Today is Friday, June 24, 2011. The Moon is in Aries all day, and enters Taurus on Saturday at 4:53 pm EDT. Before it gets there, it will make a square aspect (90 degrees) to Mercury in Cancer. This brings up an old question: when you have a thought, how do you know it’s your intuition speaking? How do you know you’re not being paranoid, or just wrong? And what if your ‘mind’ says one thing and your ‘intuition’ says another thing? How many times do you have to check that your door is locked before you figure out that it’s not your intuition telling you that it’s still unlocked (the official answer is 14-1/2 times)?
Moon square Mercury is one of those aspects that seems to put the feeling body into a tense relationship with the thinking mind. Yet with a square, it’s not a question of either/or — remember that in case you’re bugging out over one. It’s a question of working with each side of the equation until you have an answer that satisfies both. This goes for the squares in your natal chart, and it goes for the squares that are cruising by in the transiting sky. I think rather than have a theoretical debate with yourself, it’s better to assess the facts, then see what they add up to logically and then see what they add up to when you ‘feel’ their implications. Then if something is really important, check the facts again. I can tell you this, with both Venus and Mars in Gemini, there are a lot of different opinions in there; a lot of opinions buzzing around. Heck, even your opinions have opinions, and some have an attitude.
The thing with personal planets in Gemini is that it makes excellent fodder for conversation. Venus and Mars, though both in Gemini, are in decidedly different moods, or maybe it’s modes. Venus is moving into a square with Juno; she may may be willing to confront her own jealousy, which is really insecurity. Venus is not just jealous, she can be in conflict over it. Who better for a jealousy therapy session than the great Queen of Heaven? Meanwhile Mars is moving into a square with Chiron. Mars is creeping along, and that square is not exact till Tuesday, June 28 — however, while the aspect is forming, the inner pressure is building, and that pressure seems to be about a question over masculinity. Here is a positively brilliant slab of bullshit I came across, or rather, discovered, a few hours ago that excellently perpetuates all of the usual misunderstandings of the whole male-female thing. I mean, switch or knob? Iron or light bulb? People are people; we all have our questions, our doubts, our hungers. Meanwhile as I write this on Thursday night, the New York State Senate is quibbling about marriage equity, with the Republicans heaping on lots of amendments that they can purchase for the bargaining power of this law.
Look around and there will be all kinds of Venus and Mars discussions over the next few days — particularly as the Sun continues to make aspects all weekend. Remember all of them? Sextile Jupiter, square Uranus, opposite Pluto, and on and on? If you’re burning with curiosity about this, check out Planet Waves FM from this week (I will put the little ‘play’ arrow below). It’s all very interesting; just remember, all talk and no action makes both Jack and Jill rather dull.
PS, hey, for Planet Waves FM podcast fans, please don’t miss the letter below about helping us out with iTunes reviews. Thanks!
“I am especially tweaked by this notion of how simple men are, compared to women (even stick shift versus souflée). The comparison is false.”
I have to agree, based on my own experiences (though not vast, they are rather varied and somewhat numerous). The men I have been with were anything BUT simple. They were not the stereotype “ever-ready” sex machines most people think men are and they DID have complicated preferences and sophisticated drives and desires. While I cannot speak for all women, I have times when my desires are simple and I have an easily turned-on switch and other times I am complicated and need a lot more. So I would say the simple-vs complicated thing depends on the moment, situation, hormones, stress levels, libido, personalities and social mores and expectations, NOT on gender.
Yet the article did seem to try to make those points in a rather gentle way so it is not bullshit; more like a start. I think I would have worded it clearer but then I can be a bit blunt and that puts people off.
I have to tell you, that the comment section of PW is my favorite ……everyone has great come/backs…..coming from personal experience I would presume. I read the first couple of sentences of the article….enough to get the flavor of it anyway….my whole deal is….why do we have to be placed in a group….and who decides who is in the group/category…..and I wonder if these same people feel the same way they did during the study. I can tell you at least 93 times I have Identified with this group or that…at the time I was feeling exactly that way…now I say
what ever the case may be…coming from experience, we pick up a signature…identify…and shit…can’t change now..Im the leader of the Band….even though the orchestra is secretly feeling the same way…….My sister came out some years back after years of the straight life……however now, she says she could never be attracted to a man….however I have SEEN her and felt her vibes when she is around a few….but if she said that….well then she would not be a true lesbian…and its sad really….because she is an activist for change…..I have been attracted to gay men….however if they were to even admit the slightest bit of attraction…..OMG!!!what would their peeps say……point being…why limit ourselves…and why let others limit us….Love is Love…In reference to the article, I sappose when standing in front of your local grocery store with a survey…..who responds and are they saying what they really feel…..or maybe thats how they have perceived things….matter of opinion…everyone has one:)
Peace and Love,
Patricia
I was pretty radicalized (again) by the book Sex at Dawn, which takes apart those stereotypes so well that they make Santa Claus look plausible. This is not just sociology; for example, DNA testing of animals proves that monogamy in male and female beings exists as a kind of freak of nature, not what most critters actually do every day. And — here is a good one — the species that tend toward monogamy are the ones who are not so interested in sex at all.
I would point out one other thing about the article in question: I don’t see the word, or the concept, of masturbation anywhere. And if we have one vast, sweeping common ground, that’s the one. And I think the content of people’s erotic fantasies is equally or waaaaay more important than what they tell us that they do, or say they want to do.
Somehow this keeps getting left out of the conversation. It’s so…er…slippery that we barely even notice. The other missing notion is bisexuality. The whole piece is framed in heteronormataive.
I do agree that I missed the author’s point; however, something else is giving me the chills.
i’m with half and burning river on this one; the article’s author, ian kerner, frames the myths and stereotypes as things he’s questioning, and his conclusion is that both that men can be more complex and that women can be simpler when it comes to sex — all depending on the individual and, more importantly, on the particular interaction and context at hand. that is, he makes the point that even one individual will not approach or respond to sex the same way every time.
i can understand the frustration with couching this conclusion in the very myths you think are bullshit, but when you’re talking to a population who is familiar with those myths, it does give a point of contact to start from — and then move away from.
incidentally, i own two books by kerner, but have not looked at either in 4 or 5 years. i should give them another look and see if my own personal sexual evolution elicits a different response toward their viewpoints. it may even be that kerner himself has evolved a bit since writing those two books.
Perhaps I misunderstood (on reread, it’s a more balanced piece than I got in my original impression), but any time I read about how men are turned on like a switch, my bullshit detector goes on like a switch. It works faster than my dick; both are in good shape. I think, however, the whole notion that men and women are so different is nearly entirely a social construction. Everyone is different, and gender lines are not, in my view, a meaningful line of differentiation. But those supposed differentiations are used to foster psychological games based on false prejudices. We are all waiting for a real conversation about sex, ongoing.
I’ve listened to more people tell me about sex than many of these “researchers” combined. And everyone is different. I am especially tweaked by this notion of how simple men are, compared to women (even stick shift versus souflée). The comparison is false. This is in part true because women are studied to death and men are largely ignored. I will give one example. I don’t think that most men have orgasms. They physically might ejaculate, and have an emotional hiccup, but for many it’s not actually an orgasm. Not unless you’ve actually had a few, or a few different kinds, is the difference obvious, or the potential for one — and the only place you might hear about that is a new age tantric sex conference.
The article, to me, seemed to be based on the same old tired narrative of “women are complex, men are simple/simpler” and “women are monogaous and men spread their seed.” The moment I read that and it’s not questioned, I would rather shovel compost.
To quote the end of the article you called bullshit:
“So is your sexuality like a light switch that goes on and off, or like a dimmer or volume knob that operates on a spectrum? More than likely, whether you’re a man or a woman, it’s both: You can be both switch or knob depending upon the context.
And sometime you’re probably a complex souflee. In their book on “Why Women Have Sex,” the authors found that women had sex for approximately 237 reasons, ranging from love to pure pleasure to a sense of duty to curiosity to curing a headache.
Why do men have sex? I haven’t counted all the reasons men have sex, I bet I could get up to 237.”
I don’t get the bullshit part. It seems they are moving into the direction of the reality of “maleness” and “femaleness” being inherent in each human being, and they are using “science” to veruify it, so that makes the “audience” feel “safer” to start understanding the truth. I feel this article is a step in the right direction.
<< Eric, it would seem that you baulk against the normative signatures evidenced in the style? >>
Half, what do you mean?
???????”Positively brilliant slab of bullshit”???????
I read the whole article. It makes concessions to a populist audience in terms of style deployed. It is surely limited in its use of analytical lens. But it has the merit of attempting to account for a cross section of consensus on the normative experience of male/female sexual interactions/politics.
Eric, it would seem that you baulk against the normative signatures evidenced in the style?
But, in terms of content, if we look at how normative responses to sexual politics are tackled, it is clear that common experience is addressed and that up-to-date theories of neuro-science inform the psychological take. If anything, the article has a structure of setting the myths up gently and then calling them into question equally gently.
Perhaps this is the more subversive path? A sledgehammer not being used to crack a nut? Although arguably, subtlety may not work very well on the candidate audience…
I enjoyed it though! 🙂
“with both Venus and Mars in Mercury,”
This is really funny! Talk about moon square Mercury!
“Today is Thursday, June 24, 2011.”
Actually, it is Friday, June 24th. Just thought I would mention that. :::giggling:::