

Click to expand...

If a carpenter would built a square shaped object with 95 degree angles, then he would be a very bad carpenter.

Out of sign aspects do happen, even going back to Hellenistic times. Is this one within 3*? No. So in this case Venus isn't being "struck by a ray" of a malefic. Can Venus and Saturn regard each other? Yes, they are trine by sign. Is the aspect within orb, using moiety and disregarding for a moment how the signs are configured?

Personally, since the signs trine, and are of long ascension, I'd see it more as a trine rather than a square. Still isn't going to be great, with Saturn retrograde and all. It can help (for my traditional friends) to look at aspects in mundo as well as zodical configuration.

If my traditional friends will remember, we know that the planets Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn retrograde at the superior trine with the Sun. Yet recall that when Saturn stationed retrograde in March 2015, he stationed in the 5th degree of Sagittarius, while the Sun was in the 24th degree of Pisces. Is that a trine? Not via the Zodiac. So Saturn squared Sun in the zodiac, yet stationed? It bears considering.

Love2Know said:

My venus square saturn in the signs of leo and saggitarius... is it still as effective out of sign?

Click to expand...

Love2know:

Since you tend to answer others in text message sized bursts, I will do the same to answer your question.

The answer to your question is revealed in the transits to your own natal planets.

If your natal Venus and Saturn are affected by out of sign transits, e.g. if you feel the effects of those transits, chances are that is proof that your natal Venus and Saturn are felt in square aspect.

If you have been following astrology and your natal chart transits for more than a few years, you already know the answer to your question.

Regarding the poster who said your natal Venus and Saturn are in trine aspect, that cannot happen at all, as the orb is simply too large to fit the parametres of the trine (usually a maximum of 8 degrees of orb).

The timing of your question is interesting. Right now, Saturn, by transit, squares your natal Venus, so whatever house in your chart is ruled by Saturn and Venus should be the focus of your investigation.


HM

Love2Know said:

My venus square saturn in the signs of leo and saggitarius... is it still as effective out of sign?

Click to expand...

Love2Know said:

So the seperating trine replaces the square? The seperating aspect relates to past events in horary... does this related to past life karma Natally?

Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice that Saturn is retrograde.

When Venus perfects the square, Venus will be in fall in Virgo.

Regardless of the house system you use, Saturn is in the 5th Place indicating children and other things.

Seeing how there's a Capricorn Mars in the 6th Place ruled by retrograde Saturn, you might want to pay attention to medical issues.

Kannon said:

Then this is your affirmation of it as a square aspect.

Click to expand...

That's not how astrology works.

Kannon said:

No need for confusion. The planets can express themselves just fine in any signs.

Click to expand...

Not with Venus in Virgo.

Kannon said:

This reliance on what is written in a book defies common sense.

Click to expand...

Not when the book is correct.Venus square Saturn is a withholding of affection.
You can read that in Liber Sextus Tract IX by Firmicus.

Why? Because Saturn restricts. That is the nature of Saturn.

Kannon said:

By this same reasoning, a conjunction of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Virgo would be rationalized to be some version of a semi-sextile,...

Click to expand...

No, conjunctions are not aspects. There's a difference between a Star throwing its rays at another Star and two Stars joined by body in the same sign.

Kannon said:

and an opposition of Venus at 28 Leo with Saturn in early Pisces would be rationalized to be some version of a quincunx, tossing both into the 'minor aspect' category in total defiance of common sense.

Click to expand...

No, Stars in aversion to other Stars have their own meanings, but thanks for misrepresenting traditional astrology just the same.

tsmall said:

If my traditional friends will remember, we know that the planets Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn retrograde at the superior trine with the Sun. Yet recall that when Saturn stationed retrograde in March 2015, he stationed in the 5th degree of Sagittarius, while the Sun was in the 24th degree of Pisces. Is that a trine? Not via the Zodiac. So Saturn squared Sun in the zodiac, yet stationed? It bears considering.

Click to expand...

Actually, this isn't the case.

The aspects to the Sun merely mark the beginning of the phases of the planets apparent cycle of movement.

a) The square aspect to the Sun (90°) marks the beginning of the First Station: this is when the planets begins loosing speed by a drastical amount regarding its average daily motion; eventually it will go "stationary" and then retrograde.

b) The trine aspect to the Sun (120°) is called the Acronical Rising: it begins after the trine, and it is concerned with the visibility of the planet after the Sun sets in the horizon; a planet in its acronical rising stage, will always be retrograding.

Now the thing is the ancient astronomers (and astrologers) never marked the "trine" as the period in which the planet goes retrograde, but rather state that a planet will always be retrograding after it trines the Sun. It has always been stated that the planet will retrograde once its velocity drops to 0°, and this has always been known to happen in between these 2 stages of the planetary movement.

In the example you provided of Saturn going retrograde before the trine, this is to be expected. If you notice the velocity of Saturn after its square with the Sun (around 22 February 2015), the apparent speed loss is much greater than before. This occurs during Saturn's entry into first station stage.

In essence, some astrologers have mention that the planets go retrograde after the trine with the Sun, but this is a mere indication that the planets will always be retrograding by this stage, but note this is not the "traditional" view on it.

To sum up: Aspects, are not really related to the beginning of the retrograde motion, they just mark the beginning of the phases

Thank you, Dirius, for attempting to clean up my mess. I was merely trying to point out (awkwardly, as it seems) that out of sign aspects in signs of long ascension could pertain to the matter. Reference Lilly, CA, on Mister B's Houses.

Personally, I can avow to out of sign aspects that are within orb of moiety but not within 3*. Might take me a little longer to prove it though. Mostly I was just trying to head off the whole traditional vs. modern debate. But, carry on.

tsmall said:

Thank you, Dirius, for attempting to clean up my mess. I was merely trying to point out (awkwardly, as it seems) that out of sign aspects in signs of long ascension could pertain to the matter. Reference Lilly, CA, on Mister B's Houses.

Personally, I can avow to out of sign aspects that are within orb of moiety but not within 3*. Might take me a little longer to prove it though. Mostly I was just trying to head off the whole traditional vs. modern debate. But, carry on.

Click to expand...

What you said was not incorrect.

The thing is that the ancients never really stated retrograde motion begins with the trine, rather than the planet will always be retrograde by that stage.

Sorry I had to make the long post.