No Uterus

[Jim Eshelman]

There was no editorial comment... no answer from the editor. Just the original letter. In the October 1973 issue of American Astrology, a woman signing herself "Puzzled Piscean" from Atlanta, GA wrote the following:

...I was hoping you could shed light on my problem... I was born March 13, 1949, approximately 5:00 A.M. CST, 33N31, 86W49. So, as you can see, I am 24 years old, and I've never had a menstrual cycle.

I was born without a uterus, but my ovaries are in fine shape. I have headaches often, which a doctor later attributed to an allergy. My parents have four daughters and my maternal grandmother did also. So far, I have not been able to trace a similar case in my family.

Doctors cannot explain why; they only tell me it is not there. If someone could explain it to me in astrological terms, I would certainly appreciate knowing something. Thanks for printing such a fine magazine - and count me as a fan from now on.

Here is her natal chart with mundoscope. Just take a look! The astrological pattern leaps off the chart at a single glance!


This time, the health dynamic is not in the background but immediately across the horizon. I think the difference is that this is not a condition that developed over time from the suppression (inexpression) of a strong character dynamic, but was something innate in the birth.

You can start at either end of the horizon. My eye landed on the rising Mercury first, minutes from Ascendant in longitude and extremely close in mundo. What better reflection of androgyny could one want in a woman than that she be born without a uterus.

And that Mercury opposes a Moon-Saturn conjunction in a traditionally barren constellation on Descendant. A simple meaning is: "Not a mother." There may be psychodynamics leading into a from this, but the simple symbolism obvious enough: The physical body is marked by distinctive androgeny, and it is tied into a suppressive, pregnancy-blocking Moon-Saturn conjunction.

And that's not all: The mundoscope makes clear that Pluto is closely setting. Not only are Saturn 2°57' above and 2°02' below Descendant even more barren, the addition of Pluto makes her a medical outlier, a puzzling one-in-a-million situation.

There isn't a background hard aspect of any kind, so that wasn't going to give this expression. There wasn't anything in Aries (I'd have been very tickled to see Saturn in Aries on an angle,but it's not there). There is just Mercury rising closely opposite Saturn - and, more widely, Moon-Saturn plus Pluto - on Descendant.

Astrology is quite cool

[Venus_Daily]

Funny story, I thought this might just be bias confirmation, but I've met a few men with Mercury angular, especially on the ASC who complain about having a small penis. Especially if Mercury be in Capricorn or Aries.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Astrology is quite cool

Indeed, Sidereal Astrology is the coolest thing I have ever discovered in my entire life. I am very fortunate to have crossed paths with Sidereal Astrology and one of the best teachers ever, Mr. Jim Eshelman.