In the new issue of Planet Waves, I look closely at Mars retrograde in Libra, and explore what this aspect is saying about our relationship tendencies. I focus in on the phenomenon that feminists call “rape culture” and propose a few new ways that we can consider what that is and what to do about it. This edition also includes the May monthly horoscopes that cover Mars stationing direct on May 19, and a special section on the solar eclipse that happens Tuesday morning.
You can read the full issue through a single-issue purchase. Or, try out our one-month free trial membership, and get insightful, thought-provoking articles and horoscopes sent to your inbox every week.
A bike is a better analogy? Open to the elements and continuous balance
Isn’t there also an element that when you know how to drive you drive. Of course you are vigilant and attentive but it’s a state of being and everything else (the destination/reason why you are in the car/who is there too/anything) is also in the focus: you aren’t constantly thinking you might crash or do something wrong/is this good enough etc like when you have just passed your test. Isn’t sex like that?
And if you find yourself in a relationship that is archaic – male possession, female kept in bounds, or henpecked or worse, you work to change it – you speak to the guy/gal you are with, you go the distance, or you quit, and find someone/some scenario that suits you better.
That sent itself somehow. I was going to add something like this isn’t against men it is just that maybe the issue is deeper than just sex and the psychology around it. Nor are women perfect and some are penible (as some men are), but (I read recently) women who are damaged at an early age tend to hurt themselves, and men others. This is another element?
Up to a certain point there is involvement of the masculine ego too. The guy who enjoys ‘sulking’ because his partner doesn’t greet him the right way/have sex now/or she smiles at someone etc etc (it can be anything). In my experience alot of male female ‘stuff’ is linked to that before anything. The guys who step out of this morose-enjoyment-of-being-angry-linked-to-ego (or were never in it) are a joy to be around.
Up to a certain point there is involvement of the masculine ego too. The guy who enjoys ‘sulking’ because his partner doesn’t greet him the right way/have sex now/or she smiles at someone etc etc (it can be anything). In my experience alot of male female ‘stuff’ is linked to that before anything. The guys who step out of this morose-enjoyment-of-being-angry-linked-to-ego (or were never in it) are a joy to be around.
Acknowledging the valuable discussion, and the gift of all the opinion and resource shared in this thread. I’d love to jump in, and may after tomorrow, as the topic will not go away soon. However, I am mostly unplugging for this time between the eclipses, especially today, when as Eric suggests in Monday Daily Astrology that this Taurus Solar Eclipse is a good time to remember you have a body. Squishing my toes in Taurean mud today. It occurs to me that one of the remedies for the confusion that creates a need for this discussion is connecting to one’s body in a sacred way, times 7 billion.
Enjoy your home planet in whatever way turns you on!
(Do I assume too much when I imagine we are all earthlings here?)
My mother bought a flock of little chicks last year, that were supposedly culled so she would have 30 hens. It turned out to be 27 roosters and 3 hens. The 27 rooster were merciless in their attention to the hens, each getting it 27 times a day or more until one of the hens escaped and hid in the shed. So they killed all the roosters, and collect three eggs per day from the now happy hens, who still have to be protected from other wildlife. One day our DNA will be different. As the Buddhist monk said, “Why would I need to have sex when I am coming all the time?”
Well said Carecare7,
>> Why is female sexual agency so threatening to males if it isn’t about reproduction? <<
Excellent question. It absolutely is ALL about reproduction especially as it relates to the patriarchal era we've been in for centuries and centuries now. It is difficult to know what the sexual practices were in pre-patriarchal & ancient times. In pagan societies the mystery of procreation probably had more to do with the cycles of the moon, the blessings of gods and goddesses and what you ate for dinner. Yes, once people figured out the biology that was an important step but that alone should not be so threatening to the male half of the population…. so why are males so threatened? Because along with this new biological understanding we also shifted into more patriarchal societies. Power and wealth which used to be communally organized and owned, now began to become more concentrated into the holding of a few (males). As the shift continued towards more patriarchal systems, then in order to retain one's power within the society over generations the lineages had to be protected and maintained. Since power and wealth was now controlled only by males, then legitimate male heirs were the most highly prized of progeny. Females were valuable mainly to secure other power/property alliances and to continue the bloodlines. Since many women often died in childbirth, males acquiring new wives preferably younger and more fertile would insure the continuation of the lineage. But still one could ask why is it so important to protect bloodlines?
I suspect that fear of death is what drives much of the patriarchal system since it is based on linear progressions rather than on circular systems. In a linear framework, death is an ending, not part of a cycle. Also, much of the way patriarchy came about was thru violence and death so naturally this shadow material will wreak havoc on the collective unconscious. If a male could envision his "seed" as continuing onwards after his own death, in his "name" (as carried by the valuable male heir) and his property ( which is the equivalent of one's life's work and worth) then in a sense "he" continues on. In hierarchical societies that value the acquisition of wealth and power as symbols of success and where that success can only be transmitted to the male heirs then yes, controlling the reproduction lineage becomes paramount, thus the controlling of female reproduction is the critical key element to the continuation of patriarchal societies. If women's reproduction becomes something she can control for herself, then the male ego can no longer project itself into the future thru its proxies and has to face his own death and THAT is what terrifies the collective "him" and makes "him" feel impotent because if his identity thru his property and his name cannot be guaranteed, (thru his male heirs) then what has been the purpose of his life?
I am speaking in collective and general terms here, not so much towards individuals. Yet, that said, I think it is going to take many generations to undo this programming because it is so deeply imbedded in us.
“Speaking in more current terms, there is the idea that the repression of women is about reproduction rather than the astonishing sexual potential of women. I think this needs to be questioned carefully.”
Yes, let’s question that. Why the fuck DO men have such issues with women’s sexual potential if it isn’t about making sure they spend their resources on their own, bio offspring? What else is there that would cause men to be so controlling of women’s sexuality if not that?
That’s the question, isn’t it? Why is female sexual agency so threatening to males if it isn’t about reproduction? Many females would love to control male sexuality as well but they never get the chance in the patriarchal setup there is. What’s up with that whole domination and control thing?
I mean if I know my partner loves me and will always love me, why would I be afraid of his sexuality with others? And vice versa. I know people fear losing their loves to another, I get that but with honesty and openness, why does it always have to be that way?
It has been posited that once males figured out their role in reproduction, they sought to control the females they mated with in order to be sure they were protecting their own biological offspring. Supposedly, from that time forward, female reproduction has been controlled worldwide. Shaming and religion have been the big ways to control female reproduction and as a side of that, female sexuality.
I would respectfully submit that this “standard narrative” — particularly of early sex — has been countered in significant ways by the book Sex at Dawn. There is a lot of theorizing that goes on; we need evidence of these ideas apart from what seems to be apparent in contemporary society.
We need to look at biology, actual behavior, how our nearest simian cousins behave, and many more factors that are not about analysis of social constructions.
Speaking in more current terms, there is the idea that the repression of women is about reproduction rather than the astonishing sexual potential of women. I think this needs to be questioned carefully.
Thanks, be. Apparently those sociology and psychology classes paid off.
Woa, this article sheds all sorts of light on all the games that confuse the fuck out of me. Self sex has been my only way for 10 years now cause I can’t navigate all the mixed signals and don’t know how to talk about sex outside writing. Also I don’t want to get anybody pregnant. It works ok this way, sometimes way more than ok, but I really miss the touch of women sometimes.
Well said carecare7. Somebody’s done her homework!/be
Men offering women the “no” answer is a great idea. The whole system, from a sociological stand point, is not serving either gender well. It has been posited that once males figured out their role in reproduction, they sought to control the females they mated with in order to be sure they were protecting their own biological offspring. Supposedly, from that time forward, female reproduction has been controlled worldwide. Shaming and religion have been the big ways to control female reproduction and as a side of that, female sexuality.
Problem is, controlling female reproduction by using shaming and religion meant that females could no longer be available for sex. What a quandary; males want access to females but they restrict access to females. Females further this arrangement out of fear (from retribution of the deity ) and out of a clear sense that any woman who gives up sex easily cheapens every other woman’s sexuality; those who do “give it up easily” become marginalized by their own gender. Now no one is happy.
This arrangement has spawned a whole dance between males and females in which females cannot admit to wanting sex (or they face shame and marginalization) so they do things (getting drunk, taking drugs, dressing like they want it but then saying they don’t) to get it within the framework of not showing their real desires. Males are tasked with reading these female signs correctly while they also want to control female reproduction (from every “other” male but available for themselves).
The ideology of males controlling females also brings with it a sense of females as objects to be acted on; not as autonomous human beings with agency. This also sets up a sense of entitlement in males; they create scenarios in the media wherein they depict themselves and their surrogates “getting the girl” while the girl just acquiesces. Porn shows men doing all the action; the females just remain still while males do the movement. This male domination and entitlement issue (male as the default human) also means some males get very angry and even violent if they feel they are not able to control things; females especially. This would be why male on female violence (and why female homicides) are far higher (and get less press) than female on male violence. When 11,000 rape kits go uninvestigated in just ONE city (and 12,000 in another and 10,000 in another, etc.) women know we are seen as the lower caste of humanity. When a woman kills a man, it is said the media goes crazy. The same cannot always be said when men kill women.
IF males stop seeing females as something to control and as objects they are entitled to; things can change. IF females stop seeing themselves as objects and as wrong for openly stating and having their sexual desires; things can change. Both genders have work to do.
Of course, your opinions may vary.
I suspect it is certainly true that we have been conditioned to limit our options as to what is ‘real’. For many of us who have survived abuse (and I think at least some of the Everyday Sexism posters would perhaps identify with this), I imagine the best possible gift in terms of relationships would be more men being courageous enough to offer that safe space. For me that sort of world is an ideal.
*raises a glass to compersion*
I have been thinking about that language all night. (Putting this issue into language is slippery business). I am not sure it was just a turnoff — though for some it is (for example, my desire to [usually] explore self-sex with women to test the emotional conditions of the relationship, and to get some emotional experience with consent in situ and see how they run their own energy and pleasure — that is definitely turnoff for the “be a man and just fuck me” women, who number more than you may imagine).
There is another dimension to this. The opportunity to say no is very unusual for most women. They are used to “just being fucked.” So any man who puts out this option, who makes it available consciously, needs to be used to being turned down for sex, on the spot, on an occasion when that sex might otherwise would have happened.
Much like we are going to expect energy companies to leave more than 2/3 of all fossil fuels in the ground to save the planet from disaster, men are going to need to invoke Vesta, sacrifice a little or some or most sex for a while, make a kind of ‘sacrifice’ (which I would translate as making sacred), so that we can all heal and help one another heal. In a world where sex is considered dangerous, self-sex is indeed the safest place and it’s fortunate that we have a place of refuge that is real and that includes the potential for intimacy.
Freedom to say no and yes means freedom of choice. We will all need to get comfortable with people who might be our lovers making other choices, and not have that end the friendship. In both of these daring explorations, compersion will light the way. [For those new to the term, compersion is what you might think of as empathy for the pleasure and the choices of others.]
Then there is the question of what to do with the space of no; with the space of the opt-opt. It’s fertile territory for growth and learning, and for a kind of erotic pleasure that is of the heart and the soul and that does not preclude pleasures of the body and senses in the future.
Chart for this idea is above.
Thanks for your response, Eric. I’m surprised to hear about seeking consent being a turn-off for some. The idea of that particular boundary being blurred is rather frightening for me personally. It is interesting to consider, and I do believe these questions are important and need to be resolved. We have all, perhaps, spent too long hiding.
“When women and men are truly equal in power, then healthy boundaries will exist and the exchange of power in all negotiations, including sex, will be healthy.”
I think it might work the other way — that through learning about our own sexuality and how to relate to one another, including expressing desire, negotiating boundaries and reaching a point of trusting consent, we will evolve with greater clarity and work out many of the other problems which the sex issue underlies — which may include greed, war and various issues surrounding death.
Here’s my observations on the subject of rape:
The root of rape lies not in sex but in power. Rape is about expressing having power “over” others and using sex to show it. In hierarchical (and patriarchal) societies, rape is a weapon in the toolkit of fear to keep the under-powered members of a society controlled.
For how many generations have women been defined as property and/or less than their male counterparts? When half a population (or more if you count children who are even more vulnerable targets) have no rights to equal person-hood, then power is unequally distributed. Those holding the majority of the power thus feel entitled to take what they want, and to continue to employ fear tactics to keep that power or even try to gain more. We as a collective have had this programming wired into our bodies, our laws, our mythology, our culture, our religion – the very fabric of our collective lives for how many thousands of years now? You don’t turn that kind of programming around in one generation or two, especially when the power is still not equally distributed.
Rape isn’t about sex. It’s about power. But then the tricky bit is the obverse of the coin… because much of sex is also about power, but “power” as in energy. Learning to use that energy consciously, responsibly and equitably is where we need to go and we have very little idea how to do that because of all the no-talk rules that are in place coupled ( pun intended) with the delusions and fantasies pumped out by all forms of media. As long as we live within the memory and shadows of hierarchy and patriarchy, the structures of power and who has it will ensure that rape will continue to exist. Additionally so will the false-charge of rape be used to try and leverage the system by those who feel dis-empowered by that same system.
When women and men are truly equal in power, then healthy boundaries will exist and the exchange of power in all negotiations, including sex, will be healthy. I think we have a little ways to go yet before that day dawns. Another millennia or two should do it.
Elizabeth – fantastic points, imo – esp about impressing members of one’s own sex. There has always been something about “slut walking” that I thought was disingenuous. That explains it well enough for me.
Here is what the New York State Penal Law has to say on the topic of incapacitation due to the intake of drugs or alcohol. Note, it seems like if a person consumes the beverage intentionally on their own, they are able to give consent. If someone else gave them the substance without their consent, then they cannot grant sexual consent.
Note, the section gives definitions of terms, but consent is not one of them. So I have attached the section on consent from Black’s Law Dictionary above as a jpg. That definition includes “acquiescence,” which is nonverbal consent — defined in its own definition as “passive compliance or satisfaction,” i.e., not objecting.
OK here is the NYS statute:
6. “Mentally incapacitated” means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#p130.05
Here is another that I just found:
S 130.20 Sexual misconduct.
A person is guilty of sexual misconduct when:
1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without
such person`s consent; or
2. He or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct
with another person without such person’s consent; or
3. He or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human
body.
Sexual misconduct is a class A misdemeanor.
Amy, I don’t mean just make a case like the example of getting an indictment for a ham sandwich.
I mean that one could make a legitimate argument that a person cannot consent to sex under the influence of alcohol; in fact it is the law many places. So where is the line? What BAC? Passed out? In blackout mode? I will do some research about this and see if there is a legal delineation or precedent for “how drunk is too drunk to consent?”
I realize there are people exploiting the fuzzy boundary. It’s not just men. The foggy line, as I posited today, gives women an opening not to consent but still to get the sex (evading direct responsibility — how many times have you heard a woman say she fucked because she was drunk, taking advantage of the eternal excuse for indiscretion, drunkenness, footnote Anthro 101) and that in turn opens the way for rape and accusation of rape.
But those who are concerned about rape cannot have it both ways — that there shall be neither yes nor no (for which I believe women are responsible to enforce, in the last step, since they are usually the ones who get to dial 911), and also an insistence that the boundary be honored. The boundary cannot be honored if it is not set.
It cannot be set if there is ignorance, willful ignorance or enforced ignorance of the Abstinence Indoctrination program. It cannot be set if the parties to the contract don’t know the words to say or have the skill to say it — many young people can barely talk to one another face to face. They text one another. If it’s a big deal they email.
To conduct the experiment with the boundary, with no, you would basically be asking a 20 year old drunk frat guy to take the consciousness that I take into sexual encounters — to say hello, how do you really feel about this, or to wait for a concrete sign of affirmation. One thing that I have noticed is that seeking consent is a turnoff. In my dreams, initiating the conversation is a sign of respect and humanity and it’s exciting and a turnon and proof that the guy is a mensch. Often, give a woman the opportunity to say no and she will say no. This is not only because she does not want the experience (I have often read the opposite) — sometimes it’s just interesting to be given the option and to experiment with no, and also, it provides an opportunity for preexisting ambiguity about sex to assert itself rather than be stuffed down.
I am a safer person to experiment with that than the drunk 20-year-old.
===> Addendum to comment several levels above —
Three other ideas: one is that in a society that has trouble distinguishing sex from rape, the only sex that we can say for sure, with full certainty, is not rape, is masturbation. If we can explore masturbation together, that is exploring fully consensual territory, and we will learn a lot from holding that space (a Vesta idea, holding space for sexual healing).
Next: Much sex is based on the idea that relationships imply ownership. Unraveling the culture of rape involves meeting on level ground, voluntarily, going beyond the idea that sex must have a victim, or that someone must be the top, or that there must be a winner and a loser in the game.
Next: Many, many women have rape fantasies. In fact rape has been eroticized, for men and for women. It is not my fantasy that so many women have rape fantasies — they tell me. Many other women have told me that it’s their fantasy to be fucked by a group of anonymous men, in turn; this is not rape per se but many people would consider it on the same side of the spectrum — sex without control. This theme of sex without control is a powerful erotic driving force, and many people seek submission, and in it, the pleasure of giving up the control that our lives are so much about in these decades.
To explore sex that is egalitarian will involve addressing all of these things. The gentle, alert, responsive lover is not the same thing as a rape fantasy, the aggressive man fantasy, the anonymous sex fantasy. So in their own way, women who choose to embark on this path may need to set aside some of their hottest concepts of what sex is about, just like men will have to set aside (and process, and analyze and understand) their fantasy of dominating women.
What we are talking about here is sex without any domination at all. That differs greatly from what we know today.
The point is not that men are falsely accused or that women are scared of men, as far as I can see it. The point is, why the hell is sex still such an unhealthy thing in society? All I see is both genders going to extremes, whether it be the macho men pissing on their territory, or women marching in bras and high heels in a slut parade. What does any of that have to do with anything, except proving your bravado to your OWN gender? I don’t think “consent” is something that needs to be checked off on a signed form, I do think it can be something understood between two people. But the issue here is that we don’t talk about that at all, not in rape cases, not in sex education, not anywhere. Well, except for Planet Waves. I like what Amy said, by the way.
Not sure how many of my cousins across the pond have heard of this, or whether it is even apropos, but feel free to take a peek anyway. It’s most instructive.
http://everydaysexism.com/
A lawyer could probably make any case they want. The problem with this issue is intent. Men who are involved in these situations make use of the difficulties of defining consent, not because they are genuinely confused by mixed signals, but because they want to retain their former privilege of being able to sleep with a woman whether she wants to or not. Reclaiming consent is about enshrining women’s right to say no – and also to say yes, enthusiastically.
Hillary: As things stand, the number of men who are falsely accused is still a mere drop in the ocean to the number of survivors who don’t report, whose cases are dropped, who are frightened by disbelief into silence, whose attackers are acquitted… There is a real, troubling, pervasive problem with how rape victims are blamed and mistreated, that in my view is only just beginning to be resolved.
By the way, I abhor fraternity culture. I think it’s one of the stupidest social creations, ever.
The frat ban at SUNY Buffalo was just in its sunset (there was one frat, I believe; frats were banned by the faculty in 1970) when I was a student there. I hung out and socialized with the people at the campus magazine. Before I became editor in chief, it was largely a bunch of politically correct pseudo leftie-feminist types.
Once I became editor, we were more the Talking Heads-playing, drop acid together, publish satires and do art and writing (of a weekly magazine) people who talked to one another like human beings and understood when sex was appropriate.
This is extremely slippery semantic territory, as well as ethical territory. I spent a lot of time working out these words and ideas and I still see slippery little contradictions in my language.
As for:
“Yes, she needs to clearly express that. And if she passes out, that should be understood as a clear no.”
Should be understood by whom? A rapist? A horny teenager, also drunk? Should all sex be negotiated by chaperone and attorney?
Herein lies the real issue. Once the instinctual nature takes over, that is pretty much that. If one wanders out into 1-5, the traffic should stop so the person does not get hurt. It might; many other people might get hurt in the process. But then it might not stop. I might be right that the traffic should have stopped and the person who hit the pedestrian will have their insurance go up and all of that. But the pedestrian got whacked. I am not saying it’s right or wrong. I am saying it’s what happened.
Yes the people who fuck the passed-out drunk women are subject to prosecution and could do 20 years for that; legally one cannot give consent when passed out — but a lawyer could also make the case that one cannot legally give consent above a certain blood alcohol concentration, so one could make the case that all sex while alcohol-impaired is rape. But if that is true, why then is it just rape of the woman?
I am arguing for a reliance on common sense much more than on legal and moral theory. The problem is that we are depending too much on legalities and moralities and not enough on biology; not enough on what is so.
I personally find myself bound up by all of this in a way that precludes almost all sex. One lover from long ago named Joelle once explained, basically, that what most women want is the guy who just knows when to fuck her.
My mentor Joe Trusso said something similar, that in tantric practice, the man is responsibile for figuring out when the woman is ready for sex.
You live in Portland, where people walk around with pocket-sized pads of sexual release forms that both partners sign and keep on file (joke). The sex culture of Portland is all about negotiated consent. I was at a masturbation group in Portland last year where someone objected to the fact that I was looking at them. I said, you know, I’ve hosted about 30 masturbation groups and I’ve never heard that one before. What the heck are you doing masturbating in a room full of people if you don’t want anyone to look at you?
As regards the pall of silence, that is a very, very thick layer of the problem.
We could find another fantastically thick layer of inhibitions about masturbation, closely tied to homophobia, which does plenty to silence the discussion.
I think that ultimately, all the no in the world is not going to stop rape. If the only answer were no, there would be plenty of rape. The only difference between sex and rape is yes. That is the legal definition. So for there to be sex, and have it not be rape, there has to be an explicit yes.
That really seems like we need some coaching from sex therapists in the 24th century to convey how one defines yes and no with a clear conscience.
And this from a couple months ago. A student at Wellesley College made a sculpture of a sleepwalking male in his underwear. There was a protest by female students that it made them think of sexual assault.
That alone is sad. Why are women this afraid of men?
You can see a picture of the statue here.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/02/06/the_sleepwalker_at_wellesley_students_complain_that_a_statue_of_a_man_in.html
Eric, I love that you have the guts to take on the topic of rape in the way you do.
I do buy into the concept of rape culture and when I say that, I am talking about the culture itself. It’s about not knowing what consent is, how to give it, how to ask for it, and also recognizing that its lines can be blurry. More importantly, I think it ‘s not being able to talk about these things at a dinner party or in the workplace or with a stranger on a bus.
It’s also important that we look at seduction with complexity. If a woman dances naked on a table she may want sex and then not want it ten minutes later. What I’m saying is that there is never a “point of no return.” Yes, she needs to clearly express that. And if she passes out, that should be understood as a clear no.
She may also be exploring her own power, albeit in a terribly stupid way. But, there’s something in our culture that simultaneously demonizes and romanticizes the frat house as a temple of sex.
Subtlety is the voice many women have been taught. I spent a lot of years wanting sex but not feeling I could ask for it. I’m still not completely there.
Despite what our culture blares and otherwise intelligent people mimic, my personal experience with most men has found them to be very gentle in their approach. It almost feels like they pick up on any tingle of psychic resistance I have and don’t even attempt to go there. And the times I’ve been drunk and sexually aggressive, men have 100° turned me down.
When it comes to sex, it seems clear to me that men want me not just to say yes, but to be the one who asks to begin with and asks clearly. I think, actually, most men need this.
And I need it too. I don’t get to own my sexual power by hoping a man will actually stare at my tits for once instead of my eyes when I’m talking.
It appears to me that Mars is finding its expression through Cliven Bundy, the rancher expressing his “rights” through a group of raging “partners”, which so far (as I am aware) has only been through words (air). It would fit in with transiting Mars’ squaring off with the establishment-government authority/power (Capricorn Pluto) and laws (Jupiter conjunct U.S. Sibly Sun in Cancer).
Addressing the “madness” that Mr. Bundy personifies through astrological aspects is a decile (36 degrees) between Uranus in Aries and Neptune in Pisces suggesting “determination of fixity of purpose” according to Frances Sakoian and Louis Acker in their book The Minor Aspects”. These people go on to tell us that the decile is one of a family of aspects that “is related to the occult and the use of the will”.
Other astrological symbols of madness are (of course!) the Moon and the asteroid Ophelia (from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”) who have Neptune’s back covered on his madness theme. Transiting Ophelia in Aries has recently been conjunct Uranus, opposite Mars and square both Pluto and Jupiter who make up the cardinal cross pattern. The Moon’s recent eclipse (conjunct Ceres the Earth Mother symbol), in the same degree where the Sun (consciousness) was at the time of last October’s lunar eclipse (25+ Libra), is a degree which squares the U.S. Sibly Mercury in Cancer and Pluto in Capricorn, and the U.S. Sibly PROGRESSED nodes, as well as President Obama’s Saturn in Capricorn.
As to the timing, the recent transit of centaur Nessus, having finally left his long conjunction to the U.S. Sibly Moon (the People), entered Pisces then formed a sextile to the transiting Sun when it entered Taurus to conjoin the TNO 1992 QB1 (threshold) on April 19-20. Following that, transiting Nessus then sextiled transiting Mercury entering Taurus on Wednesday (4/23) just as Mars was opposing Uranus and squaring Pluto, and just as Neptune moved into the next degree of Pisces symbolized by a girl blowing a bugle (“a call to participation in the service of the race, as an evolutionary crisis approaches”, as Dane Rudhyar says in An Astrological Mandala). Thus Nessus fulfilled the repetitious behavior associated with the centaurs.
Of the 4 planets making up the cardinal cross the most accessible (consciously) is Mars and on April 18th transiting asteroid Ophelia opposed transiting Mars as Cliven Bundy was speaking at a protest camp. At the time, the Sun was conjunct the (transiting) south node at 28+ Aries, and Neptune was still at 6+ Pisces (symbol of a large cross on the rocks). Clive Bundy’s natal Neptune is at 6+ Libra and transiting Neptune was quincunx it (forcing adjustment) on that day. Clive’s natal Jupiter (19+ Cancer) squares his natal Saturn (20+ Libra) which conjuncts the U.S. Sibly chart’s Juno (demands equality), the goddess who opposes the U.S. Chiron at 20+ Aries, where transiting Ophelia will be on May 4th. On May 4th transiting Mercury (20+ Taurus) having just conjoined the U.S. Sibly Vesta (19+ Taurus) opposes transiting retrograde Saturn (20+ Scorpio) who will trine Bundy’s Jupiter and oppose U.S. Vesta mid month. Bundy was born on April 29, 1946 and his Sun will be conjunct the solar eclipse on April 29, 2014.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/environmentalists-bunkerville-rancher-bundy-freeloading
Bundy’s birth data is at the end of the article. He has natal Mars at 3+ Leo square the Chiron discovery degree at 3+ Taurus where transiting Mercury was this morning.
be
Eric:
Exceedingly well-timed weekly. Today’s UK Guardian published an op-ed by Jaclyn Friedman encouraging young women to look into campus rape statistics before heading off to school.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/25/college-campus-rape-statistics-reporting
Here is an interview with her called: “Expanding Consent” for Harvard Magazine HBomb
https://hbombmag.wordpress.com/features/past-issues/expanding-consent-an-interview-with-jaclyn-friedman/
Working on our next show with Planned Parenthood, this is such rich stuff, period. Thanks, bro.
One thing that is a problem in our society is the “he said she said” way that men are accused of rape. With any crime that is prosecuted there should be physical evidence. It’s scary to know that a person’s life can be ruined by words.