Connection of Benefics in Vedic Astrology and standards of beauty in the east

love-thinking

Well-known member
I'm really curious about this topic. I am not assigning moral/value judgements to any trends here although I do feel for those that are victims of this.

But what I wanted to talk about today is colourism and notions of beauty in South Asia.

One thing I've noticed is that Benefics and I mean benefics that aren't asuras (like Venus) is very congruent with the overall notion of beauty. Those includ moon, jupiter, and to a lesser extent mercury.

Moon like features like fairer skin, round face and luminous eyes are preferred. Jupiter is preferred as it also has fair skin, is tall, typically has a widow's peak look with big wide set eyes, and looks approachable. When it comes to men, these men look "cute" rather than "hot."

Then you have mercury who is slim, and isn't dark either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF6B0wD2OGo&t=526s


Then you have "sexy signs" and "sexy planets" that are not really appreciated and if they are they must have another planet like jupiter or moon or 'fairer' skinned signs to compliment in regard to appearance. An example of this would be Laura barat saying how scorpio asc tends to give a shorter stature, but this itself is not desired even in women in South Asia.

I would in some ways understand it when people are against saturn but I do find it strange that appearances corresponding to otherwise "sexy" planets are typically not the preference. I wonder if this is due to the preference of benefic/god-like appearance as opposed to malefic/asura type appearance.


So my question is those that are indian /south asian, what are your thoughts about this connection of discourse of astrology and discourses within the current cultural context?


Another thing I'd like to note, and I noticed this: When women/men feel like their worth is low in the west, they use cult of personality, clothes, their own style to attract.

This is very different in South Asia, where brides and grooms must be tall, fair, and come from a reputable family or have an amount of wealth. The personality doesn't matter nor does a magnetic person have much ability to work their charms on people. Another thing I noticed is that in the west, there are certain personas men (maybe becuse of movies and popculture) find irresistible but you try that personality in South Asia, and you deemed unfit as a partner, undersirable and unsexy.

For example, let's look at the scorpio female archetype. She is mysterious, she has emotional depth which she uses to lure men in usually to fill in some sort of void, and she may or may not have trauma in her childhood that has either led to a transformation or an internal void. This archetype otherwise known as the temptress drives men insane. In South Asia, however, promiscuity (even if it is to fill a void) & the presence of any sort of trauma is completely frowned upon. Sometimes, this is even when the girl doesn't have a parent. This is not only looked down upon, but looked down upon to such an extent that even if the girl is very attractive, she is dismissed as a possible suiter.

This is also true for the male counterpart as women will not be interested in the badboy (mars) persona.

My question is what is this dismissiveness of sexual planets (venus and mars) and signs(scorpio) in terms of appearance and persona in South Asia? Where does it stem from historically and culturally?

Sometimes I feel like, not only does this region not follow the laws of biology, but also the laws of psychology.

I'd like to add there are cases of beautiful actresses/actors that have darker skin but even on that level, they're taught to believe they are ugly. Then they go through intense skin procedures. So even those at the top don't have good self esteem.


I'd also like to add, while the west does have beauty standards, there's are more akin to evolutionary science and fitness. If you have a symmetrical appearance, take care of yourself, have healthy skin, hair, nails and a fit body. (I do realize that they prefer thin which has caused eating disorders but so does South Asia so hear me out.). the rest of your appeal is based on the persona that you cultivate and put forward. The rest is dependent on your ability to charm, humour, and captivate the opposite sex. Often times, you'll see the main character who gets the guys have more attractive friends but because they both relatively have nice bodies, skin and hair, the latter is able to use the other parts of their personality or magnetism(pluto, neptune, mars, venus) to pull in a guy.


Just a note, Draupadi considered to be the most beautiful women in mahabarat was extremely dark and so was Krishna. So when did it all change?

Anyways, to reiterate my original question was whether the notion of benefics in astrology (moon, jupiter and to a lesser extent mercury), their descriptions have anything to do with the standards of beauty in the east today?

Another comparison I'd like to make: Jupiter means being fortunate and yes, men do want to marry a girl from an upper class family in South Asia.

Whereas guys from here: there was a study done on millionaire stating that they don't want a girl as rich as they are but significantly below their station. Also this, tendency to marry below, or have "savior complex" to fulfill subconscious issues is really a western thing. A prominent or spoken desire to marry below your station is unheard of.

I know I am going on and on here. But women who are beautiful/sexy who may have dark or wheatish skin, who would make any straight man think of **** and fill a man with desire and lust, doesn't conjure up the same type of desire in South Asia. In fact, women like that either get rejected for their skin colour or their status!!! I was perplexed!!
 
Top