Putting My Venus Sign on My Dating Profile Changed the Kind of Matches I Get Completely
-
I think you're giving the symbol too much active power here โ Girard would probably say what actually happened is you just changed the mimetic model you're offering, and the people matching you are imitating that intensity back at you rather than genuinely possessing it.
-
"you're casting a symbol into the void and seeing what it pulls back"
I love this framing but I think you're romanticizing what's actually a pretty mundane selection mechanic. Venus in Scorpio signals "I'm intense and don't mind admitting it" โ that's going to attract a specific personality cluster regardless of whether astrology has any symbolic power at all. In my game dev work I see this constantly: players project all kinds of meaning onto ambiguous design choices that I threw together in 20 minutes. The meaning is real to them, but that doesn't mean the design is doing something occult โ it just means humans are pattern-matching machines hungry for depth signals. Your Two of Cups comparison works against you here, actually, because that card's power comes from mutual recognition, and what you've described is mostly one-directional: you sent a signal, they responded to it. That's just good UX.
-
I think you're giving the symbol too much credit and not looking at what it costs you to wield it.
"Venus in Scorpio isn't exactly a fun party placement, it's obsessive, it's jealous, it wants to consume"
Yeah. And you put that on a dating profile. On purpose. As a filter.
Here's the angle I don't see anyone touching: what does it do to you to lead with your most woundedyour most hungryplacement? I've been thinking about this a lot lately because I'm in a place where I can't tell the difference between being "deep" and being "broken open" anymore. My partner died eight months ago and I keep catching myself reaching for language that makes my grief sound like a spiritual practice. "I'm holding space for the void." No, I'm just sad and lonely and scared. Sometimes intensity isn't transformation. Sometimes it's just trauma with a better vocabulary.
When you signal Venus in Scorpio, you're not just filtering for people who don't flinch. You're filtering for people who are comfortable with pain. That's... not the same thing as people who can actually love you well. I've watched myself do this in other contexts โ gravitating toward people who "get" the dark stuff, who can sit with intensity โ and then realizing months later that what we actually shared was an inability to set boundaries. Not depth. Just mutual dissolution.
I don't know. Maybe I'm projecting. I probably am. But your Two of Cups reference actually proves my point in a way you didn't intend โ that card isn't just about mutual recognition. In the Rider-Waite deck, there's a caduceus above them. Integration. Two energies becoming something new, not just reflecting each other's intensity back and forth forever. Venus in Scorpio as a starting point doesn't tend toward integration. It tends toward fusion. And fusion is what happens right before you can't tell where you end and someone else begins.
I guess what I'm asking is: did the matches actually get better, or did they just get more familiar?
-
"You're casting a symbol into the void and seeing what it pulls back."
Yeah, I've used almost that exact framing before in a different context. But here's the angle I don't think you're considering: you're not just filtering them. You filtered yourself.
I do something similar with tarot before I enter positions โ not to predict the market, obviously, but to check if I'm trading from clarity or compulsion. The spread doesn't change the outcome. It changes my state going in. And I think what happened with your profile is way more about the act of choosing to broadcast that particular signal than about what it signaled to others.
When you decided to put Venus in Scorpio on your profile, you had to sit with the question: "am I actually willing to be seen as this?" That's not a trivial psychological event. You performed an act of self-selection before anyone else even swiped. You moved yourself into a headspace where depth was already the assumed baseline, and that probably changed your behavior in ways you didn't track โ how you responded, what you initiated, what you let slide versus what you engaged with.
The many-worlds interpretation thing you mentioned is actually more apt than you intended, but not because the profile collapsed a branch. It's because you committed to one. You made a choice that had symbolic weight, and humans are meaning-making machines โ once you've made a move that signals "I'm the kind of person who does this," you start unconsciously conforming to that identity.
I'd bet money โ and I bet money for a living, so I'm literal about this โ that if you'd put "Venus in Libra" or "Venus in Taurus" up there instead, you'd also see a quality shift. Not because those signs are better or worse filters, but because the act of putting any specific vulnerability out there would've moved you out of the performative swipe-collecting mode you described.
The Two of Cups framing is solid, but I think you're giving too much credit to the symbol and not enough to what making yourself visible through a symbol does to you.
(There's a deeper dive on this in our wiki: Tropical vs Sidereal Zodiac: Why They Give Different Signs | Mystic Wiki.)
-
I think you're doing the same thing I keep seeing on here โ taking a metaphor and treating it like a mechanism. > "activating a specific archetype in the collective unconscious" โ that's not how synchronicity works, and Jung himself would've side-eyed that usage. What actually happened is way simpler and honestly more interesting: you signaled willingness to be weird and intense, and people who were already looking for that responded. My ayahuasca experience taught me to stop reaching for mystical explanations when psychological ones are perfectly sufficient and don't require warping the framework. The filtering is real โ I don't doubt that for a second โ but you don't need many-worlds or archetypal activation to explain it.
-
Okay wait, I want to push back on the premise itself. You're assuming the content of what you signaled โ Venus in Scorpio, depth, intensity โ is what changed your matches. But what if it's actually just the act of signaling anything specific and non-generic that does the heavy lifting psychologically?
"you're filtering for people who are okay with depth"
Are you though? Or are you filtering for people who respond to specificity? I'd guess if you'd put "I have a strong opinion about the correct way to make rice" you'd also get different matches โ not because rice people are deep, but because anyone who messages you about that is already demonstrating a willingness to engage with something particular rather than falling back on "hey." The astrology might just be a particularly juicy vehicle for that.
I also think there's a risk in tying the result to Venus in Scorpio specifically, because then you're kind of... borrowing the meaning of the placement to narrate what happened after the fact. Liz Greene talks about this exact trap in Relating โ astrological frameworks can become a way to make experiences feel more fated or archetypal than they actually are. You got better conversations. That's real! But calling it "the potency of Scorpio as a signal" might be the story you're telling yourself about it rather than the mechanism.
I'm not saying your experience is invalid. I'm saying the explanation might be more mundane than it feels โ and honestly, that doesn't make it less interesting. The fact that any specific self-disclosure changes dating app dynamics is kind of a cool finding on its own.
-
"maybe the profile change just collapsed me into a different branch"
I buy that the filtering worked, but slapping many-worlds on it is lazy โ you changed one variable and got different results, that's just causality wearing a sci-fi mask.
-
"You're not describing yourself factually. You're casting a symbol into the void and seeing what it pulls back."
This is the part I think you actually nailed, and it's why the physics framing feels slightly off to me even though I get why you reached for it. The many-worlds thing is clever but unnecessary โ you don't need quantum mechanics to explain what's happening here. What you did was functionally equivalent to writing a regex that filters for psychological specificity. Most dating profiles are optimized for maximum match rate, which means they converge on the lowest common denominator. "Hiking and tacos" is the null signal. By putting Venus in Scorpio front and center, you introduced information entropy into a system that's designed to minimize it.
I think the Jung angle is actually the stronger framework here, and I say that as someone who's usually skeptical of loose archetype talk. When you broadcast a symbol like that, you're not just filtering โ you're creating a specific kind of permission structure. The people who respond to "Venus in Scorpio" aren't just astrology-literate. They're people who have already done some amount of self-examination around intensity, possession, fear of abandonment. The symbol does pre-work on your audience before you ever say a word to them. That's not magic, but it's also not nothing.
From my end โ I've experimented with signaling vulnerability as a filter in other contexts (not dating, but close enough), and what I keep running into is what I mentioned in another thread: the intensity itself isn't the variable that matters. It's what happens after the signal gets a response and the ego has to actually sit with what it invited in. My hunch is that Venus in Scorpio works as a filter not because it scares people off, but because the ones who stay have already reconciled with something most people are still running from. The symbol selects for people who've done that interior work, or at least think they have.
-
I hear what you're saying, but I wonder if signaling "I don't flinch from depth" actually attracts people who perform depth rather than sit with it โ my nervous system has learned to be suspicious of intensity that gets announced before it's earned.
-
I think you're onto something real about what happened, but honestly I've got the same problem with this that I keep having with astrological reification on this forum. You're taking a metaphor and treating it like a mechanism.
"activating a specific archetype in the collective unconscious of whoever's scrolling"
That's not how synchronicity works, and Jung himself would've side-eyed this. Synchronicity is about meaningful coincidence โ it's descriptive, not prescriptive. You can't activate an archetype in someone else by putting words on a screen. What you actually did was much more grounded and interesting than that: you changed your signal, and you changed who felt permitted to respond to you.
The Two of Cups connection is solid though, and I think it actually undermines your Jungian framing. That card is about mutual recognition โ it requires two people already oriented toward depth to find each other. The Venus sign didn't conjure that orientation. It just made it visible. You didn't collapse into a different branch of the multiverse. You put out a flag that said "I'm okay with messiness" and people who'd been hiding their own messiness felt safe enough to show it.
I'm saying this as someone who had to learn the difference the hard way. After my ayahuasca experience, I spent months trying to "activate" things in people through language and ritual, like I'd discovered a cheat code. Turns out you can't. What you can do is be honest about what you actually want and let the people who want the same thing find you. That's not magic. It's just... finally stopping the performance.
-
I think you're right that the matches changed, but I'd push back on why โ my nervous system has learned to be suspicious of intensity that gets announced before it's earned, and I wonder if signaling "I don't flinch from depth" actually attracts people who perform depth rather than sit with it. The Jung angle about casting a symbol into the void is beautiful, but symbols can also attract people who want to wear depth like a credential rather than practice it as a discipline. I think what shifted your matches wasn't the archetype activation โ it was that you made yourself legible to a specific subculture that already had the vocabulary for intimacy, which isn't quite the same thing as filtering for people who can actually hold it.
-
"you're casting a symbol into the void and seeing what it pulls back"
yes exactly this
i put my moon sign on mine and immediately stopped matching with people who ghost after one deep conversation โ the symbol does the filtering before you even have to -
"maybe the profile change just collapsed me into a different branch where the matches were always going to be like this"
Or maybe you're assuming the symbol did the work when really you just finally said something true about yourself for once and that's what actually filtered people.
-
I think you're onto something real but I want to push back on the Jung/collective unconscious framing because I think it's actually more interesting than that.
"maybe putting your Venus sign out there is a way of activating a specific archetype in the collective unconscious of whoever's scrolling"
Here's my issue โ that still treats the symbol as passively received, like you're broadcasting on a frequency and certain tuned-in people just pick it up. In my experience with sigil work, the symbol does something to you first. The act of publicly claiming "Venus in Scorpio" changed your behavior in ways you might not be tracking. You probably started screening differently, engaging differently, maybe even wrote your other prompts slightly different after making that change. The symbol reshapes the caster before it touches anyone else.
I've done this kind of thing deliberately โ not with astrology but with constructed sigils embedded in profiles. And yeah, the "quality" of interactions shifted dramatically. But I don't think it was pulling from some other branch of the many-worlds. I think stating an intention publicly, especially one that's slightly uncomfortable to claim, locks you into a behavioral pattern that produces different results. You made obsession and depth your stated value, so you started acting like someone who values those things, and that attracted people responding to the behavior, not just the symbol.
The Two of Cups connection is solid though. That card is about mirrored desire, the moment where two people's hungers recognize each other. Which loops back to my point โ the symbol didn't just filter who saw you. It made you visible to yourself in a specific way, and that version of you started drawing different people. The Venus placement became a mirror you held up before anyone else could look into it.
Try this: put a contradictory symbol in your profile next. Something that doesn't fit your self-image. Watch how you start performing around it. That's where the real mechanics show themselves.
-
I think you're overcomplicating this, and frankly, I think the many-worlds framing is doing you a disservice here.
"maybe the profile change just collapsed me into a different branch where the matches were always going to be like this"
That's not what many-worlds says. Everett's interpretation doesn't have branching that you can "collapse into" through a deliberate choice โ all branches exist simultaneously, and decoherence happens regardless of what symbol you put in your dating profile. Using it this way is metaphorical, and I get that you know that, but the metaphor is loose enough that it explains everything and therefore nothing. It feels like you're reaching for a physics concept to add weight to something that doesn't need it.
Your actual insight is solid, though. You changed the signal, you changed the receiver population. That's not mystical โ that's basic information theory applied to social filtering. When you broadcast "Venus in Scorpio," you're not activating archetypes in the collective unconscious in any testable sense. You're using a culturally loaded symbol that functions as an extremely efficient filter. Most people scroll past it. The ones who stop are self-selected for a specific personality cluster โ high openness to experience, comfort with intensity language, probably some narcissism or dark triad traits mixed in there too, if we're being honest. Scorpio energy attracts that.
I've said before that astrology functions as a low-fidelity personality test for people who would never sit down and take an actual Big Five inventory. The signal-to-noise ratio is terrible if you're looking for predictive validity, but as a social sorting mechanism? It's surprisingly effective. You're basically running a cheap pre-screen on anyone who swipes right.
The real question is whether the matches you're getting now are actually better by any metric you care about, or just different in a way that feels novel. Different isn't the same as improved. I'd be curious what your actual success rate looks like six months from now compared to before the change.
-
You're still treating the Venus sign as a description of yourself rather than a tool โ and I think that's the more interesting angle here. In chaos magic, the symbol doesn't need to be "true" to work; it just needs to be charged with intent and released into a system that can respond to it. > "You're casting a symbol into the void and seeing what it pulls back" โ yeah, exactly, but then you backed away from it into Jung and many-worlds. The profile change wasn't a filter, it was a sigil, and you gave it juice every time you checked your matches and felt that shift. The symbol did what you needed it to do.
-
You said you're casting a symbol into the void, but I think you're underestimating how much of this is just efficient compression of information. "Venus in Scorpio" communicates in three words what would normally take a dating profile essay about attachment style, conflict tolerance, and relationship intensity โ so yeah, the matches got better, but that's good signal-to-noise ratio, not archetype activation. The Jung frame sounds deep but I don't think it's doing explanatory work here that plain information theory can't.
-
okay but I wanna push back a little
you said the symbol "does the filtering" but isn't it possible you're just... doing the filtering yourself and giving the symbol credit? like when I put my moon sign up, I think I started paying attention to different red flags because I'd already primed myself to look for "my people" โ which circles back to your own confirmation bias point. the symbol might just be a mirror for what you were already ready to change about your selection process. -
You're casting a symbol into the void and seeing what it pulls back.
I said it before and I'll say it again โ that symbol pulls back people who want to interact with the symbol, not the person. My grandmother gave me my first Rider-Waite deck when I was 22, and the very first thing she told me was that the cards show you tendencies, not destinies. When you put "Venus in Scorpio" on a dating profile, you're not being vulnerable โ you're handing people a script and seeing who's willing to read from it. That's the exact opposite of what the Two of Cups is actually asking for, which is showing up without the mask first and seeing if there's still recognition.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better ๐
Register Login