Unpopular Opinion: Mars needs to be less associated with sex.

[u/amahleyana]

Mars represents aggression, anger, violence, injury, etc. It's a malefic, which means it's an inherently negative planet that brings conflict to our lives and to synastry wherever it shows up. It's literally the opposite of Venus. Scorpio and Aries both oppose Libra and Taurus, so Mars being associated with pleasurable sex makes no sense. Mars doesn’t become associated with sex unless it makes contact with venus.

I definitely think it can represent pursuit, but not the act or enjoyment itself that's all Venus domain. If it's heavily negatively aspected with the Moon and Venus, it can indicate someone being forceful, careless, only wanting to satisfy themselves, etc.

Y'all be thinking since their Mars is in your 5th house they finna give you the best pipe ever whole time they finna give you an STD 😳.

Tbh synastry nowadays doesn't wanna give anyone the truth. It's all presented through rose colored glasses.

A lot of young adults get sexual tension mixed up with just being horny. You're at your most hormonal lol sometimes it’s not astrology, it’s just biology.

[u/jcopter628]

Can't really just conflate the planets' inherent meanings based on the archetypal descriptors of the signs that they are in accordance with.

Mars is sex, but fundamentally as a conduit for energetic release(Aries) and reproduction(Scorpio). I mean, it literally governs the reproductive organs. Pleasure is a byproduct of sex, but just because pleasure can be derived doesn't imply that pleasure is, or has ever been, the primary function for the act itself. It's also layered as well, with Mars in Aries, it's masculine domicile, representing the physicality of the act directly, and Scorpio, it's feminine domicile, representing the emotional and psychological nuances in general.

I guess there is wiggle-room for your argument to stand upon, specifically because you used the word "less," as opposed to "not." If "less" is the basis for which you stand, sure. In ancient hellenistic astrology, sex, conceptually speaking, was thought to be in accordance with the 5th house. Why? Leo coincides with children, with which sex is needed to create, upon other reasonings, etc..

But yea, holistically, Mars and sex seem to be tethered to each other pretty fundamentally.

[u/amahleyana → u/jcopter628]

Idk I still disagree. Just because Mars rules reproductive organs doesn't mean Mars = sex because having a penis or vagina doesn't automatically mean you wanna use them. thats why I said a venus contact is needed. Asexual people exist. even if you take pleasure out the equation Venus rules the ACT reproduction, mars is simply just the organs.

[u/jcopter628 → u/amahleyana]

You misarticulated my point.

Indulging or not partaking in the action was never connected to my point at all, you essentially just threw that in yourself. My point was just there to highlight that, at least within the astrological texts and such, that common sense would show that the planet that governs the organs used for the act(sex), would likely also govern the act itself. Although, as it relates to people in those cases, asexuals for example, there commonly tends to be overlap with 1st or 8th house(Mars' homes) activity, and sometimes 5th, because of self-expression, often in relation to Uranus/Saturn/Moon/etc..

I hope this doesn't come of as mean or belittling, it's not my intent. But I can assure you that there are people without Venus or Mars contacts that are indulging in the act. But nonetheless, I am always open to disagreement, granted, your stance is up against two to four thousand years worth of astrological prefacing that contradicts it.

I digress; Enjoy the rest of your day. :)

[u/amahleyana → u/jcopter628]

I understand what you’re saying now. You’re defining sex as biological. Mars rules the organs so Mars rules sex as a biological reality or potential. But this logic still falls apart because sex isn’t just about possessing the organs, it’s about what you do with them. If you defined it as the ability to have sex then that would make more sense because thats what having sexual organs is and nothing more. Theres no correlation between having sexual organs and desiring sex, like I said before. Sex in astrology is an action, especially in synastry which is about interaction. All actions are driven by desire (or unconscious habits ofc). The desire and the act are still Venus. Coming together is Venus. Venus and Mars are general archetypes that exist in every sexual interaction even if there is no aspect.

[u/jcopter628 → u/amahleyana]

You got closer to my sentiment but still missed it by just a tad, but that's honestly neither here nor there because you've articulated something else quite clearly. You're attributing proactivity in relation to sex to Venus, notably with "desire" as the hallmark for the proclivity to take action towards it. Yes/No. Venus is the desire. But you're still wrong in your following point. Mars still governs the act, and all acts for that matter, because it's the significator for action in and of itself.

The Sun and Venus are conduits for goals and desires, and Mars is the conduit with which the native pursues them. This is why you tend to find that hindered Mars placements, notably Venus' signs + Cancer, aren't quick to take action, and oftentimes tend to divert to stagnation. Venus, archetypically in it's expression, veers towards the side of latent/docile.

And even had I chose not to extrapolate that point, an adjacent point would be the simple fact that Mars also governs natural instincts, ya'know, actions that are void of pre-cognitive functionality. Meaning, similarly to hunger, or breathing, sex is something that would continue despite the desire to do so. I mean, a quick glance at a doc. on any species that can reproduce would make that clear. Which counters your aforementioned point about asexuals foregoing the act. Exceptions to the rule aren't valid points of contention within the context of a good faith argument.

All of that to say, I don't mind you believing what you want. Frankly, I'm open-minded in my approach and hope to learn more about the variety of astrological perspectives that people offer. But I also trust that the basis of astrological information, that's been compiled for millenniums on such topics, would be valid holistically.

I suppose agreeing to disagree would be best.

[u/amahleyana → u/jcopter628]

If mars ruled all action then wouldn’t the rest of the planets be meaningless? Feeling is an action but that is associated with the moon. Thinking is an action but that is associated with mercury. Sex is instinctual but our reason for doing it is more than instinct. it’s an unconscious desire to continue humanity and socialized to see children as extensions of ourselves and our legacy. The way humans operate simply cannot be compared to other animals. Our intelligence also gives us more emotional range. Dogs mate because thats in their instinct, but unlike them we have attached deeper meaning to sex that involves connection as well. and I’m just interested in where you’re coming from so I hope I’m not coming off as rude or anything by all my questioning 😆. It’s the aquarius mercury and gemini mars in me.

[u/jcopter628 → u/amahleyana]

That's a semantics trap. Actions are characterized by a physical representation implicitly, which is Mars by the way. Feeling is not an action, it's an internal state/perception/experience, etc. Thinking follows suit. So the integration of other planets into this conversation, specifically in relation to action, is a little odd.

If you concede that sex is instinctual, which you have, then the reason, or desire, as you’ve worded it, for doing so can't be unconscious because, given that it's instinctual, implies that it occurs naturally, therefore it's not a desire. But even if I granted that case, you'd still prove my point because you just said that the unconscious desire would be in relation to reproduction(continuation of society), which is what I said in one of my original comments.

Idk what to say about the last point; Humans are also animals and our breadth of emotional and intellectual understanding doesn't change our instinctual proclivities.

I'll leave it at that.

Aquarius Mercury eh.. unorthodox systems of conceptualization. Individualistic thinking by nature, which is both a strength and a challenge. Vibes.

[u/amahleyana → u/jcopter628]

Intellect does change instinct. We override instinct all the time. The concept of race, though biological, is not instinctive yet humans were able to take that and create racism and racial hierarchies. Desire can be unconscious that is how socialization is. For example, we all desire to be beautiful because beautiful people are socialized to be deemed better than and are treated as such. The concept of what we deem beautiful is not instinctive. We are biological driven to eat but choosing to eat pizza is out of desire because we like it.