#allegories

[clawmarks]

Paradise - Oskar Laske - 1913 - via The British Museum

[thefugitivesaint]

Ernst Unger (1889-1954), 'Sleep & Dream', ''Allegorien und Embleme'', 1882 Source

[prokopetz]

River spirit keeps trying to draw me into morally instructive allegories, but I keep pointing out that no answer I can give would fulfill the purpose of the exercise because I've already read this one. Hoping they can think of one I've never heard of before they get fed up and just eat me instead.

[the-honeyed-offering]

Let's talk about Quirks and how their drawbacks actually mirror real world disabilities.

Trigger warnings: talks of disabilities, allegories, mental health.

Let's start with this; I firmly believe quirks and quirklessness themselves are allegories for disabilities. Let me explain.

Let's start with

Izuku Midoriya

Izuku faces systemic bullying because of his quirklessness as we can see from the very beginning. From peers and authority figured alike. All because his body functions different than the 80% majority.

The story itself highlights how society views his quirklessness which again, is something he was born with. Society views his quirklessness as something to be pitied or fixed. Including himself. Rather than focusing on his own unique strengths.

When he does gain power from all might, his body cannot handle it safely and it often leads him to horrific injury.

Similarly

Shota Aizawa and Toshinori Yagi

These two pro heroes are examples of people gaining a disability from an accident. Aizawa for his eye and later on his leg. Using prosthetics in the actual story.

All might is literally missing his entire stomach and half his respiratory system. Along with this he experiences respiratory failure, daily pain and a strict energy reserve. Also known as his active hours.

Mirko

Loses multiple limbs in battle and by the end relies heavily on mechanical prosthetic arms and legs.

This represents two different types of disability, the ones you're born with and the ones you gain from an accident.

Katsuki Bakugou

Its a fan favourite theory but I do love the thought that Bakugo is hard of hearing or becomes so later in life. It would also fit into the theme of quirks not being meant for certain bodies like aoyama, touya, tenko and even midoriya. and he hates it. he hates that the quirk he used to lourde over everyone is causing him damage in a way he never anticipated.

However the idea that Bakugo is in perfect health is so real to life in another way. Either its the boy hates that his quirk affects him so much, or its the main character who is quirkless looking at someone who isn't and wanting to be like them. Which mirrors how many disabled people view fully able bodied people.

In general Bakugo seems to align more closely with mental health struggles than a disability.

Creating a new type of allegory all together there the stress of being put on a pedestal you never asked to be on starts to destroy you internally. We see something similar with Bakugos mental health when the guilt of forcing all might into retirement becomes too much for him since he's internalised it as his fault.

We can see how his journey is more of a painful, messy process of mental and emotional growth

Shoto Todoroki

Even Shoto, not many people know that his scar wasnt actually caused by the scolding water of the kettle. It was his mothers ice on his fire side. That demonstrates perfectly where the disability is only in one area and not the whole body. A real example of this would be people who have elhers danlos. People who have Elhers Danlos can have a wide range of issues but they typically manifest in one area of the body (in the legs for my family.)

Even characters like Momo where her ability takes from her physically via her lipids. Or even Sato whos power literally diminishes his cognitive ability depending on how much sugar he consumes.

Momo has to manage life threatening energy depletion.

Sato has to manage cognitive drops and insulin like spikes.

Kaminari faces literal short circuits to his nervous system, rendering him temporarily nonverbal if he uses too much electricity

Every single quirk has a drawback and some of these drawbacks do much more long term damage to the body than others.

—

Anyways I'm really interested to hear your thoughts

[kestarren]

"College of Animals" by Cornelis Saftleven, 1655. Includes cat with tennis racket. Image via Monster Brains.

"A Diablerie" by historical memester Cornelis Saftleven, circa 1660s. Note the cat with a tennis racket playing Trictrac, (related to Backgammon). Images via Reddit and Monster Brains. Dutch artist circa 1607-1681.

[macaulaytwins]

of course you eat people and have pronouns 🙄

[theaawalker]

Why Spider-Man 3 is an Allegory for Toxic Masculinity 🕷

Who is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man?

Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy gave us one of the most groundbreaking, relatable character developments in superhero cinema. Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker isn’t a rich genius or a literal god — he’s an awkward, dorky New Yorker who’s always five minutes late, struggles to pay rent, and stammers around the girl he loves. He’s not cool, not slick, not untouchable. He's earnest, kind-hearted, and painfully human. Peter is just trying his best, even when his best sometimes isn’t enough. At his core, Peter embodies the ideal of “your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.” He’s a hero because he cares about the small things —about people, about community, about kindness. His powers don’t make him arrogant; they weigh heavily on him. And that's what makes his slow, subtle seduction by the black suit in Spider-Man 3 so devastating to watch. It’s not that Peter suddenly turns evil — it’s that he forgets who he is.

What is Toxic Masculinity?

Toxic masculinity is not the idea that masculinity itself is bad. It’s the specific, destructive brand of masculinity that says "being a man" means being ruthless, violent, dominant, emotionally dead inside. It punishes vulnerability and rewards cruelty. It’s the attitude we see pushed by influencers (hi, Andrew Tate and Myron Gaines) who teach boys that empathy is weakness, that real men “win” at the expense of others, that compassion is for losers. You see toxic masculinity in media where "strong male leads" are emotionally constipated, solve everything with violence, and never admit when they’re wrong. You see it when “strength” is measured by how much you can hurt others, not by how much you can heal. It tells boys and men that the only acceptable emotions are anger and pride — and it leaves everything else to rot in silence. It’s poison pretending to be power.

Peter Parker and the Black Spidey Suit

In Spider-Man 3, Peter Parker doesn’t find the symbiote. The symbiote finds him. It doesn’t demand much at first—just a little connection, a little enhancement. When Peter first wears the black suit, it feels thrilling. It’s sleek, powerful, intimidating. It makes him faster, stronger, sharper. For a moment, it feels like maybe this is who Spider-Man was meant to be all along. But the suit doesn’t just sit quietly. It weaves itself into Peter’s life — into his body, his mind, his instincts. It amplifies everything angry, selfish, and impulsive inside him. Peter doesn’t realize he’s changing until the people around him start backing away. And like many people first dipping into toxic behaviors, Peter initially thinks, “This is fine. This is better.” He mistakes cruelty for confidence. He thinks he’s leveling up — when really, he’s losing himself.

How Men Find Safety in Toxic Masculinity

When Peter’s life starts spiraling — losing his job, struggling in his relationship with MJ, getting publicly humiliated — he doesn’t double down on kindness or honesty. He leans into the black suit. He leans into anger. He starts using his power not to protect but to punish. His attack on Sandman isn’t about justice anymore — it’s about revenge. It’s about hurting someone to make himself feel strong. That’s what toxic masculinity offers: a false sense of safety when everything feels out of control. When Peter feels weak, the suit tells him, "You don’t have to feel weak — you just have to be crueler, meaner, tougher." Toxic masculinity says you can stomp out your pain by stomping on other people. It promises that dominance will erase vulnerability. And like Peter, many believe it... until they realize too late what they’ve become.

How Fans Responded to Toxic Masculinity

One of the weirdest reactions to Spider-Man 3 was how people loved “Bully Maguire.” Peter Parker, swaggering around with greasy hair, pointing finger guns, strutting like a jerk — became an instant meme. People thought it was hilarious. They thought this cocky, rude, arrogant version of Peter was somehow "emo" (clearly, these fans don't know that emo is not just black clothes and a side swoop). And they cheered for it, laughed with it, and celebrated it. In many ways, the fan reaction mirrored Peter’s own initial high from the black suit. Fans weren’t admiring Peter’s real strength — they were admiring his cruelty, mistaking it for coolness. It’s a symptom of a culture that loves toxic behavior when it’s wrapped up in humor or charisma. Instead of seeing this version of Peter as a warning, a lot of people saw him as a meme-worthy upgrade. Just like Peter, they fell for the trap.

Toxic Masculinity is a False Hero

Toxic masculinity makes you feel invincible — right up until the moment it destroys everything you love. Peter’s breaking point comes when he strikes Mary Jane at the jazz club. In a moment of blind rage and humiliation, he crosses a line he can’t uncross. And that's when Peter finally sees: this isn't strength. This isn’t Spider-Man. This isn’t him. Realizing the black suit’s influence, Peter literally tears it off, fighting against the suit's desperate clinging. But the damage is done. His actions ripple outward — hurting MJ, alienating Harry, pushing Eddie Brock to the edge. Peter's story shows that toxic masculinity doesn’t just hurt the person who wears it — it spreads pain outward to everyone around them. And even when you rip it off, you can’t undo all the harm it leaves behind. Or worse... you can negatively influence someone to embody that venomous, toxic behavior. For Andrew Tate, it is teenage boys. For Peter Parker, it was Eddie Brock.

Some Never Escape the Temptation

When Peter finally confronts Eddie — now Venom — he begs him to let go of the symbiote. He offers Eddie a chance at redemption. A chance to be free. Peter knows firsthand how intoxicating that dark power is, how hard it is to walk away. He tries to pull Eddie back from the edge. But Eddie refuses. Stating, "I like being bad. It makes me happy." Toxic men are aware they are toxic, but doing so pleases them. Hushes their insecurities. And when no accountability is forced nor taken, they continue to harm others and ultimately themselves. Eddie would rather burn with his hate than heal. That’s the final tragedy of Spider-Man 3: not everyone chooses to change.

With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

Spider-Man’s greatest lesson — with great power comes great responsibility — was never just about fighting bad guys. It was about the responsibility to yourself, to your community, to your own heart. Power without compassion leads only to corruption. Recall how Uncle Ben warned Peter about abusing one's power in Spider-Man 1, a lecture Peter initially rebuffed and later heeded repeatedly. Uncle Ben almost foreshadowed Peter’s run-in with the venom that is toxic masculinity. Peter had to remind him that strength without empathy isn’t heroism — it’s just cruelty with better PR. Spider-Man 3 is not just a throwaway superhero movie. It’s a warning about how easy it is to lose yourself to anger, pride, and the seductive lies of being toxically masculine. And it’s a call to all of us, especially to men: you are strongest when you choose love over dominance. You are most heroic when you reject the suit, even when it would be easier to wear it.

#ChooseTobeyNotTate 🕸

[cosmicdisorder2026]

this is my submission for @journeythroughjourneytothewest's "jttw general" tag! (You can find info about it here). lemme know if I submitted this wrong and i'll fix it

I went on the most absurd research rabbit hole because of this footnote

"The Monkey of the Mind" is obviously referring to the state of "restlessness and indecision", and if I interpreted that part correctly, the word 'yima' translates into something like, "idea horse". (Wikipedia page) I wonder who that reminds me of

I searched up "idea horse Buddhism" and it gave me results talking about a 'wind horse'. According to Buddha Weekly, the Wind Horse "[symbolizes] the winds of life force of our bodies" and is an allegory for the human soul in Tibetan Buddhism

I did some extra digging and I believe Tibetan Buddhism is a actually a separate form of Mahayana Buddhism (which, according to @superkat500, is actually the type of Buddhism that Journey to the West is advocating for! She talks more about it in this Quick Notes)

I didn't register that "the Hose of the Will" was a typo so when I searched it up (adding 'Buddhism' to the search) it showed me some articles talking about free will in Buddhism. I found the preview for this article where it says, "... he [Buddha] rejects the ultimate or absolute freedom of the Will, but not the minimal power of free will." While I didn't do any more research to support this idea, I think this quote might've explained why Ao Lie didn't participate as much in Journey to the West despite being the allegory for Human Will

Other sources that might be of interest:

 The wind horse is an allegory for the human soul in the shamanistic tradition of East Asia and Central Asia. In Tibetan Buddhism, it w

Tibetan Buddhism | History, Beliefs, Practices & Lineages | Britannica

Tibetan Buddhism, branch of Vajrayana (Tantric, or Esoteric) Buddhism that evolved from the 7th century ce in Tibet. It is based mainly on t

Below the cut are the notes I took (it repeats the same stuff) as well as doodle refs:

Doodle References:

The Horse and Tripitaka in Tibetan monk attire