But I Wanted To Be Aristasian!

But I Wanted To Be Aristasian!

Long, long ago, (roughly 2006), there was a page called “I want to be Aristasian, but…” on the Aristasia Central website. It featured responses from the Aristasians to common concerns of those looking to join their (usually online) groups at the time.

These included matters of potentially giving up one’s present life, if spanking were required, and similar things. It also notably included a question about race, where the reader is assured that girls of all skin colors are welcome in Aristasia, though one’s race therein will always be considered “purely Aristasian” within the game, so to speak.

In (rather dubious) honor of that page, this one is entitled, “But I wanted to be an Aristasian!” It addresses issues concerning present and past attempted revivals, subversions, splinters, and such from Aristasia itself following the formal end of the group/transformation into Chelouranya.

Unlike the earlier page, which was simply designed to draw girls into the movement as much as possible, and as many as possible, this one is quite a messy subject. Is it in any way appropriate to try reviving any of this in any way? If so, how, and why? Here, I will be giving my own thoughts on this (apparently suddenly pertinent) question…

Some of these reasons people have given for wanting Aristasia “back,” so to speak have a fairly clear-cut response I can give. Many do not, and I can only state my nascent thoughts on the matter.

But God is a girl…

Is She? Perhaps for some of us (I can’t help but feel that way myself, for whatever reason, for example). Still, one needn’t worship Her within Aristasia’s paradigm, you know? I don’t. You, of course, are, like us all, free to choose your own relationship with the Divine (if you want), or none at all.

Christians pray to “our Father, who art in Heaven” constantly, after all. Nothing (but a few heads) might explode really by swapping out “our Mother.” The idea that God might be (or simply want to be perceived by a given individual as) male, female (or beyond gender, etc), isn’t really harmful, in my opinion.

The idea that ancient peoples all worshipped a “Great Goddess” prior to the arrival of the “patriarchy” is a proven fabrication, the result of faulty research by a man named Eduard Gerhard. Nevertheless, gendered deities appear in most cultures. Pagan, polytheistic cultures, after all, also saw many gods as gendered in one way or another. I don’t doubt that some civilization somewhere throughout humanity’s long history, did worship a singular feminine God-figure, either - humans have, after all, tried most things when it comes to religion. It was never a universal, worldwide perennial religion, as portrayed by the Aristasians (in their manifesto, The Feminine Universe for example).

You can worship God as She (and God as Mother, and monotheistically) without believing any pseudohistorical theories about ancient matriarchies, either way. These have, sadly, been a hallmark of almost all forms of feminine deity veneration over the past half-century. A lot of neopagans, other sects (like Aristasia), and New Agers bought wholeheartedly into the idea that the world had once been entirely a single, monotheistic culture worshiping a Mother God, despite lack of historical evidence. Only recently have these groups begun the messy process of excising this in favor of historical reality, and some (Dianic Wicca amongst them) still cling to it.

It’s silly to have to say this, but the worship of God as She needn’t force one into the Aristasian mindset. It also doesn’t mean you have to be a Filianist, a Déanist, a Madrian, or have any association with this movement at all. You also don’t have to dive into any of the New Age or dubious neopagan groups haunted by transphobia, misandry, and other forms of bigotry. True, these groups eem to be one of the louder sects (online) advocating for this sort of monotheistic Goddess worship - but that needn’t be true if you don’t want it to be.

I feel stalked by the concept of God as Mother, and unable to escape from Her. This doesn’t mean I’ve any impetus to return to Aristasia or adopt a worldview congruent with that, or even simple Déanism. The same may be true of you. If it is, your spiritual life is your own, but I hope you will approach it with both devotion and critical thinking.

But the early 20th was so much nicer…

Was it? Aesthetically? Some people are going to agree with that. Plenty of folks find Art Deco (Art Neo, as the Aristasians called it? Heh) superior to more contemporary popular styles, for example. I can fall into that category at times! There are those who love wearing swish-y Victorian gowns (if they can) or trim 1940s attire, or looking like the Daisy from The Great Gatsby (okay then Tyler Durdette), things like that.

And really? No issues here. Go for it. If you like vintage aesthetics, embrace them to any depth you want. You’ll get some strange looks and odd attention, but, presuming you want or can handle that, there’s really no problem with it.

That said , the actual early 20th century (at least, here in America, Britain, and the few similar Western countries that Aristasia tends to “base” itself on) wasn’t really “so much nicer.” It wasn’t as aesthetic as you might think. Despite what a lot of those pretty vintage photos scanned from the Picture Post imply, it wasn’t pretty maids all in a row and neatly-groomed girls with heart-shaped lipstick, fur coats, and fancy hats.

The aristocracy (or equivalent in a given society, because there’s always such) might’ve lived that way (to a degree). Mostly, though, this is a glossy image out of an ephemeral fantasy world (ironically created by the inceptions of late capitalism via things like, well the Picture Post and old films). You won’t find (for example) images taken by photojournalists much in the Aristasian repertoire - this would be because those tend to show that the past was exactly as grimy and unpleasant as today in many ways, and often more so.

It doesn’t represent what life in the early 20th was really like for women (even aesthetically) any more than current celebrities (let’s say, uh, Taylor Swift) or countless fashion influencers could be said to be “typical” of our era’s feminine experience. Neither is true. The photos you see of the early 20th century are especially not going to be typical of what life for women was like, because most of them just show (wealthy) women posing for (fashion) photographers.

There’s nothing wrong with wearing vintage, just keep in mind that what the Aristasians call “up-to-date” clothing doesn’t really reflect the time period it (allegedly) comes from. If you feel an impetus to live in the (earthly, Tellurian, human, non-Puran, whatever) early 20th century as it has been portrayed to you by Aristasians, this cannot be satisfied. That world you’d be trying to emulate never actually existed. It was, rather the shimmery surface of a more complex reality not too unlike our own, featuring (almost) all the things we see today (and then some), in, albeit, different manifestations.

And, let’s be real here, people - does it matter how neatly-dressed, elegant and graceful everyone (supposedly) was, when they were lining up for racially-segregated restrooms, etc? I’m not from the United Kingdom (where Aristasia as a movement began), but I know said country shares my own America’s history of racism, violence and colonialism throughout the 20th. Step back from Aristasia as a concept, and look at real-world history itself, not just the aesthetics and storytelling of Aristasia Pura.

It’s rarely a good idea to give into the inclination the sanitize your civilization’s history, even so recent as a century ago. If you want to experience a shiny romantic version of earlier times, there’s options in worldbuilding, creative writing, and roleplaying, naturally. I would certainly work this with the caveat that it’s not our world, not the real world, nor the real past as such, though. In my opinion, this would probably best take a form outside of Aristasian auspices, but people do what they choose, of course.

But I wanted to Roleplay

This is (for me, at least) a quite tempting and compelling reason for resurrecting an Aristasian personae or two. It’s not something I’ve ultimately decided to give into. I briefly had an idea of splitting the site management into two personae, one Aristasian, but changed my mind, thinking both about how it might lead me back into that mindset and how it might encourage bad ideas, like people thinking it’s okay to be four or five pettes when communicating with me and others, etc.

You can’t deny that roleplay as an Aristasian still interests some people, including former online Aristasians and others who’ve been following the movement. There are also, I’ve learned, some who discovered the concept long after Aristasia itself had ceased to exist, but find the idea of “life theatre” so fascinating that they almost can’t resist. Having first encountered “life theatre” in an Aristasian context, they feel drawn to Aristasia, it seems.

It’s also easy to find the elaborate worldbuilding of Aristasia Pura itself compelling, particularly in its final, most-developed forms.

Online, if you’ve not seen certain news clippings, the whole movement seems shimmery and pleasant. The concept itself (the little world, where time correlates roughly to distance) is actually rather neat, of course; I stuck around for reasons, and that was one of them - the worldbuilding. Anyways, it’s only natural that some people want to create characters within it, just like someone might want to (I guess) make a Star Wars OC or something.

This is doubly true for someone like me, a former participant in Aristasian online spaces accustomed to such personae games, at least online. The minute I started turning back to older Aristasian sites and going through some of the material from back then, I longed to revisit some of the personae I’d “manifested” during my time with the group, and create new ones. It was reflexive, so I can’t deny it was fun, I guess.

Still, the issue, primarily, with Aristasian roleplay (and especially “life theatre” contexts) was how boundaries got pushed, it seemed, both online (I’m beginning to notice) and (we are learning now) offline. Consent is important in all scenarios. While it should’ve theoretically been part of all “roleplay” or “life theatre” interactions, it’s hard to say if it really was. We know that some IRL experiences in precursor groups were quite horrible and definitely not a game. Several people (I won’t name them) have contacted me objecting to my usage of the term “roleplay” at all for that reason. I qualify it by saying that here I refer to later, successor groups that I was involved in personally..

My own experiences with consent in Aristasian groups online, of course, was more consistent with healthy boundaries; I probably wouldn’t have been able to handle even online longterm involvement otherwise. This sense of boundaries might’ve, in part, simply have been because the internet itself was the venue (rather than, say, a communal household). Even online, though, I saw some aspects that, in retrospect, seemed designed to confuse or push aside resistance to the weirder things.

The argument could easily be made that this was similar to how other cults at the time used roleplaying to draw people in The Aristasians were, really, a bit more honest about that when they called it “life theatre” instead and admitted (in books like Children of the Void and other places). They also admitted that it was meant to (at least somewhat, if only for the hardcore ones) supplant one’s average (modern, Pit) life for philosophical reasons (it was “racinating”).

They (as in, the core group of Aristasians running the websites and such) kept emphasizing that one need only act properly Aristasian when in Aristasian spaces online. A pette (girl, Aristasian lady, etc - a slang term we used) was free to do what she pleased outside of the Aristasian sphere of forums, sites, virtual spaces, and games.

There were (near the beginning of the Chelouranyan period especially) a few folks who didn’t abide by this rule. They probably would’ve been booted, but if I remember right, they just ditched willingly after a bit of friction. This seems a pretty decent solution to the problem of keeping one’s “in-character” Aristasian life separate from regular daily stuff, doesn’t it? A bit like kicking someone out of an RPG? I would’ve agreed with that viewpoint during some of my time as an Aristasian…

But now? Uhm, well… disagreed, strongly. When you play a regular roleplaying game, be it Dungeons & Dragons or Pathfinder or whatever, you’re not being regularly told that the game represents profound spiritual, moral, and metaphysical truths. You’re also not told that this is a game which some people do (and you, potentially, could, perhaps should was implied) exist within constantly and daily.

Once, as was the case with Aristasia’s “life theatre,” that notion enters the picture, the game changes, so to speak. It is no longer comparable to something like Pathfinder. It becomes a Schrödinger’s game, of sorts - both a game and a model for one’s entire worldview, and one was desperately dependent upon the other. We saw this, of course, in the ultimate debates over the realness of Aristasia Pura.

I have said repeatedly, and especially on the section about Aristasia as a potential cult in particular, that there was little to no pressure to “racinate” and become more Aristasian-like offline. This is true overtly, but if you really think about it, isn’t the “game” or “theatre” itself a kind of pressure? I would argue that sort of play lacks the predefined boundaries that normal roleplaying has, and purposefully makes use of this.

It also, though, mixes self and character (or, as the Aristasians might say, personae) in ways that might be unhealthy. Especially post-Bridgehead, there was less expectation and no pressure to have more than one personae online, but it was considered completely normal if one did. Aristasians, also, while they did use terms like personae, would sometimes refer to these characters as “manifestations” or by other, more fanciful terms that implied a deeper level of reality to them.

Outside of, and quite beyond the notions presented by Aristasia (and actual roleplaying), I’ve seen unique suggestions that our concept of self might be more fluid than we usually view it. Maybe we all really do have the propensity to exist via such “manifestations” if we choose; maybe some of us do, and maybe others don’t. Maybe it’s unhealthy to do such things, or maybe they simply need a proper context, boundaries, and self-awareness, whatever one understands as self.

This is, again, one of those issues I’m still thinking about. I don’t believe that Aristasia, even in its best days, was a healthy landscape for “life theatre,” identity exploration, or roleplay-like games. Why not start afresh and leave that paradigm? If you want to experience a “life theatre”-like situation, there is nothing stopping you from watching a movie or having dinner in-character with friends, after all, or anything else. If you’re situating it firmly within the realm of play, I can’t possibly see harm in it. I’m certain, too, that if you’re seeking deeper identity exploration and contextualization of the self, there are probably other, healthier paradigms to explore.

But I wanted to Worldbuild!

Worldbuilding is another interest drawing people to (and back to) Aristasia. I, myself, wrote versions of Aristasia (not called Aristasia, mind you) in short stories in the distant past, some of which were awfully heretical and likely would’ve horrified the core group (one, for example, was based in part on The Matrix).

In particular, with the main “core group” having disbanded, a lot of folks are excited at the prospect of “customizing” Aristasian lore to leave out the bad bits. Is this possible, though? A lot of the lore surrounding Aristasia Pura itself is intricately woven with the twilight mixture of spirituality and fiction (as I’m prone to calling it, lacking better words) that Aristasia as a movement operated within.

If you’re approaching the concepts from a secular perspective (which would be a bit hard), I see no reason you couldn’t worldbuild and rewrite the Aristasian canon to your heart’s content. I’ve seen, for example, a lot of people just deciding they like the idea of these little “nations” within an all-feminine empire based on vintage eras, and kind of… running with it? In all (yes, all of the ones I’ve seen) of these sites (and everyone I’ve spoken to about it), there’s not a hint of interest in any of the problematic things that plagued the original movement.

It’d be just glorious if sites and people trying this would at least address earlier issues in Aristasia as a movement itself. This might be something a lot of folks are still thinking about and working through, though. I feel like I still don’t understand how I got mixed up in this, after all, and other people might still be navigating it, too.

I also get that some are charmed by the concept of an all-girl world in general. I see no problem with this necessarily, depending on how it’s written. Plenty of (decidedly non-Aristasian) authors have done it, after all. Lady Land is a legitimate trope on the trope site thing for a reason. And hey, based on Aristasia or not, your “Lady Land” needn’t be a utopian matriarchy; you can definitely add more nuance to the situation than the Aristasian lore ever did.

If you’re creating a world with only ladies, or any kind of world based on Aristasia, it’s apt to be sensitive to the movement’s problematic history and associations, though. And, of course, be very aware that anything saying “Ladies only!” is going to, sadly, attract TERFs and similar, unless one takes serious measures to repel them.

I won’t link any other sites; as I’ve said, I’m unaffiliated with them. They’re out there, though. Most heavily romanticize the aesthetics and eras represented by these nations, many of which differ from the Aristasian canon. That makes sense, though, because it’s a fantasy world and romanticized by default, and none (that I’ve seen) of these sites suggest these places are real. This gets rid of that “thought-terminating cliché” I discussed, I think.

If you were a Déanist or otherwise interested in the spiritual aspects of the original movement, simple worldbuilding here might be more difficult. It could still be done, though; just set some boundaries and negotiate with yourself - where does your fiction began and IRL spirituality end, and how will you go about keeping things that way?

It is true that in some occult traditions (chaos magic, for example) worldbuilding can be an aspect of spirituality, but it usually needs contextualized in a proper way with boundaries. I cannot help with this, but it’s something to be thinking about if you’re coming from Aristasia as a movement and want to worldbuild in an Aristasian-like context.

But it FEELS REAL

Does it? Feel real, I mean? Aristasians had argued this for at least a decade, and probably longer in private. Not all of them felt this way, but some did. Does that justify anything? This is actually a complicated question.

It’d be easy and cool-headed to just dismiss the whole thing by saying, “Well, Aristasia Pura isn’t real… how could any of this feel real? You are being silly and escapist.” I don’t want to do that, though. Aristasia was, and is, much more than simply Aristasia Pura, though that might’ve been the consolidating concept.

For example, I’ve run into various ladies over the years who found the notion of “blondes and brunettes” (the concepts of chelana and melini as different types of femininity) interesting in a deep way. Some even identified with one or the other (or the earlier “redhead” concept) on some level or another. These have included both cis and trans women, who saw each as a different way of viewing femininity within the context of women loving women, it seemed.

Beyond that, and to switch gears for a moment, there’s a small pack of furries (yes, furries, or at least one or two - haven’t quite looked deeply into this part yet) on Tumblr who have adopted the Aristasian term “femmekin” for themselves and their fursona species, too. They seem to also be otherkin, carrying on the Aristasian interest in such things without being Aristasian as such. How are we left to feel about that?

A lot of people simply consider otherkin (and similar) to be de facto delusional. As an occultist, I’m way more open-minded to the idea, as I am towards alternative structures of the self. I don’t, however, believe all iterations of the concept express it in a healthy way, nor that Aristasia was a healthy environment for this kind of identity exploration.

I have (tentatively) more thoughts on this, but it’s the kind of thing I’d like to learn further and speak with others about before writing. I will also write more about realness, identity, escapism and what that all might mean in this context. I haven’t quite gathered my thoughts together yet. This section remains unfinished for that reason.