venus sign

greyhound-lady

Hi, duno if this is the right place but worth a try :)

I got a friend who is leo male with Venus in virgo. Heard that he would be attracted to people who are intelligent quiet and wear no/hardly any make up who look natural etc (cus of his venus in virgo) but then I heard that leo males are attracted to loud people who wear loads of make up aand are flashy. Which one are you supposed to use to find what he would find attractive?
Any help would be gladly appreciated!

Thank you
 

Ronia

It's not that simple, unfortunatrly. I have a Venus in Virgo and have never related to any of the definitions I've read about her except a few words in one of them which had nothing to do with people I was supposed to like but with the love of high-end, almost snobbish stuff. The Sun sign has even less to do with who you are attracted to, IMO. Yes, you may feel a bit more at ease with people of your own triad but it's not always the case. What if the other person's Sun is harmonious to yours but his Mars clashes with your Saturn and/or Mercury. It ain't gonna be pretty. I also stand by the opinion that the sign on the descendant does not show who we will be necessarily attracted to (I definitely do not like men of the sign on my descendant, for example). Same with the sign of Venus/Moon for men and Mars for women. To me synastry is the only way to get a clue if two people would actually be attracted to each other and then even the most perfect synastry does not promise a relationship, even less so a lasting one. That's my experience. Each chart is a complicated human story and two of them to work well together takes much more than any one given planet and sign. And then the houses do matter a lot. If I have to look at a planet it would be rather the ruler of the 7th, its position and condition, and that's still very little to rely on. In my experience squares also bring more attraction than any easy aspect, for better or worse. Add a planet on the other person's angle (any angle) and they will most probably go for it, ending unknown.
 

Minderwiz

Ronia's right, there are a number of factors to consider,

Firstly, and most importantly, the house placement of Venus (and indeed the other planets). The simplistic approach to Sun Signs, assumes that the Sun is in your first house (the Ascending Sign) which would put Venus in Virgo in the third house, under a whole sign house system, or second, third or even fourth by quadrant houses, depending on the degree of the Leo Ascendant.

However only a minority of people with Sun in Leo actually have a Leo Ascendant, so in practice Venus can be in any house and that will shift the focus of the way in which Venus actually expresses for that person. So we need to know what the person's Ascending Sign is (and preferably the degree of that Sign)

Secondly, in Virgo, Venus is ruled by Mercury. The placement by house and the sign of Mercury will be important, as Venus and Mercury share a link. A strongly placed Mercury can help a poorly placed Venus and a poorly placed Mercury can pull down a strongly placed Venus.

Thirdly, Virgo is the Sign of Venus' Depression or Fall (it is the Sign opposite her exaltation of Pisces). Partly this is because Pisces is a fruitful Sign, that furthers the natural expression of Venus as a mother or nanny. Virgo is unfruitful, being placed in Virgo goes against part of Venus' natural expression. A helpful Mercury, or helpful aspects can modify these tendencies, as can Venus placed in it's own Terms, within the Sign (7 to 17 degrees).

Fourthly, Venus' phase relationship with the Sun, is important. For modern Astrology, this would boil down to whether Venus is Retrograde or Direct but there's more to it than that, including whether Venus is visible in the night sky, either before the Sun rises or after it sets, it's speed and whether it is about to rise out of the Sun or set into it.

Fifthly, as Ronia points out, aspects between Venus and other planets can boost or detract from the way in which Venus is expressed. At its simplest, Venus aspected by planets that tendh to have a constructive role in the chart tends to be boosted, especially if the aspect is a Trine or a Sextile. Whereas Venus aspected by planets that tend to be more negative or destructive in their effects, especially by Square of Opposition can take away from Venus expression.

Finally, Modern Astrology tends to concentrate heavily on character traits and personality analysis but Venus can naturally indicate far more. There are a whole range of professions and interests associated with Venus, which range from wearing or making jewelry, collecting ornaments, interest in interior and exterior decorating, music and the arts, the hotel and catering industry and the entertainment industry. That list isn't exclusive, you can find more but your friend may express Venus not through his character but through his hobbies or his chosen profession.

There's quite a bit to consider and in many ways that's the point. Two people with Sun in Leo and Venus in Virgo may express Venus in totally different ways because of variations in the above (even including the actual degree of Venus in Virgo).
 

dadsnook2000

Sun Signs

I have long suspected that "Sun Signs" are just that, sun signs. So much of what a sun sign is said to convey relates to the declination of the Sun and the corresponding seasons, the cultures and history that have developed around locations-weather-travel-commerce which are all affected by the seasons, that it may be that ONLY the Sun is affected by the signs. The planets have no seasonal-for-Earth declinations. They have their own different seasons or declinations based on their planetary nodes. We don't use the planet-specific zodiac sign related to those individual planet nodes. I wonder why.
 

Minderwiz

Dave and I agree, that 'Sun Sign' Astrology is deeply flawed, to put it mildly. We differ in that for Dave, the result of his disillusion with Sun Signs is to doubt the value of Signs at all. For me that disillusion is to look back at what existed before Alan Leo gave birth to the emphasis on Sun Signs as the key to Character.

I have to start out by agreeing with Dave that the Zodiac is clearly Sun related virtually by definition (in the case of the Tropical Zodiac it is by definition).

The Zodiac is a means to chart the progress of the Sun in its apparent path around the Earth and is centred on the Ecliptic, so by almost by definition the Zodiac is directly related to the seasons on Earth. I use the word 'almost' because there is the sidereal Zodiac, now mainly used by Vedic Astrologers, which is derived from but not identical with the constellations that form the 'stellar' backdrop to the Sun's path. That too was related to the seasons, but the seasons as they were 2,000 years ago when horoscopic Astrology was invented. Now it's nearly a sign different.

As that invention occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, there's clearly a cultural component. The earliest descriptions of the signs, had as one of their characteristics, the division into Equinoctial signs, Fixed signs and Double Bodied signs (the direct equivalent of our Cardinal. Fixed and Mutable) so it's also clear that the connection to the seasons was explicit. and understood from the start.

So far I'm in agreement with the first part of Dave's comment. It's with his follow up about the other planets that I'm not sure I agree with. Each day that goes by sees each sign rise over the Eastern horizon. And the rising of signs is something that we tend to ignore (and I know that Dave certainly doesn't ignore it.) Every day it's the case that 0 Aries and 0 Libra rise due east, not just on the days of the equinoxes. Some signs take longer to rise than others. In the Northern Hemisphere, Cancer through to Sagittarius inclusive (that is the Signs that lie between the two solstice points) are Signs of long ascension, and Capricorn through to Gemini are Signs of Short Ascension. This is not the only qualitative difference between the Signs on a daily basis. Hellenistic and Medieval Astrology attributed a variety of different qualities to the Signs that are not Sun related. This meant that the Zodiac was seen as being of uneven quality and as the planets themselves are seen as having different natures they are better in some Signs than others, irrespective of where the Sun is.

Apart from when a Sign lies on the Ascendant, they didn't see them as having implications for character per se. There are references in even the earliest texts to people born under such and such a sign, for example people born under Scorpio. But this has nothing to do with them being born in late October to late November and everything to do with Scorpio rising at the time of their birth.

I'm not seeking to debate the issue with Dave, he's thought his position through thoroughly but simple to offer another alternative way of dealing with a perceived failure of 'Sun Signs' as the be all and end all of Astrology. That alternative is to recognise that it's not the Signs that are 'wrong' but the way that they have been used for the last century or so.
 

dadsnook2000

An addendum to my comments.

I had not addressed signs in any context other than how they related to the Sun and to the planets. Our Sun does rise every day, and the season that it is within is part of its influence. More importantly for the chart as a whole, not just the Sun, is the Sun in the chart's house at birth. Indeed, the whole Earth-rotation is a key cycle having extraordinary impact on us and our life. The natal imprint, including the sign on the Ascendant, the Sun's sign and the Sun's house (its relationship to the Ascendant) is a fundamental imprint that we carry all our life.

The Sun-to-Moon relationship and its cycles are also a fundamental part of our make up. Also, the Sun-Moon relationship relative to its projection from the Ascendant --- which becomes the Part of Fortune. If our astrological practice, IMHO, largely focused on the Sun by sign and house, the Ascendant by sign (its house is implicit), the cycle of the Moon relative to the houses, Ascendant and the Sun and greatly minimized the rest of the stuff as part of our initial chart assessment, we would be better astrologers. So much attention is given to asteroids, black moons, debilitations, void of course Moons, minor aspects between the outer planets (for personal chart use), and other trivia, that I feel we lose sight of the strengths of very basic astrological factors in our charts. Enough said.
 

Minderwiz

Enough said?

I had not addressed signs in any context other than how they related to the Sun and to the planets. Our Sun does rise every day, and the season that it is within is part of its influence. More importantly for the chart as a whole, not just the Sun, is the Sun in the chart's house at birth. Indeed, the whole Earth-rotation is a key cycle having extraordinary impact on us and our life. The natal imprint, including the sign on the Ascendant, the Sun's sign and the Sun's house (its relationship to the Ascendant) is a fundamental imprint that we carry all our life.

The Sun-to-Moon relationship and its cycles are also a fundamental part of our make up. Also, the Sun-Moon relationship relative to its projection from the Ascendant --- which becomes the Part of Fortune. If our astrological practice, IMHO, largely focused on the Sun by sign and house, the Ascendant by sign (its house is implicit), the cycle of the Moon relative to the houses, Ascendant and the Sun and greatly minimized the rest of the stuff as part of our initial chart assessment, we would be better astrologers. [

There's little to disagree with here, I might point out that for rather more than the first half of its life, Horoscopic Astrology gave more weight to the Moon in certain circumstances. Those circumstances being where the chart was cast at night, in which case the Moon became the key light of the chart. Now night and day are functions of the Earth's rotation and are thus Sun related by definition. Even the earliest writers recognised that the Moon's light was reflective, rather than radiant but it's ability to reflect light was key factor of chart analysis (as you said). In a night chart, that ability becomes more vital. For more than half the life of Astrology in the West this was the most basic feature of a chart. You mentioned the Part (Lot) of Fortune. That Lot reverses from day charts to night charts (despite Ptolemy's attempt to say it didn't, practising Astrologers continued to insist that it did). So you might also consider the Lot of Spirit' These two combined say a lot about the person's vulerability to outside factors and their ability to cope with them and influence events. I know the distinction of sect fell out of use almost a millennium ago, so it may seem a minor point, yet Moon by Phase, Sign nature, and ruler nature remained a major factor in chart initial chart analysis till Leo's rewrite.

Dadsnook2000 said:
So much attention is given to asteroids, black moons, debilitations, void of course Moons, minor aspects between the outer planets (for personal chart use), and other trivia, that I feel we lose sight of the strengths of very basic astrological factors in our charts. Enough said.

Asteroids, black moons, minor aspects, outer planets, hypothetical planets, harmonics, other Kuyper Belt objects can not only be minimised but eliminated as far as I'm concerned LOL.

Void of Course Moon, is a very important initial chart assessment factor in a horary chart but you are referring here to natal (I think) and I would agree with you on that point.

Dignities and Debilities of planets (which I think you are referring to) is important and you use them - well certainly the accidental kind such as house placements and aspects but given that you said 'initial chart assessment' I can't really fault that dismissal. How far we take 'initial' is a matter of our own opinion and practice. I came across a 'Preliminary Natal Analysis' which I think derives from Robert Schmidt and to me the word 'Preliminary' was grossly abused.

Nevertheless I would add to your list for an initial assessment, the position and condition of the Ascendant Ruler, though I don't expect you to agree. As I only use the classic planets that leaves but four further planets (including their dignities and debilities) to examine when the analysis passes the stage of 'initial' and begins to look at the chart in more depth. Though at that stage areas of life and things like Lots become important (I think you would introduce midpoints here).

Considering what I've just written, I think we are surprisingly close in terms of that 'basic' analysis, though there's clearly some difference in emphasis. The problem is that we can never resolve what is 'basic' in any absolute sense because the basis of Astrology has been rewritten several times, either because it fell out of use in the West or because an Astrologer thought he (and it was virtually always a man) could make it more scientific and therefore more valid. Ptolemy (who may not have been a practising Astrologer at all), Kepler, Morin and Leo all fall into this category and I'm sure other twentieth century writers of your choice could be added. We now have an Astrology with many bases so the extent of our agreement is really quite amazing in the circumstances.
 

greyhound-lady

Sorry for slow reply

So sorry for slow reply! I did not realise that people had replied to my post! Thank you all so much for replying with such detailed and useful answers! Never realised how complicated astrology was! The compatibility reports make it all seem so simple but it defo doesn't seem it here!
I will write more detailed feedback to each of you when I am on my laptop as my phone likes logging me out before I can submit long messages on this site fr some reason.
Once again I'm really sorry bout the slow reply!

Greyhound lady
 

DiamondsRForever

Hmm

So, I am this same combination flipped. I am a Virgo with Venus in Leo. There is one thing that I could say - Venus dominates. I am very shy with guys, but love a partner who is grandiose. It is possible that your friend likes to be grandiose and seeks out women who are very prim, proper, and reserved. :) Hope this helped!
 

junethird

Its a Combination of many things actually. But the moon sign in a mans chart explains alot. If his venus sign and moon sign Are not friendly energies then you have a wild card. In most cases he May be attracted to a certain type but will 'wed' someone completely opposite. The health and stability f his 7th house will give you alot of clues.

His ascendant plays a role aswell. Anything hitting his asc is gonna have a major influence. More so than the sun sign. Its the vibe you exude. I have taurus as my asc and consitently people always say i have an earthy vibe and find it hard to belive im a gemini. Even with mercury in gemini lol they never guess lol