Does Venus Square Ascendant make a person feel unworthy/ugly?
- Thread starter summer92
- Start date
fullmoonlibra
Well-known member
FML,you remind me a lot of Eva MendesShe's definitely good looking (and has Ryan Gosling!)
Omg, another one that thinks I look like Eva Mendes
. I'm going to start believing it 
IleneK
Premium Member
What I am describing is not my perception or feelings about beauty.
I am simply describing how I understand these elements [Venus, Libra] are interpreted astrologically. You may not like human behaviour as it relates to beauty and exclusion and so on. Neither do I. But what I think and feel about beauty and how astrological symbols are interpreted are two different things.
Last edited:
Zonark
Well-known member
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.
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.
Last edited:
stainedBlue
Well-known member
The natal chart is a personal psychological map, representing your own unique way of perceiving and experiencing reality, as well as the projections made into that reality. Reality itself lies beyond the filter of your personal psychological makeup, whereas perception is rooted in your mind. Perception and reality are not the same thing, though they can be. In post #4 by Ilene, she notes that the physical appearance (the reality-based physical body) could have ordinary or even unattractive features. We could argue over whether these ordinary/unattractive features are being referred to in a perceptual or physical reality manner, though I think Ilene was using it in the form of the latter. Regardless, both cases exist, so moving along... She goes on to say the overall impression is that of beauty, alluding to Venus being projected through the window of the ascendant, as angles only receive energy and is projected thusly. I don't think I need to explain the ascendant to you for this to make sense, as post #6 should be sufficient -- but I'll happily do so if you require it.
So no, physically-speaking Venus conjunct Ascendant wouldn't necessarily make a person more physically beautiful than they may or may not realistically be, but it would project the impression of beauty for others to be impressed upon and thus finding the said person more beautiful. Everyone has a different, subjective perception of beauty, and the natal chart will in one way or another reflect this perception or projected impression. The projected impression doesn't necessarily need to apply physically. There are many forms of beauty that exist, though you've seemingly taken into account only physical beauty, or the perception thereof. Seems marginal when you consider only one facet of beauty that may or may not be deemed perceptually beautiful. As Ilene tried to broach with you in post #7, you missed the point by clinging to your singular facet of beauty and thus creating a marginal demographic that does not exist.
Regarding post #8, cultural influence largely sways perception of ideals and beauty. I agree that all things in existence are beautiful (not just physically), though what is required to embrace this is to remove cultural conditioning and the filter of our psychological predispositions, or develop them until we're able to see reality in a truly clear way -- and this could very well be the guidance astrology itself is trying to give us.
And for post #26 that I originally responded to. You're arguing semantics and logical fallacies that are in no way relevant to the subject of this thread, using the marginal beauty issue that you created and subsequently refuted. Ilene was merely trying to help you understand what she meant, and you failed to comprehend it every time, choosing instead to lynch your own creation and brand her name on it as the owner. And you followed up by insulting her at the end of this post, which I took particular offense to.
Finally, post #28. 'Subjective science' is an gross oxymoron, and I suggest you reconsider using it. Science doesn't use symbols, it uses the scientific method, and I've only taken the time to say this much because you insist on having the obvious stated to you. Also, I'm not mentally impaired, but perhaps you should reconsider your own perceptions before demeaning and insulting others with such offensive condescension.
Last edited:
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.
Zonark
Well-known member
Well take a look at that link and see if you fit the description for Jupiter aspecting the ascendant. This is of particular interest because the author of the article claimed that harmonious aspects don't really affect the ascendant (trines and sextiles) but if you can relate your physical appearance to Jupiter affecting the ascendant (described in the bottom half of the article) then perhaps those harmonious aspects do have an effect.
Zonark
Well-known member
Cypocryphy
Well-known member
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.
wilsontc
Staff member
Stop the attacks
All,
Stop the personal attacks. Focus on the PROBLEM not the PERSON. Stick to ASTROLOGY if the thread is about astrology. Once you've made your point if you have nothing to ADD that is relevant to the PROBLEM, stop posting. If you feel someone is attacking you, respond to the Moderator Team and do NOT post on the thread. If this attacking behavior continues members may be warned or possibly banned.
Warning,
Tim
All,
Stop the personal attacks. Focus on the PROBLEM not the PERSON. Stick to ASTROLOGY if the thread is about astrology. Once you've made your point if you have nothing to ADD that is relevant to the PROBLEM, stop posting. If you feel someone is attacking you, respond to the Moderator Team and do NOT post on the thread. If this attacking behavior continues members may be warned or possibly banned.
Warning,
Tim
Zonark
Well-known member
In the span of our rather short human lives the idyllic image of beauty as portrayed only a few centuries ago can temporarily seem eternal and immortalizing yet one only has to look just a bit further into prehistory and observe older idyllic depictions such as the Venus of Willendorf (or its earlier precursor artifacts) to see that idyllic beauty has indeed changed drastically over the span of human history. While temporal dissonance may make the culturally spread meme known as beauty seem to be an immutable truth, put things in perspective just a bit more and it becomes surprisingly clear that perhaps beauty's standards rest upon a foundation far more mysterious and elusive than any certainty or preference we currently might entertain.
Cypocryphy
Well-known member
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.
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.
Cypocryphy
Well-known member
I just want to add something that I just noticed. I wasn't going to post it, but I suppose I can't help myself.
I've been destressing this last week, and I decided to start painting, so I've been looking at a lot of artwork. It helps me generate ideas. I looked at some old paintings, and found this one, which I'll post. The painting is of two women, working out. It's from 300 A.D., maybe from a North African artist(s). The women are in bikinis and exercising. It reminds me of the Olympics, especially the women runners whom I was watching last night and this morning. If you look at the painting of these women, they have a remarkable physique, very muscular and toned, just like our Olympic girls. The legs especially show how athletic these women are. At least it seems things have not changed too much in almost a couple millennia!
I've been destressing this last week, and I decided to start painting, so I've been looking at a lot of artwork. It helps me generate ideas. I looked at some old paintings, and found this one, which I'll post. The painting is of two women, working out. It's from 300 A.D., maybe from a North African artist(s). The women are in bikinis and exercising. It reminds me of the Olympics, especially the women runners whom I was watching last night and this morning. If you look at the painting of these women, they have a remarkable physique, very muscular and toned, just like our Olympic girls. The legs especially show how athletic these women are. At least it seems things have not changed too much in almost a couple millennia!
Attachments
Zonark
Well-known member
I think this argument could turn out to be relevant to the topic if given time to foment.
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. Many features idolized to a particular fetishist's individual tastes deviate far from any normalized definition of beauty and attractiveness. Is what a 'fetishist' sees as beautiful wrong because it is not seen as such to those who do not share the fetish? If the answer is no, then beauty becomes something subjective. If the answer is yes, the implication is that these people are impaired and unable to see 'true beauty' due to their disability, an implication that could only be derived from dogma, not truth. Therefore as evidenced by the existence of these differing and often completely at odds ideas of beauty the 2 definitive conclusions drawn can be that only one of these concepts of beauty is the correct one amongst a cornucopia of ever multiplying impostors OR that beauty really is a subjective phenomenon.
How about we consider where cultural ideals of beauty have had some very ugly effects? The Oriental practice of foot binding, where the foot is cut, bones broken and structure cramped into a smaller space because the tinier foot was considered more beautiful? Or the current trend of Indian women bleaching their skin because white skin is considered more beautiful? How about circumcision and the unnecessary damages it causes? The pursuit of beauty seems to sometimes carry with it a great deal of barbaric strife pressed upon the objectified persons who are supposed to carry this idyllic framework lest they fall short and become ~ugly~.
It seems that objective beauty is only good at objectifying the victims of its stratification and that always has a rather ugly effect. You might retort by exclaiming there is no harm in considering the idyllic Renaissance beauty standards (based on principals of dimension such as the Golden Mean and symmetry) are not in any way harmful yet I insist it is the very objectification which causes the harm by forcing its standards upon an oft ill conforming populace as an idea which exists in the mind, nay the ego first and seeks to reform the world in its image or shut out all that does not conform to its narrow idealizations.
Just some things to think about.
Cypocryphy
Well-known member
The latter is an unlikely possibility. If you consider the lifestyle of these tribes, both in the present and the past, you realize that an obese woman could not exist. The lifestyle of a nomadic and/or hunter and gather society (or tribe) is extremely active, for all of its members, and food is scarce. All of these women are skinny because they neither have the caloric intake nor are they inactive enough to become fat.
Perhaps there are exceptions to this. I recall an African tribe that selected one of its women to become wife to the chief. She was put in a cage and fed until fat. Then she was regarded as "beautiful" by the other males in the tribe and ready to marry. This, however, is an exception and should be regarded so.
As previously mentioned, there have been exceptions, but I do not know which Sub Saharan African communities you are referring to. I can think of several, and none resemble the Austrian fertility figurine. Take for example the Mursi. (Incidentally, they do view beauty in a different way, believing a protruding lip enhances one's physical beauty.) They are a nomadic tribe, and the women are nothing like the fertility figurine. They are thin and have good muscle tone, and are quite beautiful aside from the large plate in their mouth. http://www.flickr.com/photos/yilud/267948499/
Another example are the women from the Himba tribe, who adorn their hair with a reddish brown clay to create the illusion that there body is all one color. The women are beautiful. None are obese, and aside from their unique hairstyle, there is nothing that deviates significantly from what the world considers beautiful. (I'll post a couple photos so you can see.)
A Arbore woman, who lives in a village south of the Sahara, is slender and does not resemble the figurine as well. http://www.originaltravel.co.uk/sit...ini_carousel_image/public/arbore woman JH.jpg
So, I have to ask, what tribes are you referring to? I have not found any where the women resemble that of the figurine.
In order for this last statement to further your argument, it is necessary to take the underlying premise that one does not derive sexual pleasure unless it comes from beauty. I do not think beauty is necessary for one to achieve sexual pleasure. It might be sufficient in some contexts, but it is not necessary. But in order for the rest of the statements to be true, I will give you the benefit and take it as true that fetishes and sexual gratification are intrinsically linked to beauty. Either way, I do not think fetishes lead to your conclusion, that because of diverse sexual interests, there are diverse percepts of beauty.
First, fetishes typically are fixations on certain body parts or certain acts. A person with a foot fetish does not have a perverse concept of beauty. In fact, the "deviant" who finds a foot absolutely beautiful would not be so different from you or I who would likely find the same foot just as beautiful. It is not that the specific body part is not considered beautiful by the rest of the world, it is that we do not have such a high psycho-sexual preference for it, one that would be to such a degree that we would choose it to the exclusion of the rest of the body.
Second, fetishes, in a sense, are an aberration. They do not represent the norm or the standard concept of beauty. These are isolated incidents, and if one looks hard enough, there will always be exceptions to the rule. If a man proclaimed that the new beautiful is a skeletal, malnourished look because he had a peculiar fetish for such an appearance, you would hardly think that the concept of beauty has changed and that there is no objective basis for beauty. It is the same as saying the new morally upright man is the one who understands that one has to kill in order to achieve a greater good ( a common statement made by dictators around the world). This does not now make moral acts subjective or relative to the person, meaning that now we cannot objectively judge what is moral or immoral simply because an individual's subjective belief is that it is moral to kill. If it were so, then who are we to judge murderers? If one finds it is moral, then this is a valid percept because morals are subjective and everyone is right. A person who kills another is a good person because it is all in the eyes of the beholder!
Beauty becomes objectively qualifiable because the collective whole agrees on what beauty is. But there is also an innate sense as to what beauty is, shared among everyone, just like there is a collective understanding regarding the killing of another.
The same can be said about cultural ideals, too. These tend to be fads and are found in bottleneck populations where there is little outside influence. And these aberrations are primarily driven by social class or social standing in a village. The foot binding is similar to acts done by women during the reign of Elizabeth the First. These English women would use a board to flatten their breasts, so that they could resemble their flat-chested queen. These are anomalies, and they tend to not last for an indefinite period. These are simply "detours," and in time, the fad fades and the standard concept of beauty becomes the norm again, which I consider "natural beauty." One never goes wrong by just looking natural.
And as to circumcision, this is not a cosmetic procedure. There are other reasons for circumcision, but I will avoid that discussion because it would evolve into a drawn-out discourse.
I do agree that the "pursuit of beauty" leads to a lot of suffering, and there are psychological pressures placed on those who both fit the mold and fall short of the mold. But these tend to be relative to one's place in life (for example, professional models and actresses). Nevertheless, none of this has stopped anyone from finding another beautiful because they aren't perfect according to societies dictates (or perceived dictates).
Anyway, how many women are bleaching their skin? I can't imagine that it is very many. Do you know how prevalent this is?
Regarding the golden mean, this is not a man made number. It is a ratio found in nature. One does not try to fit the number; one is the number, in a sense. Mother Earth likes uniformity and proportionality, and those that come from her take on those qualities. Sometimes, people fit these qualities better than others, but there is only a scintilla who do not have the innate ability to meet the golden mean. Most come close enough, and that seems to be good enough.
Attachments
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Cypocryphy
Well-known member
Hey Gen:
I am going to rephrase what you said, and then you can tell me if I understand correctly what you are saying.
So are you saying that our environments shape our physical characteristics, much like Darwin's finches? So evolution has caused changes in our physical structures, and that because of these changes, the concept of beauty changes as evolution progresses? And by using aliens as an analogy or example, are you saying that aliens look a certain way because it allows them to survive in their own planetary environment, and that we look different to them and they to use because of differences is atmosphere, gravity, radiation, etc.?
And the statement
Are you saying that by studying the cultures of ancient civilizations, it helps provide insight in the way certain planets such as Venus influence contemporary cultures' understanding of beauty? But because each culture places a premium on certain values, no common denominator for beauty can be established?
I am going to rephrase what you said, and then you can tell me if I understand correctly what you are saying.
So are you saying that our environments shape our physical characteristics, much like Darwin's finches? So evolution has caused changes in our physical structures, and that because of these changes, the concept of beauty changes as evolution progresses? And by using aliens as an analogy or example, are you saying that aliens look a certain way because it allows them to survive in their own planetary environment, and that we look different to them and they to use because of differences is atmosphere, gravity, radiation, etc.?
And the statement
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.
Are you saying that by studying the cultures of ancient civilizations, it helps provide insight in the way certain planets such as Venus influence contemporary cultures' understanding of beauty? But because each culture places a premium on certain values, no common denominator for beauty can be established?
Last edited: