. . .

Good morning,

My intention is neither a- nor anti-religious nor -moral but rather to point out that such phenomena, like all others, are subject to appearance and disappearance, thus only relatively less transient than phenomena of even shorter duration.

It seems appropriate to distinguish amongst various levels of social behaviour. Assuming a patriarchal social environment at least outwardly demanding strict monogamous behaviour (a very rare phenomenon amongst species, not exhibited by any primates) from both human sexes, one can ask whether and to what extent there is corresponding inner identification and commitment to such norms by the members of such a society. If not, taking such vows amounts to a simple formality without intention of compliance. Generally, behaviour slightly 'below the surface', often called 'hypocritical', is quite different from official norms.

Official norms are occasionally abrogated, for example in Christian Germany after 1648 where polygamy was permitted and encouraged to restore the population decimated in the 30 Years War.

In the case of traditional patriarchal Islamic society, for example, things are even more complex due to the permission, even encouragement of polygamy for males, legality for both sexes to own slaves, and, amongst certain significant minorities, permission and encouragement of temporary marriages by both males and females.

In classical, patriarchal Hellenistic civilisation, free citizens, especially males, were, except for coercion, usually free to unfold their sexuality, the ideal apparently having been active bi-sexuality, although the passive role in male homosexual relations was considered inferior to the active one. Females, if they were qualified by nature and so inclined, could become highly respected, wealthy courtesans.

In ancient Egyptian society the ideal marriage was considered to be between sister and brother, 'hierogamy', this best preserving the qualities of physical and material inheritance. Hierogamy was practised, especially amongst nobility, until the end of the Ptolemaic dynasty. It was forbidden by the later Roman rulers.

In originally matriarchal Mesopotamian society, women were Priestesses and High Priestesses of Ishtar (Aprhodite). Sexual relationships with them were a vital part of the worship of this Goddess.

If one considers for a moment the other side of the coin, one finds that acts considered the most heinous crimes in civilian life become deeds of heroism in warfare.

Even amongst the seven planets visible to unaided human sight, there are endless combinations and permutations of positions. This kalaidoscope is reflected in human societies with their myriad variations of morals, customs, behaviours, religions, etc. Fascinating!

Best regards,

lihin

Hmm...so how does the diversity of sexual norms across cultures prevent the prediction of potential unfaithfulness?

Is your issue with the word "unfaithfulness" itself where monogamy is assumed as the moral standard?

I do not think that an astrologer should delineate unfaithfulness without the permission and request of the querent, but I think that if it is being requested it is a valid issue. In this case, it is prudent to discuss about the indicators of unfaithfulness, especially because we wouldn't want to make a false accusation and destroy a hitherto honest, monogamous relationship.


Would like to hear your thoughts,

~Larxene<3~

i have been following this thread with interest and enjoyment.

i think context is relevant which is how i view lihin's comments as wanting to emphasize. i especially liked Geoffrey's initial response to the thread mentioning how lihin is being dumped on and giving the example of "christian" in the title of lillys book 'christian astrology'.. this was followed with a link from nixx highlighting the same thinking thanks to Frawley..which came first? lol.. good stuff either way! all and all it forces ( or not) a person to consider the cultural context values and ideals are held within which i think is an important exercise for astrologers of all stripes to consider..

as for unfaithfulness in relationships in a contemporary context, i think it is a good question to ask of what the astro signatures if any, are... my own thought on this is some sort of venus/saturn hard aspect and mostly a problem to do with saturn in connection to relating to others. however, i also believe saturn can be very loyal and steadfast depending on how everything is connected in a chart.. these are just some simple astro ideas i would consider.. soft verses hard aspect between mars/venus might be another area to consider. i am not sure what the traditional and ancient authorities say, other then the examples cited up above..

. . .

kirk,
perhaps it hinges on whether saturn is operating in a good or bad sense.. i think it is sometimes difficult to tell just off the chart..
cheers james

. . .

Good morning,

If one read the definitions of 'faith' at Wiktionary, one finds no reference to sexual morals. In the definitions of 'faithful', monogamous conduct is the last of 5 definitions, in those of 'unfaithful', adultery likewise the last of five.

If mutual sincere intent is involved in pledges, their non-observance without duress is a breach of fidelity, vows of sexual behaviour within the framework of the given society being one amongst many examples.

Since the restricted meanings of 'unfaithfulness' and even more so of 'cheating' in this thread have usually presupposed (heterosexual?) monogamy (by the way there are at least two types: 1. lifetime sole sexual mate and 2. sequential exclusive sexual mates) of both sexes as the norm, may they be deemed suboptimal in the context of astrology?

Best regards,

lihin

Dear lihin,

I take it you find the delineation of "unfaithfulness" suboptimal because people can have different understandings of the word due to individual, cultural, whatever-al differences and imperatives?

If so, then perhaps you can suggest to the author to define unfaithfulness before asking for delineative techniques.

However, for those people who really are searching for techniques to determine whether a potential partner might be or might end up having sexual intercourse with another person whilst committed to a monogamous relationship, the answers to this question are indeed very optimal.


~Larxene<3~

Good afternoon,

IF, in a specific astrological consultation setting, astrologer and client(s) agree with defining 'unfaithfulness' as any sexual relations by either males or females other than strict heterosexual monogamy (lifelong or sequential), why should one object?

Generalisation of such a definition is quite a different matter. Moreover, the underlying Hellenistic and / or Mediaeval astrological doctrines may well not be based on this definition. To apply it anyway may lead to material astrological misreadings.

Another significant part of the question would be whether adoption of such a definition might obscure the participants' views of assumptions and / or recognitions of major illusions about human behaviour, the delusions from which might be experienced quite painfully. Extreme 'virtue' can be vicious.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello lihin,


"Moreover, the underlying Hellenistic and/or Mediaeval astrological doctrines may well not be based on this definition. To apply it anyway may lead to material astrological misreadings."

That is correct, which is why one needs to read the text on which the technique is based and furnish it with the correct context, which should be available in the original text. Indeed, cgreen did state that he read about Lilly's method and asked about what forumers read about unfaithfulness.


"Extreme 'virtue' can be vicious."

The problem is, what is moderate and what is extreme? What is extreme in one ethical system may not be extreme in another. And you and I probably know from experience that different people follow different systems, and to different degrees.


"...whether adoption of such a definition might obscure the participants' views of assumptions and/or recognitions of major illusions about human behaviour, the delusions from which might be experienced quite painfully."

However, it is not up to the astrologer to decide whether the underlying assumptions are the 'correct' ones or not. See my previous point.

Consider this: a person who doesn't follow a sexual monogamy paradigm probably wouldn't ask such a question anyway. It is for those under this paradigm that the technique is relevant. Should we refuse such requests?

Lihin, I see your point regarding the latent patriarchal underpinnings of many medieval and classical works. I agree that much of what is written in these texts, you cite Lilly in particular, sounds somewhat 'sex-negative.'

However, I don't think a matriarchal 'reinterpretation' is necessary. The aphorisms apply to men and women equally.

Really what they are referring to with these Venus/Mars configurations is the predilection of the native to lie or be dishonest regarding sexual matters. This is because most individuals (but obviously not ALL individuals) value transparency in their interpersonal relationships.

There are some people whose nativities sort of 'encourage' them to be opaque rather than transparent regarding their relations. I'm not judging this...just commenting that one can't really expect a native born with Venus strongly configured with Mars, or vice versa, to live up to the ideal of transparency.

The problem is when one person expects something of the other person...and the other person cannot fulfill this expectation.

Again, no one is at fault here. It could be that individuals with 'lecherous' nativities are here to teach us some very important lessons!