lune-moon-nuit - Tumblr blog

lune-moon-nuit · 16 hours ago

Text

I feel deeply uncomfortable seeing how misunderstood Mike is—not just by the general audience but especially by some fans within the "Byler" fandom, who are supposed to be the ones who understand him best. They are incredibly harsh toward him, wishing for his death, for him to be beaten and humiliated, all because of his behavior in the last two seasons, particularly towards El and Will. This is largely due to his repressed homosexuality and internalized homophobia, but also because of his mental health, which is, in reality, utterly miserable yet so widely ignored.

These Byler fans, many of whom are teenagers or in their early twenties and some even part of the LGBTQ+ community, show little to no empathy towards him. They fail to realize the level of violence that existed against homosexuals in the United States during the 1980s, amidst the AIDS crisis and under Reagan's presidency. I strongly encourage you to conduct in-depth research because it is evident that you vastly underestimate the extent of the widespread, normalized, and, most importantly, violent homophobia of that era. Even people who could have been open-minded were wary of gay individuals out of fear of contracting AIDS, fueled by widespread paranoia and mass hysteria.

I believe Season 1 already paints a clear picture of this atmosphere—through Joyce’s words about how Lonnie referred to Will and through the slurs Troy and his friend used at school. These lines and characters were not included merely for storytelling purposes; they subtly highlight the pervasive homophobia present in the town (and the country) at the time.

Countless gay individuals of all ages in that period preferred to reject the mere idea of being homosexual—along with their own feelings—and would even become homophobic aggressors themselves as a form of self-preservation. At that point, it was pure survival instinct. To avoid being bitten, you bite first.

Now, let’s remove the supernatural trauma from Mike’s context and consider his reality:

We have a child who has been bullied throughout his school years in a small American town during the 1980s, a time when the AIDS crisis was at its peak. His best friend is bullied for appearing/being gay. When Will goes missing, the town—including his own father—suggests that it was expected because he was gay. The only plausible explanations, according to them, were either:

He was kidnapped and murdered by a “queer” (and let’s not forget “sexually assaulted” because one of the most dangerous stereotypes about gay men at the time was that they were pedophiles).

He committed suicide by jumping off the quarry because he was gay.

Everything related to being gay at the time was synonymous with death—whether from AIDS, suicide, or murder for simply being gay. And this violence, hatred, and fear were widely accepted and validated by society.

Now, imagine placing all of these subtle yet deeply ingrained messages inside the mind of a 12-year-old child.

On top of that, Mike’s emotions have always been ignored or minimized by everyone in the series, especially by his parents (even if they mean well). So what do we have? A traumatized child who has been humiliated and relentlessly bullied all his life, who has been made to understand that expressing his emotions and feelings is pointless, that no one listens to him, and that he should stay silent.

Even from the beginning of the series, Mike has always had a bit of an "attitude"—which, when he was younger, was endearing to the audience. But that’s mainly because he is extremely sensitive and deeply caring, yet he struggles to express himself and be heard, as most people don’t listen to him—especially when it comes to his own emotions and feelings. So what does he do? He bottles everything up. He internalizes every emotion until the pressure builds to the point where he explodes—just like in Season 2 when he lashed out at Hopper after being emotionally exhausted and pushed to his limit upon learning that El had been alive the whole time without his knowledge.

Mike’s situation is incredibly complex, with countless factors influencing it: his repressed homosexuality, his internalized homophobia, survivor’s guilt after El saved him, guilt over hurting both El and Will, his complete lack of self-esteem, his unresolved trauma from being bullied, supernatural traumas, the quarry scene (he was suicidal at 12—I repeat this because it still doesn’t seem clear to many people), his fear of losing Will or El again, the massacre at the lab where Bob never returned… I could list dozens of examples.

But do you realize the sheer emotional and traumatic weight he has never "unpacked"?

The only reason people are so harsh on him is that, for the past two seasons, we have had zero insight into Mike’s perspective. We have no access to his thoughts, emotions, or inner world. All we can do is observe him closely, piece together what we know about him since Season 1, and logically connect his behaviors, facial expressions, and words.

But here’s what’s truly baffling: these Byler fans who are so cruel to Mike are supposed to already know everything I’ve just explained. They should understand it. Yet, despite this, they show a complete lack of empathy for him. It’s as if, to them, Mike isn’t allowed to make any mistakes.

Yes, his behavior is frustrating. Yes, he has made mistakes. Yes, he has said hurtful things. But isn’t that what being human is? It doesn’t change the fact that he has always been a kind-hearted person with a huge capacity for love.

I mean, if we’re really going to judge a character’s worth based on their mistakes, should we condemn El for making Max fall over out of childish jealousy in Season 2? Should we blame her for violating Mike and the boys’ privacy by spying on them? Should we hold it against her for outright denying and dismissing Mike’s pain when he said, “I’ve been bullied my whole life,” and she simply replied, “No, you don’t”?

Of course not. We acknowledge that those actions were wrong, but we understand the context and underlying reasons behind them. So why is there such a glaring lack of understanding when it comes to Mike?

Yes, his behavior is frustrating, but ask yourself—would you do any better in his situation?

I’m sorry, but I find it incredibly hypocritical that people normalize insulting and hating this character while completely ignoring the context.

Mike always apologizes to Will when he messes up, which shows that he does reflect on his actions (even if he only does this for Will). He is willing to put himself in danger—even risk his life—to save and protect those he loves. He has a massive heart. He does not deserve the sheer cruelty I see directed at him on Twitter. His actions can be criticized, but he does not deserve to be hated or insulted.

Because the reasons behind his actions in the past two seasons are, in reality, deeply tragic.

Mike is profoundly miserable, and I am convinced he is suffering from depression—especially with the clues subtly left in Season 4, which many fans have picked up on.

I sincerely hope that in Season 5, they finally reveal what Mike has been feeling all along—shedding light on the internal struggles he has been battling silently for years. Whether through Vecna or some other means, Mike needs catharsis to finally heal. He needs to suffer—not for the sake of suffering, but because it is the only way for him to face his traumas and emotions instead of repressing them.

He has been running from his own feelings, burying them so deep inside that they are eating him alive. He is reaching his breaking point.

And that is heartbreaking—not only because it speaks volumes about how poorly mental health was treated in the ‘80s (and still is today) but also because even now, the audience continues to ignore it.

Instead of blaming Mike for his behavior, ask yourself: Why is he acting this way? Why has he changed? Why does he say the things he does?

The answers confirm that, more than anything else—besides therapy and being happy with the man who loves him—Mike needs to heal. He needs to understand that he matters, that he has worth, and that his emotions are valid.

And believe me—if he felt safe enough to express them, he would.

#stranger things #byler #mike wheeler #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #byler endgame #mike wheeler analysis

48 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 18 hours ago

Text

Someone please write me what the fan asked and what he is saying ? The sound is horrible I understand nothing and I'm not English speaker :(

I know we’re primarily focused on the byler-milkvan specific questions but here is the video of Finn talking about Mike’s mental health!!!!

#byler #mike wheeler #finn wolfhard #stranger things mike #stranger things

830 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 6 days ago

Text

Big answer to the abuser apologist on my comments but that should be read by everyone :

Oh, sweetie, let’s get one thing straight—because clearly, you’re struggling. You can be a fan of a problematic character while fully acknowledging that they’re, well… problematic. That’s called making a distinction. But what you’re doing? Oh no, that’s something entirely different. You’re not separating fiction from reality—you’re twisting reality to fit your fantasy. You’re bending over backwards to justify, minimize, and excuse their behavior because admitting that you fantasize about criminals or abusers would mean confronting something about yourself that you just can’t handle.

And in doing so, you’re not just embarrassing yourself—you’re actively contributing to the normalization of abuse. You are making it easier for people to brush off real-life harm, to silence real victims, to keep the cycle of violence spinning like a damn merry-go-round. And don’t even try to argue with me, because I have both personal experience andsociological and legal proof—yeah, look up the Mazan trial, sweetheart, because it lays it all out in black and white.

But sure, go ahead, keep pretending this is just some harmless little fandom fun. Keep telling yourself that your little redemption arcs for monsters don’t have consequences. But let’s be real, the fact that you’re even triggered by what I’m saying? That’s not on me. That’s on you. It means you know I’m right, and you just don’t like what that says about you. And what really gets me is that you have the audacity—the absolute nerve—to sit there, all smug and condescending, trying to school me on this, when I am literally a survivor telling you how this mindset fuels more abuse.

But you don’t care about that, do you? No, because at the end of the day, the only thing that matters to you is your fantasy. The real damage? The real victims? Just inconvenient little footnotes in your delusions.

And let’s be clear: fantasizing about a villain? That’s one thing. But trying to rewrite their actions, trying to excuse and minimize their abuse while spitting in the face of real survivors? That’s not just pathetic, that’s dangerous.

And whether you like it or not, everything is activism. All art, all storytelling—especially in pop culture—shapes the way people think. So yeah, calling people out for rewriting abusive characters into misunderstood little woobies is necessary. Just like it should’ve been necessary to tell every teenage girl that Chuck Bass was a toxic predator, not some great love story. But hey, if that’s too much truth for you, maybe you should sit this one out.

Rant about Billy's redemption : The paradox of cycle on abuse/violence

I struggle to understand how so many people so easily fell for Billy’s weak redemption arc. He doesn’t deserve it. I am in no way minimizing the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father—it was horrific, and no child deserves that. And I understand that his abusive behavior is quite literally a coping mechanism for what he went through—that he repeats what was done to him in an attempt to reclaim power and avoid being in the victim’s position as a defense mechanism. But that in no way justifies his actions or the abuse he inflicted on others. Not to mention his blatant racism and homophobia.

Yes, social and familial influences play a role. But not all victims become abusers. These are choices people make as adults. Billy knew what he was doing was wrong. He only felt remorse because he knew he had no chance of survival. By the end of season 3, his only choices were to remain possessed by the Mind Flayer and be its slave until the end of his life or to die immediately, putting an end to all his suffering. He was already doomed. He simply made the choice that would help others but, more importantly, would end his own pain.

I find it deeply unsettling how many people conveniently forget all the harm Billy deliberately and consciously inflicted on others, especially Max. He nearly killed Mike, Dustin, and Lucas in season 2—he was inches away from running them over with his car, purely out of sadism and a desire to emotionally hurt Max. And in season 3, even making him a victim of the Mind Flayer was nowhere near enough to warrant sympathy for him or justify a redemption arc. The truth is that audiences have a soft spot for him because of the actor’s immense charisma. And yes, he is excellent in the role—he has a striking presence, and he is undeniably attractive and sexy, sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that Billy was a bad person, an abuser, and that he would have continued his behavior had the Mind Flayer never chosen him or had he survived.

And all this energy people put into dismissing his actions because of his past or his so-called "sacrifice" resonates deeply with two things I have personally experienced and witnessed.

My aunt’s son, my cousin, was born in the 1970s—we are about thirty years apart in age. He is approaching his 50s, while I am 27. His mother, my aunt, was a deeply troubled woman who quickly spiraled into alcoholism. She had a tendency to be involved with violent, toxic, and highly problematic men. Jérôme, my cousin, never knew his father, but he was severely mistreated—emotionally, physically, and psychologically—by his stepfather. I won’t go into detail about the abuse and humiliation he suffered, but it was truly... truly horrific. And my aunt’s alcoholism, of course, did nothing to help. Given the childhood trauma my mother later revealed to me, there is every reason to believe that my aunt fell into her vices and toxic relationships as a way to cope with the incestuous abuse she suffered at the hands of her grandfather. To escape her demons—her unspoken, unhealed traumas—she drowned herself in alcohol and toxic relationships, and that in turn was inflicted upon Jérôme. The cycle of abuse... there it is again.

Had my mother not stepped in to take custody of Jérôme when he was 15, he would likely have ended up as either a serial killer or dead by suicide. My mother helped him immensely and raised him as her own son from the age of 15. She allowed him to become a respectable man, and he worked hard to secure a stable job that provided him with a decent living. Throughout my childhood, I saw him as a responsible, funny, and mature adult cousin.

But when he eventually went through a divorce and my parents took him in, allowing him to live under our roof, I started seeing who he really was—a toxic, abusive man who cheats on every woman he dates or marries, who sees feminism as a threat to his status quo, who clings to his privilege as a white, cisgender, heterosexual man and refuses to engage in any social discourse that might challenge his comfortable worldview. "Poor people shouldn’t complain; they should just work harder. Racism and homophobia don’t exist—proof? He has lesbian friends who were able to adopt a little girl." You get the picture.

But the worst part was that when he was living in my home, I was going through a deep nervous breakdown. I was on antidepressants and anxiolytics, a mere shadow of myself—I was so fragile and weak. And he made me his target. He screamed at me, verbally assaulted me, humiliated me, insulted me—he was on the verge of physical violence. And because he was an excellent manipulator, and because my mother still saw him as the abused child he once was, he weaponized that perception so that my parents would minimize his behavior toward me.

"He had a difficult childhood, that’s why he reacts this way—don’t take it to heart."

I won’t go into the details of everything he put me through, but it got to the point where I would skip meals just to avoid being in the same room as him during dinner. He made me feel like a pariah in my own family, in my own home—I no longer felt safe, I no longer felt welcome. No matter how much I talked to my parents about it, they kept telling me I was exaggerating, that they couldn’t just kick him out (as if he didn’t make enough money to rent a small apartment with his salary, huh…). They gaslit me constantly, making me feel like I was losing my mind. I felt trapped, like I was talking to walls.

And the worst part isn’t even Jérôme’s abuse. It’s realizing that my parents—whom I once believed to be an eternal source of protection—were capable of letting him abuse me right before their eyes, refusing to see the problem, minimizing it, and making me feel like I was the one causing trouble, the one starting conflicts, when all I was doing was begging for help and for it to stop. I was no longer safe in my own home… in my own family. I had no place anywhere.

I was being abused, and my own parents did not protect me. They told me to endure it in silence because he had suffered in his childhood. I was bearing the consequences of trauma I had no part in, trauma that happened thirty years before I was even born. This went on for two years before he finally moved out, and only after yet another humiliation he inflicted on me in front of everyone at Christmas last year did my parents finally say enough. My mother cut ties with him—but not without pain, suffering, and tears. The cycle of violence.

For two years, my parents justified and minimized the abuse their own daughter endured simply because he had suffered as a child.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

The second example is the case of the Giselle Pélicot rape trial. I assume you’ve heard about it, as it was widely covered internationally. The defense lawyers’ main argument for minimizing the crimes of the perpetrators was that they had been victims of abuse (including sexual abuse) during their childhoods. As if that could justify... anything.

90% of victims are women, and the vast majority of them never go on to inflict the same abuse they suffered onto others. So this excuse is invalid.

The fact that someone has endured abuse does not justify their actions today, nor does it make them deserving of redemption. They do not deserve it.

Billy does not deserve redemption. The only tragedy here is how deeply his actions hurt Max, to the point where she bore the consequences with Vecna, suffering the aftermath of the abuse Billy inflicted upon her.

Stop minimizing the actions of abusers by using their childhood trauma as an excuse. It’s tragic, it’s unfair, and they never should have gone through that. But they had a choice. A choice not to repeat what was done to them. A choice to take accountability for their actions.

That is the cycle of abuse. That is the cycle of violence. And to break it, we must stop excusing and downplaying abusive behavior based on past suffering.

#stranger things #billy hargrove #stranger things 2 #stranger things 3 #cycle of abuse #cycle of violence #emotional abuse #redemption #redemption arc #trauma #childhood abuse #childhood trauma #family abuse #family #gaslit #chuck bass

13 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 7 days ago

Text

Rant about Billy's redemption : The paradox of cycle on abuse/violence

And all this energy people put into dismissing his actions because of his past or his so-called "sacrifice" resonates deeply with two things I have personally experienced and witnessed.

"He had a difficult childhood, that’s why he reacts this way—don’t take it to heart."

For two years, my parents justified and minimized the abuse their own daughter endured simply because he had suffered as a child.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

90% of victims are women, and the vast majority of them never go on to inflict the same abuse they suffered onto others. So this excuse is invalid.

The fact that someone has endured abuse does not justify their actions today, nor does it make them deserving of redemption. They do not deserve it.

That is the cycle of abuse. That is the cycle of violence. And to break it, we must stop excusing and downplaying abusive behavior based on past suffering.

#stranger things #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #billy hargrove #stranger things 2 #stranger things 3 #cycle of abuse #cycle of violence #emotional abuse #redemption #redemption arc #trauma #childhood abuse #childhood trauma #family abuse #family #gaslit

13 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 8 days ago

Text

youtube

This is one of my favorite Byler videos. The writing perfectly matches what Mike was thinking during these scenes it's hilarious how much of a mess Mike is when you have the context 😂😂😂

#byler #stranger things #mike wheeler #byler endgame #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #will byers #mike wheeler analysis #byler tumblr #mike wheeler is gay #Mike Wheeler is a mess #stranger things season 4 #stranger things 4 #Youtube

32 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 8 days ago

Note

If the upside down is stuck on the exact day Will went missing then how did he communicate through the Christmas lights? Joyce didn't put up the lights until days after. How did he use the alphabet on the wall? Unless the UD got stuck in time after a long period of time, but it doesn't seem like it because when Hopper and Joyce go into the UD in final episode of s1 to save Will the house doesn't look like it has any lights up. We don't get to see much of the house anyways and maybe that's on purpose. It would have been confusing to the audience if the UD house was back to normal. Hopper and Joyce probably didn't notice either because they were too busy following the blood trail of the Demagorgon that Nancy, Jonathan and Steve just injured. We found out in s2 that Will can exist in both dimensions at the same time and when Joyce watched the video tape recording from Halloween we were able to see that he was moving around in the real world but we know that he, at the time, was in the UD. What if when he was stuck in the UD he was able to see into the real world and interact with things that way. I wonder what the writer's plans are for Will in s5 but I think he'll definitely have powers. It just makes sense at this point. Especially when you look back through the seasons. In s1 he basically made a gate in the wall to talk to his mom through and it sealed itself back up like the little gate in the tree that Nancy crawled through. Everything he did with the lights especially if they didn't even exist for him. In s4 there was an experiment in the lab that El and the kids had to do with lights positioned in a ring and they were lighting up the lights very fast and it kinda reminded me of the scene in s1 when Holly followed the lights into Will's room and then all the lights around the room started going on super fast. There was also a point in s1 where it was made to seem like Joyce was just dreaming and Will woke her up but it ended up just being Jonathan trying to get her attention but I think that WAS actually Will. He doesn't look like all the other times shes thought of him or flashbacks we've seen of him. He looked unwell. I think he was actually there in that moment trying to communicate with her and he got interrupted. There's so many more things that I'm forgetting.

I must admit that I have a hard time finding a logical explanation when it comes to Will, but I think the reason is that we don’t have all the information. We don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle.

Why did Vecna take Will? How did a 12-year-old boy manage to survive an entire week without food or water while evading a Demogorgon that seems incredibly fast at killing its prey (like Barb)? We know he’s good at hiding, but that doesn’t explain everything… Why did the Mind Flayer "invade" Will with a vine if it can kill its victims so quickly? Why did the Mind Flayer target Will and possess him in Season 2? Why does Will remain connected to Vecna even after the Mind Flayer was expelled from his body for the rest of the seasons? So many unanswered questions that Season 5 absolutely needs to address.

Everything started with Will. If El keeps failing to defeat Vecna and he returns every season, it's because the solution is tied to Will, not Eleven. He is the key piece in this entire mystery.

As for Joyce’s Christmas lights, we know that the Upside Down is frozen on the date of Will’s disappearance, but we saw in Season 4 that even though it’s stuck on that date, Steve in the Upside Down can hear Dustin in the real world—two years ahead of where Steve and the group are. And that doesn’t stop them from communicating. Will must have seen the light source from the garlands in the same way Nancy, Steve, Robin, and Eddie saw the light source from Holly’s Lite-Brite (which she most likely didn’t own on November 6, 1983). So that could explain that part.

However, I think where you have a point is that Will is the only one who had the ability to communicate with his mother through the wall. And for a 12-year-old, he figured out very quickly how to use the lights to talk to her. I think most of the general audience is starting to suspect that Will has powers because that’s the only logical explanation. The real question is: how did he get them?

Was it through his week in the Upside Down? Through Vecna transferring them to him when he penetrated him with the vine in Season 1? Through the Mind Flayer invading and possessing him in Season 2? Will feels connected to Vecna, yet he seems completely unaware of having any powers. He experiences these abilities without having control over them… There’s a strong possibility that he’s repressing them without even realizing it. But repressed powers are just like repressed emotions—if they stay buried for too long, they eventually explode, and the result is painful.

Still, I’m optimistic that we’ll finally get answers in Season 5. Based on the footage we have, we’ll be getting flashbacks of Will in the Upside Down during Season 1, so we’ll finally get some insight into what he went through during that week. It’s also curious how Will has never really talked about or explained what happened to him there. No one seems to know, he himself has never brought it up, and there’s no sign in the dialogue, subtext, or expressions that suggests he has shared it.

All we know is that between Season 1 and the beginning of Season 2, Will regularly went to the doctor to be "analyzed," and Season 2 starts immediately with the “anniversary effect.” Either Will doesn’t want to talk about what he experienced in the Upside Down, or—and I think this is the most logical scenario, which would be easier to explore in Season 5 through flashbacks or a confrontation with Vecna—he has completely forgotten everything as a defense mechanism: he developed post-traumatic amnesia.

Post-traumatic amnesia can occur after a head injury, but also after a severe emotional shock. It is one of the different syndromes of PTSD. This condition is often observed in victims of abuse (including sexual abuse), especially when the victims are children. They can go years and years growing up without remembering their trauma, or only parts of it, until an emotional trigger unlocks those memories. When that happens, the person experiences everything they forgot a second time.

From my own experience, it usually starts with scattered flashbacks and nightmares—where you’re not even sure if they’re nightmares or real memories. At first, you desperately want them to be just nightmares because the truth is too painful. But over time, these flashbacks are like puzzle pieces—you put them together bit by bit until one day, you have enough pieces to see the full picture. And that’s when you realize that what you hoped were just bad dreams and doubts were actually reality. You start questioning everything, you get retraumatized by the truth your brain was protecting you from, and you become lost in trying to figure out what is real.

It’s a vast, deeply emotional, but also essential subject for both survival and healing. If Will has post-traumatic amnesia and has to confront what he forgot in Season 1 to finally defeat Vecna once and for all, that would be an incredibly interesting development.

So many mysteries surrounding Will… I can’t wait for him to finally be the center of the season.

#stranger things #will byers #will byers analysis #stranger things theory #stranger things analysis #stranger things 5 #trauma #Amnesia #power

8 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 9 days ago

Note

You are SOOOOO right your explanation makes so much sense. I just dont get how when some people are presented the evidence, they still argue against it. Its so clear I simply do not understand how people literally come on here to argue, get showed the perfect explanation and are still like ewno

Thank you very much ahahah but I don’t know which explanation you are talking about I’m little confused help me anon 😂😭

Well if people refuse to see, we can’t force them. Season 5 will do for us ahah

0 notes

lune-moon-nuit · 10 days ago

Note

I think for some people it’s kinda hard for them to grasp the idea that Mike could be queer because they haven’t seen any hints that they are used to being given when a character’s sexuality is being questioned. Think Mickey from Shameless and Lukas from Eyewitness. With both of those shows and characters we are given confirmation at the start of their journey, or close to it, that they are in fact not straight because we see them acting on those feelings and throughout the show they have to learn to accept themselves. Mickey and Ian literally have sex together and Lukas and Philip were headed in that direction as well at the start of their storyline. Other shows might show their character on some dating app looking at guys or have the characters’ friend accidentally find their gay porn magazine or something that clearly outlines to the audience that they are queer and marks the beginning of this self discovery journey. It’s easier to see moments of projecting feelings and internalized homophobia from characters who you basically already know are queer. The audience follows them along that journey the whole way, so there’s not many moments where you find yourself questioning their behavior. Whereas with Mike we haven’t had his pov since season 2. We don’t know what he’s thinking. We don’t have the full picture yet, so it’s easy for the audience to see his behavior and to immediately write him off as an asshole. They aren’t given a clear reasoning for it. Both Mickey and Lukas were assholes at some point (or multiples points) throughout their coming out storylines because they were struggling with those feelings of internalized homophobia and being looked at like they were different. Both of them had girlfriends or were at least trying to seem straight to those around them by feigning interest in women. BUT the difference is that the audience knows they are lying. With Mike you assume he’s telling the truth because you haven’t been given a clear reason to think differently. We are uncovering his sexuality and his story kinda in reverse. Season 4 was the most obvious he’s been and it solidified a lot of peoples beliefs that he is queer and now we are working backwards slowly finding hints here and there trying to piece together his full story. We are following breadcrumbs not a fully carved out stone path. Mike is also a queer kid in the 80’s, unlike those other characters who are set in the present, so it makes sense to have his feelings be less obvious or out there because they can’t be. He doesn’t have anyone to turn to or a possible positive outlook on his confusing feelings like those other gay characters might. I don’t even think he’s aware of them most of the time.

We see what he gives us and only that. There are some outside hints and subtle nods to his queerness (one way sign, closet placement, posters..etc) but not at the level that other shows might hint at a gay characters sexuality. We aren’t on the journey with him step-by-step. We’re looking at consistencies in his character and comparing his relationships to one another trying to understand him and his feelings from season to season. We are, for the most part, on the outside looking in trying to decipher those clues. Come season 5, I think we will be part of that journey the whole way.

I completely agree with you. I think it’s precisely the way they scattered little breadcrumbs everywhere without making Mike’s sexuality obvious from the start that makes his arc with Will and El so compelling. The fact that we don’t have his point of view is exactly why the audience struggles to notice that he’s gay. And I find that very realistic. It’s like observing a real teenager—no one, except for the person themselves, is there to witness the intimate and private moments that confirm their sexuality (aside from a public coming out). The only thing we can do is guess or suspect an adolescent’s orientation based on what we see of them and the information we gather from spending time with them—without them explicitly stating, “I’m gay and I’m dating a guy.” And I think that’s exactly the case with Mike.

But that’s precisely why I love the Byler arc—because we don’t have direct access to Mike’s perspective within their dynamic from the beginning. The uncertainty, the ambiguity, the process of connecting the dots, rethinking things, asking questions, rewatching the series, and realizing new details—that’s what makes it so engaging.

Mickey’s storyline in Shameless is fantastic as a deeply closeted gay character with intense internalized homophobia, largely due to the environment he grew up in—especially his father, who is an absolute monster. But there’s zero subtlety in his arc. There’s no need to analyze Mickey’s bedroom, and the Shameless creators didn’t choose specific colors or camera angles to drop hidden clues, because the script itself already tells the audience everything they need to know through dialogue. Mickey and Ian’s story is very dialogue-driven. And I think that’s intentional.

Shameless aims to be a realistic series, where we experience things alongside the characters, which is why its cinematography feels like an amateur documentary, as if someone is filming their daily lives with a handheld camera. It’s not shot using highly stylized, professional cinematic techniques like the Duffer Brothers, who are more in the vein of Stanley Kubrick in The Shining: nothing is left to chance. If the curtain is yellow, it’s yellow for a reason—whether it’s symbolic, a hidden message, or a clue. If a specific word is used in dialogue, it’s intentional. If a book is placed prominently on a piece of furniture, it’s meant to be seen. If a character is illuminated in a certain way, if a particular shot is flooded with light, it means something. Every single piece of furniture, every line of dialogue, every color, every lighting choice, every setting—everything we see and hear in Stranger Things (including the soundtrack) has a purpose, directly tied to the story and the characters’ arcs. That’s the magic of cinematic language and why it’s an art form—everything has meaning.

That’s why cinephiles love analyzing Kubrick’s The Shining or dissecting Stranger Things. Both approaches evoke different emotions and suit their respective series perfectly. But yes, this method of gradually revealing Mike’s contradictions and internal conflicts, so that even after four seasons we’re still rewatching to fully understand because we don’t have his perspective, is brilliant and fascinating. And finally getting his point of view in Season 5 will be the long-awaited answer that unlocks so much!

#byler #stranger things #mike wheeler #byler endgame #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #will byers #mike wheeler analysis #byler tumblr #mike wheeler is gay #shameless #ian gallagher #mickey milkovich #eyewitness #philkas

50 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 10 days ago

Text

Mike and Will - WILDFLOWER by Billie Eilish, Mike POV

@throne-of-crows @urchindog @imatotallynormalteengirlok lmk if you wanna be added to the tag list

53 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 12 days ago

Text

Mike is projecting so many times in season 3 and 4 it's kinda hilarious

Sometimes I just gotta take a step back and appreciate how good the writing in ST can be

During Mike and El’s fight, Mike’s attempt at deflection and gaslighting the both of them is so incredibly revealing

It’s been discussed before how he says, “You know what I think of you,” instead of, “You know how I feel about you,” and how he tries to externalize their issues by blaming El’s bullies for trying to “ruin her” and “ruin us,” but I think there’s another, more subtle layer to it as well.

While the mere act of trying to shift the blame to the bullies is telling in and of itself, as it shows that Mike is not ready to confront why he can’t say “I love you,” to El and is looking to dump the blame elsewhere, there’s a question that needs to be asked:

Why does Mike assume that El’s bullies specifically bullied her about their relationship?

Because that’s what he’s doing—“Who—who said that I didn’t?” and “You can’t let those mouthbreathers ruin you—ruin us!”

Mike thinks that her bullies told her that he doesn’t love her.

Why? Why would he jump to that conclusion?

It’s because he is terrified that those bullies could see right through him. (Especially if it’s revealed in s5 that he’s been experiencing homophobic bullying at Hawkins High.) He’s terrified that those bullies took one look at him holding El’s hand and thought, “Look at her boyfriend! He’s so obviously gay. Poor thing, she doesn’t even know!” And then proceeded to mock El for being with someone who doesn’t even like her like that.

El’s bullying focuses mostly on the bullies perceiving her as “stupid” (Angela calling her a “dummy” and mocking her for doing the assignment “wrong”) and specifically mocking her dead father. While there is some mocking of her dating Mike amongst themselves (“Who’s that twig?” “Seems like the snitch has a boyfriend.”), Angela calls Mike handsome in front of El to make her squirm, and she also says “boyfriend” as if she’s saying it in air quotes when El confronts her later, they never outright commentate on their relationship.

So ultimately, what’s happening in Mike’s argument with El is the same thing that happened in his garage fight with Will—projection.

#Byler #Byler analysis #mike wheeler analysis #stranger things

195 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 12 days ago

Text

Rant about Disney Princess Syndrome, internet hypocrisy and double standards

Don't read it if you are an Ariana Grande's fan

What frustrates me the most about Ariana Grande is the sheer hypocrisy and double standards. If it had been someone else, she would have been "canceled" ten years ago, but since it's Ariana, no one says a word.

I’m not even going to bring up the donut incident where she was disrespectful and insulting because, at least, she took the time to apologize—though only after the media and public called her out (she would never have done it otherwise). But… the excessive cultural appropriation? How many times has she played on ambiguity, using aesthetic codes from Black American women, and no one batted an eye? Meanwhile, other women have been canceled for far less. Then, she did the exact same thing with the Asian community when K-pop was the number one trend.

And now, the most important part: her toxic pattern in relationships—breaking up couples while being fully aware of it, only to later cheat on her own boyfriend (or husband) with yet another man who is also in a relationship (or married), repeating the cycle over and over. There are videos documenting how this vicious circle has played out for a full decade, affecting countless women and relationships. And if that weren’t enough, her latest conquest is a father of a newborn—a baby she even had the audacity to hold in her arms during the filming of a movie. The sheer indecency… But apparently, breaking up a household with a baby was finally outrageous enough for the general public to start reacting—especially when they connected the dots with her lyrics, where she literally boasts about stealing other women’s boyfriends. Not very "girl’s girl," is it?

So, quick fix: let’s whiten the skin, lose an excessive amount of weight to appear even smaller, more fragile, and vulnerable, start speaking like a Disney princess, embrace an Audrey Hepburn-level of elegance, and conveniently set aside the powerful-woman energy of Positions! That way, I can sing yes, and? and claim that falling in love isn’t my fault, stop being mean to me, I’m just a delicate, innocent little 30-year-old girl! And during the film’s promo, let’s throw in some queerbaiting with my co-star! It’ll be a piece of cake—my fans, who are just as manipulative as I am, will insist that I’m queer based on one ambiguous song lyric from ten years ago and claim I actually came out, even though I never did! Why put in any effort when I have little soldiers ready to lie for me, ensuring that everyone forgets I destroy relationships and trample on the women I hurt?

And the worst part? It works. She is literally willing to make anorexia look trendy with her stick-thin body just to maintain her brand of being a fragile, childlike, and oh-so-innocent woman. She is so desperate to play the victim, just like her fans—it’s unbearable. Honestly, I wouldn’t have an issue with her if she actually took responsibility for her actions. It’s the dishonesty, manipulation, and the hypocrisy of her fans and the internet that intensify my frustration with her.

The more people unjustifiably favor someone, the more I’ll enjoy—purely on principle—watching them eventually get the karma they deserve. Youth isn’t eternal, beauty fades, and Botox melts. Privilege won’t last forever. I can’t wait to see what happens and what people will say when she once again breaks up another household or couple—for the twentieth time.

I invite you to watch this extremely interesting video on the psychology and sociology of this syndrome by the way :

youtube

#cancel culture #double standards #music #celebs #tw ed ana #cheating #homewrecker #audrey hepburn #disney princess syndrome #disney #girlhood #cinema #Youtube

0 notes

lune-moon-nuit · 13 days ago

Note

I was rewatching s2 and I tried to envision Mike being that attentive and sweet to Lucas or Dustin instead of Will—It doesn’t fit. It doesn’t feel right. It’s too much for their relationship because they ARE friends. Watching the whole scene where Mike comforts Will and holds his hand but picturing Dustin instead of Will is mind blowing. It’s crazy how clear the romantic intention of some scenes become when you replace Will with someone who is actually just a friend to Mike. Could Mike be sweet to Dustin and Lucas? Of course—but not like that. No way. His moments with Will are special because of Will and how Mike views him. Whereas you could remove Dustin and replace him with Lucas in a one-on-one scene with Mike and not have much change in terms of the overall feelings of that scene. The scene wouldn’t feel off. Their conversation wouldn’t feel out of place between them. They also don’t have many one-on-one scenes together whereas Mike has a lot with Will—the heart-to-heart in Mike’s basement on Halloween, spending the day at Will’s house, holding his hand, sleeping by his bed, staying at the hospital with him and telling him that choosing him to be his friend was the best thing he’s ever done. Mike is a kind person but it’s kinda hard to picture him doing all of that for Lucas or Dustin. Or to picture Dustin doing any of that for Will. Even if you remove both Mike and Will from the hand holding scene entirely and imagine Lucas and Dustin instead it still feels off. It’s too much. They don’t talk to each other that way because they are friends. Obviously they all love and care for one another but it’s so different for Mike and Will. There’s a level of intimacy with them that obviously is missing from the other friendships because they are friends. In s4, during the rink-o-mania fight, try to imagine Lucas stopping to argue with Will instead running after an upset Max. Or Lucas stopping Dustin to argue. Even Dustin and Steve have cute and sweet moments together but not like Will and Mike. I’d even say Dustin and Eddie had sweeter moments together than him and Steve but it’s still not the same as Will and Mike. Now add Nancy and Jonathan into any Will and Mike scene and it doesn’t feel weird or off. Not much changes. Or flip it and add Will and Mike into an intimate Nancy and Jonathan scene and again it feels fine. It works.

Every single scene between Mike and Will in season 2 is completely and undeniably framed with a romantic tone, and that’s precisely why it doesn’t work if you replace Will with Dustin or Lucas—but it does work if you replace Mike and Will with Jonathan and Nancy, who are a fully established couple.

We see Mike’s dynamic with Dustin and Lucas all throughout season 1, without Will, and even a little in season 2 with Will present—and the difference is obvious. Even before Will was back, it was already clear that Mike’s friendship with him was different compared to the other two, simply by the way Mike reacted to Will’s disappearance versus how Dustin and Lucas did. But season 2 only reinforces this distinction.

If you replace Will with a girl in season 2, you are literally watching a love story with explicitly romantic scenes. That’s why this dynamic cannot be replicated with Dustin or Lucas—their friendships with Mike are clearly, explicitly, and canonically confirmed to be 100% platonic. But that’s not the case with Will, because in their scenes, you can feel that this friendship is different, deeper than the others. We don’t necessarily have the words to define it, but we know that there is something there.

And the proof? Mike is one of the people chosen to help bring Will back from his possession. They could have asked Dustin and Lucas, who are also Will’s friends and have memories with him. And it's not about who was physically present at the lab—Jonathan wasn’t there either. Yet, for Joyce, Jonathan (and Hopper), it’s obvious that Mike has as much emotional power to reach Will as his mother and brother do. So they let him be there to talk to Will.

And they were right—because it’s Mike’s memory that weakens the possession enough for Will to start communicating. Even though his hands start trembling after Jonathan’s memory, that only shows that the possession is weakening, not that it’s breaking. It’s Mike’s words that actually break through and bring Will back enough for him to signal in Morse code with his fingers. You can see it in his expression—how his eyes shift, how his brows furrow, how he starts to whimper.

I’m getting off track, but yes—season 2 is so coded as romantic between Mike and Will that it’s painfully obvious. I even remember watching it this summer (before knowing anything about the later seasons or what the fandom says), and right after Mike’s monologue scene, I turned to my friend—who had already seen all four seasons—and said, “Are you sure there’s nothing going on between these two?”

#byler #stranger things #mike wheeler #byler endgame #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #will byers #mike wheeler analysis #byler tumblr #mike wheeler is gay

33 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 13 days ago

Note

See I don’t know if a coming out scene for Will is going to happen but I can definitely see someone like Lucas coming forward and saying something to Mike after seeing him go through a hard time. Vecna is going to still be targeting people or maybe he’s in everyone’s mind now idk but he’s still there forcing everyone to deal with their fears and Mike’s inner dilemma will be a sore spot for him and cause him some pain and after seeing what happened with Max in s4 and how much she was struggling I can definitely see Lucas wanting to be there for Mike kinda how Jonathan was for Will just in a way more subtle way. More in a, “I don’t want to see what happened to Max happen to you and I see that you are struggling with something and I just want you to know that I’m always here for you if you want to talk”. Making Mike understand that he has people behind him and whatever has him struggling he has Lucas backing him up. I feel like Lucas grew a lot towards the end of s4 and he could be that shoulder to cry on for his friends.

That would be an amazing idea to have Lucas take on this role as someone who was a direct witness to how Vecna’s power works from an external perspective on one of his victims. As you said, Lucas has grown tremendously since season 4—not only because of the trauma of watching Max “die” right in front of him, but also because he finally realized that trying to fit into a mold was meaningless. He now understands that conformity doesn’t matter, that it never did. The so-called popular kids turned out to be heartless, violent psychopaths, like the blonde captain of the basketball team in season 4.

He no longer seeks to conform or to fit into a predetermined norm, as he desperately tried to do in season 3 and especially in season 4. On top of that, his friendship with Mike was somewhat strained in season 4. The last conversation they had before Mike left for California and before Lucas fought Vecna alongside the others was about how Lucas was tired of being an outcast, a conversation he had with both Dustin and Mike. In a way, they were no longer on the same wavelength.

So his newfound maturity, combined with his knowledge of Vecna and the fact that he’ll be with Mike and Will in season 5, would be a perfect opportunity for Lucas and Mike to rebuild the close friendship they once had. Mike has always admired Lucas, and Lucas’s opinion has always influenced him to some extent—whether in season 1 or season 3. But back then, Lucas was advising Mike (or declaring what Mike was feeling) based on preconceived ideas and a desire to conform.

This time, he’ll be a true, trustworthy friend who genuinely takes Mike’s feelings into account, rather than telling him what he is “supposed” to feel. I’m sure he’ll be a shoulder to cry on. Lucas has always been a loyal friend from the very beginning—he’s just more grounded than the others.

#stranger things #mike wheeler #lucas sinclair #byler #byler endgame #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #will byers #mike wheeler analysis #byler tumblr #mike wheeler is gay

21 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 13 days ago

Note

I hadn’t really thought about this until reading, but one of your responses to one of your last asks, but do you think it’s possible that Mike thought that what Will said in the van was El’s thoughts and feelings AND Will’s? Or at the very least, that the thoughts and feelings were else, but Will agreed with them deeply and felt similarly?

(Obviously we the viewers know that they are Will’s words and feelings because El has not expressed anything like this about Mike, but Mike doesn’t know that)

The reason I ask this is because Will gets so emotional and earnest when talking to Mike in that scene that even back when I first watched the episode and I was a lukewarm Milkvan shipper and didn’t think Mike reciprocated, I thought to myself, “Mike knows. He has to know Will likes him. Look at his face! He looks like he’s having an epiphany.” And I’ve since flip-flopped on what exactly I think Mike is thinking and feeling in that moment (and I’m excited for season five to contextualize it for us).

But basically, what I’m trying to say is that it truly feels like Mike is reacting to Will’s feelings in the moment during the van scene; Will’s voice, Will’s expressions and smile, and barely unshed tears. But I also feel like Mike’s monologue comes from a place of feeling responsible and needing to respond to what he thinks are El’s words and feelings. He wants to help El, he wants to protect and save her, he wants to be useful and needed so if him spitting out these words that burn as they pass his lips is what she needs, then he needs to do it, right?

But I wonder if rather than it being so black and white of “He thought they were Will’s feelings, and THEN changed his mind when Will pushed him during the pizza dough box scene” or “he always thought they were El’s feelings, full stop”

And rather a mix of, “He thought Will was relaying El’s thoughts and feelings but could feel that Will deeply and wholeheartedly agreed with El, and that makes the van speech and painting mean that much more to him & what he’s feeling during the van scene is prompted by believing that Will agrees with El and feels similarly toward Mike, it further entangles his feelings for them together and further blurs the line between platonic and romantic and who exactly he feels what for”

This is a very interesting… I must admit, it’s incredibly difficult to be certain about whether or not Mike understood that the emotions Will was expressing in the van scene were actually his own. I believe this ambiguity is intentional on the part of the Duffer Brothers—there’s no clear indication of what Mike is feeling and thinking, and all we can do is observe and analyze the small clues they provide through his facial expressions and words.

I think Mike is aware that some aspects of Will’s confession align with El’s feelings—like the sense of being different—but many of the things Will says don’t actually match what El has previously expressed. During their argument, El made it clear that she feels like a monster even without her powers (so technically, even when she’s "normal"), and that being called a "superhero" bothers her because she doesn’t feel loved by Mike for anything other than that. So when Will tells Mike, "You make her feel like she’s not a mistake at all, that it's better to being different, which gives her the courage to fight," it doesn’t quite add up.

And then there’s the famous line: "If she was being mean to you or if she seemed like she was pushing you away, it’s just because she’s scared of losing you, the same way you’re scared of losing her." But… El was never mean to Mike or acted as if she was pushing him away. The one who did that was Will. Mike specifically called Will out for ignoring him, mopping, rolling his eyes, and being distant with him during their argument at Rink-O-Mania. El never behaved that way. When she wasn’t talking to him after attacking Angela or when she was upset with him, it was mainly because:

She thought Mike was afraid of her.

He was passive-aggressive toward her at the dinner, and she resented him for judging her.

Not to mention, if you analyze Will’s confession, you realize he’s actually responding to Mike’s own feelings—the ones he expressed when he apologized in his room, saying he felt like he had lost Will by being in Hawkins without him and that he had been too focused on El.

Moreover, as you pointed out, Will becomes so emotional during his speech that it’s almost impossible for Mike not to have noticed or understood. Even Finn Wolfhard himself said so. However, when he asked the Duffer Brothers about it, they told him, "Don’t worry, it will pay off." This makes me think they deliberately withheld Mike’s perspective in the van scene so that it could be explored in Season 5. In Season 4, we were given Will’s point of view so we could fully understand his emotions. I believe Season 5 will finally give us Mike’s perspective so that we can understand him in return.

Based on his reactions and the fact that he turned around when Will was crying, my theory is that Mike knows—or at the very least, suspects—that the emotions Will was expressing were his own. He realized Will was crying but didn’t react because they weren’t alone. Argyle and Jonathan were in the van as well—something people tend to forget too quickly. They weren’t alone.

I really don’t think Mike ever considered for a moment that those emotions belonged to El rather than Will. Especially considering that El has absolutely no knowledge of D&D. In Season 3, Mike even claimed to have lost interest in it because he was dating her, so why would she have asked Will to paint such a detailed depiction of the party if she wasn’t familiar with it and didn’t care? There isn’t a single scene or line of dialogue suggesting even the slightest interest from El in the boys’ games, and that’s not a coincidence.

I genuinely believe that if Mike assumed the confession was El’s emotions, it because Will was telling him to do something and he said "you are the heart", referencing literally the van conversation. So Mike could only came at this conclusion and do his best to save El by saying what he thinks El needs to hear.

#byler #stranger things #mike wheeler #byler endgame #stranger things analysis #stranger things theory #will byers #mike wheeler analysis #byler tumblr #mike wheeler is gay

21 notes · View notes

lune-moon-nuit · 14 days ago

Text

Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love + Stranger Things Couples

This is very different from my other posts on here, but I was inspired by @hawkinsschoolcounselor to make this. Just wanted to give this tag some of my own insight from a Psychology student's perspective, specifically talking about the Triangular Theory of Love (TTL) in relation to couples (whether they are platonic or romantic or not) on Stranger Things. I'm not here to say that the Duffer Brothers specifically took inspiration for their couples from this theoretical model, just that this is one of the many theoretical models of relationships that can be applied to how people view love. Therefore, a writer would have written real life people's experiences of love into the show.

(Just want to quickly add -- this theory was made in the 80s. The most common criticism of this model is that it is made on the basis of westernised ideals of love. It also does not take asexuality or aromanticism into account.)

First of all, an Introduction to the TTL:

Imagine yourself a triangle. Every triangle has three sides. Each side of this triangle is an essential component to love. It’s the combination of these elements that creates the different types of love we experience.

First, we have Intimacy, which isn't your classic physical intimacy that you know (e.g. hugging, kissing). It's basically the emotional side of love. Can you tell this person your deepest secrets? Can you trust them? Do you two have similar interests? Can you have a laugh? Intimacy is what makes us feel understood and accepted for who we are.

Next, is Passion, which is the fire, the spark, the physical attraction that ignites the magnetic pull between two people. The chemistry, the electricity, you could say. We feel this at the beginning of most relationships, that intense desire to be with someone, emotionally and physically.

Lastly is Commitment. This is the decision to stay, to continue even if something changes. This can be for various reasons like investments you've made in the relationship, the promises you've made to someone.

Each of these components are associated with a certain type of love.

Nonlove -- This relationship has neither intimacy, commitment, or passion. You are acquaintances with this person.

Liking -- This relationship has intimacy only. This is a friendship, without commitment or passion that a romantic relationship has.

Infatuation -- Only has passion. It's exciting, overwhelming, but there's no emotional connection, trust, or commitment.

Empty -- Only has commitment. The relationship is stable and safe, but has no real connection or passion that it may once have had or never had.

Companionate -- This relationship his intimacy and commitment, but it does not have passion. This could be a very close friend, or a couple that may be in love but do not have physical attraction to one another.

Romantic -- You are intimate with this person and have passion with them, but you are not yet committed. For example, a partner that you've been dating for a short time.

Fatuous -- The presence of passion and commitment, but without intimacy. For example, two people who barely know each other can get married super quick on a whim.

Consummate -- Is the 'ideal' love. This is the complete, balanced love we all strive for. It’s a mix of deep emotional connection, physical attraction, and a strong, lasting commitment.

So how does this relate to Stranger Things?

I do believe we can sort of apply these definitions of love to many different duos in ST, and see what this means for them in the future. Love can also be different on either side, for example, on side of the duo may see passion in their love, while the other side sees none.

BTW you may notice that I'm not going to include Byler or Mileven in this first list, I will diagnose them after all the other duos in the show. So scroll down if you want to only see them.

Nonlove

This would be a duo from ST that really has no interaction with each other. No commitment, no emotional connection, no physical connection. I guess we can just pick people who've barely had an interaction, like Steve and Will. Eddie and Hopper. Mike and Robin (not yet anyways).

Liking

E.g. Joyce and Murray, Mike and Lucas. Just friends, but they are friends enough that they have believable closeness and an understanding of one another. More examples include all the party's friendships with each other (except Mike and Will). I don't want to really dumb them down into not being committed toward each other, but we can see that they're not dependent on each other in a way that's got more emotional depth than some other platonic duos in the show.

Infatuation

The only notable one that I can think of here is Stancy, more specifically on Nancy's side. This means she only has passion with him, aka, physical attraction. She's not intimate with him (in this model's definition at least). This model's definition of intimate means sharing deep secrets and trusting each other. During S1, Nancy's reason for being with Steve was because he was popular and she was just excited to be with the most desire guy in high school. She didn't confide in him about her emotional turmoil, she didn't understand his decisions and he didn't understand hers. In S2, this is the same. The only time that she confronted him was when she was drunk, other times she didn't feel he understood her enough like Jonathan did.

She also wasn't committed to him, which makes sense, because she had a far more emotional intimacy with Jonathan.

Empty

The first one that comes to mind ^. Obviously, this isn't necessarily fully in line with the psychological definition of 'Empty love', because Karen is not fully committed to Ted in S2 or S3, but ultimately she does make the decision not to cheat on her husband because of her commitment to her family. They have no intimacy and no passion (Ted's bed is literally downstairs). This is one of those relationships where people don't even have to ask why they don't get a divorce -- because they're too committed, which is their downfall.

Companionate

I believe Steve and Robin are different to those friendships in the 'Liking' category. They have intimacy, because they confide in each other and understand each other on a deeper level. But they're also committed to each other in a way that the other platonic duos don't have. They go where the other goes -- (they always need to have the same job together), and other people already think they are a couple (based on heteronormativity but also because they're seen together so often). They obviously have no passion, because uh well, their physical attractions lie elsewhere.

Romantic

I couldn't think of anything that just fitted only intimacy and passion and no commitment, most of the couples on ST basically have commitment if they also have the other two.

Fatuous

Without intimacy, but only commitment and passion, this is a super rare kind of love, and probably not represented in Stranger Things. If anyone has any idea of what could be in this section, please let me know.

Consummate

The ideal love, with intimacy, passion and commitment, is luckily represented by most of the canon couples in Stranger Things. This is how you know that the writers are good at writing believable romances -- you don't need the characters to explicitly state that they are in love for you to know, because they have all three of the staples for an ideal love.

Jancy has intimacy because they can tell each other secrets and they understand each other's emotional traumas (Jonathan understands Nancy's trauma surrounding Barb, for example. As a wise man once said, they have shared trauma). The biggest reason why they definitely have this love to me, though, is because the moments that they have the most trouble in their relationship is when one of these sections breaks down. AKA -- intimacy was broken down in S3 when they 'don't understand each other' anymore, and they were able to come back from this, showing their commitment. Season 4 also shows their commitment, because while Nancy was being sweet talked to by Steve (ugh sorry), she still stayed committed to Jonathan, same on Jonathan's side. Despite being in a different state, he still made all his decisions based on her future as well as his, showing they were committed.

Jopper has intimacy because she feels that he understands her more than anyone -- he met her in high school and clearly have both shared memories and shared trauma. They trust each other with sensitive information about each other's lives, and are able to confide in each other when the other is going through something. The commitment is shown deeply in Season 4. Joyce's commitment is quite literally shown in almost crashing in a plane for him and trying to break him out of prison. Hopper's is the plan he makes to break out and go see her. Their passion well.... that is also shown in the way Hopper continues to pine for her in S3, giving her longing looks, but also in S4 because this desire has a pay off.

Okay so now we can talk about which categories Mileven and Byler fit into:

Mileven and Byler

Lets' start by looking at each of the three components:

Mileven's Intimacy: In the beginning of Season 1, Mike has emotional understanding with El, but this is gone by the time Season 4 rolls around. She explicitly states to him "No. You don't." He also finds no time to express his insecurities about his relationship with her actually with her, instead choosing to confide in Will about his insecurities. On El's side, she chooses to lie to Mike about having a really hard time in California, because she does not have the intimacy with him to feel like she can confide in him. There is a reason for this, obviously, and that is because she feels insecure about their relationship. But instead of communicating that, she chooses to ignore it. When Mike finally chooses to tell El about his 'feelings', even if they are true, he is only spurred on by Will alone, not by his own desire to do it. Whenever Mike tries to actually tell El what he's feeling, he ends up trying to do it in other ways in order to avoid it. Their scenes where they're about to open up to each other are either interrupted or extremely frustrating.

Byler's Intimacy: Will has always chosen Mike to talk about his problems with. He says to him in the 'crazy together' scene that Mike can't tell the others because they won't understand, showing that they have a unique kind of intimacy. Will also chooses to confide only with Mike about his problem with D'art in S2, because the situation is slightly icky (because D'art was literally inside him ig) and trusts only Mike with this situation. This is the same as the situation at the end of S4, where Will knows it would be scary for anyone else to hear, but he's happy to tell Mike about Vecna being alive. Luckily, Mike is ready to jump into action at the drop of a hat in both situations. Mike's intimacy with Will is the sheer amount of heart-to-heart scenes they have in S4. He's always ready to tell Will about his relationship problems, but not El (and no, not just because she's in the lab). He's more comfortable around him than El. All Mike and El do is make out (in S3), have some slight banter, but they don't actually have any shared interests. Mike and Will both have the shared interest of all things nerdy, and Mike finds Will's artwork moving and amazing. Mike has been shown to have an appreciation for what Will creates.

Mileven's Passion: I guess it's slightly awkward to talk about this kind of stuff with either Mileven or Byler, because they are teenagers. But teenagers obviously experience physical attraction and desire. The reason we can see this desire is because they have a lot of build up. Jancy have desire because they've been kept from each other because of Steve and Nancy being together. Jopper have been kept from each other because of Joyce's relationship with Bob and her grief, then Hopper being kept in jail (though that's not to do with romance). Lumax have been kept from one another because of Max refusing to get help from others. There was no pining, desiring moment with Mileven. And I know what people might say: Season 2 and Season 3 had moments where they were kept from each other and it was shown that Mike wanted her back. Oh? You mean the Mike that gave up on calling her and focused on Will until El reappeared again? You mean the Mike that joked around with Lucas after El broke up with him and played himself as the victim? It's not the same, because it has no pay off like the others. The maybe-pay off is the 'passion' of them making out in S3, constantly getting interrupted by some funny old guy haha!. As Hopper said, too much passion is 'not normal, not healthy'. This passion has Mike pulling her hands away from him and is just presented as humour/puberty-ridden teens figuring themselves out. Idk man

Byler's Passion: Ignoring the fact I feel so weird talking about this, let's just reiterate some of the points I brought up to you in the last paragraph. All other main couples in ST have had a moment of unambiguous pining. Jopper, Jancy and Lumax. This is also the case with Byler, clearly, from S4, Will's pining for Mike can be seen as him wanting something. Have you seen those longing looks, marked by sweet, pining music? Those scream attraction, even though some of you might be allergic to two teen boys showing attraction to each other but are totally fine with 13 year olds making out. Those are just Will's pining moments. I mean, I can talk at length about Mike's slip ups. The triple take? The amount of lip glances on this man? It's hard to say at the moment whether they have passion in this relationship, but the thing is. We don't need to have it right now. All we need to know is that there is potential for it, potential for an amazing pay off where Will confesses his feelings. And from the amount of pining Will's shown (and Mike in a lot of ways), there definitely is potential.

Mileven's commitment: So this is where they actually have something. But that's not necessarily a good thing. Mike is the first person that treats El well after being stuck in an abusive lab for the first 12 years of her life. He made a promise to her that he would take care of her, and they both stress that Friends Don't Lie. They don't want to lose each other. Mike tells Will and El that he doesn't want to lose her and wants her to need him. This is not the same as romantically loving somebody. Mike's feelings shift during S2 and S4, but his commitment to El overrides everything. El wants to break up with him because of various reasons, and says that he is her 'first boyfriend' during S3. But they still stay together despite the troubles in their relationship, showing that the commitment is not something they want but something they need in order to feel secure. We have established they have no intimacy, we have established they have no passion. So why do they stay together? Because of the security, or some other reason. We have seen that Mike doesn't love El during S4 because he describes 'explaining himself' to her, while also not knowing what to say when she spells it out for him. We have seen how Mike treats El poorly, and the other way around. They lie to each other, they don't confide in the other. But they stay together because... they've made a promise, a commitment. Mike says I love you because she's going to die and believes it's what she wants. Even if this commitment was supposed to be genuine and pure, it can't be worth rooting for without intimacy and passion.

Byler's commitment: Will states many times that he will always be Mike's friend, always need him, wants to be with him for the rest of his life, playing games in his basement. That is the most obvious sign of commitment I have ever seen. He is so committed that he is willing to sacrifice his own feelings in order to make Mike happy, effectively tying himself to his love forever. Mike is committed to Will in his own way. He is always the one to apologise and take the fall in their arguments, while with El he is not committed in that way. When Will is away from Mike, he's worried that he's lost him. Basically this means Mike is afraid that Will isn't as committed as he is to their friendship. It's funny because Will has the exact same worries during the Rink o Mania fight. But that's the irony. They are both committed. Mike's commitment despite the distance is shown through his fear of losing Will. Will's commitment to him despite the distance is through his painting. No matter what, Mike is always ready to be a team with Will and work with him. Even while they were supposed to be fighting, Mike confides in Will. And Will? A huge part of Will's arc is his undying commitment towards Mike, which makes his scenes with Mileven so upsetting -- because we know his love will never end, meaning his sadness won't end unless Mileven break up.

So what's the diagnosis?

Mileven: Empty Love (Only commitment to each other. There is no show of emotional understanding and connection. The passion and pining for each other is not shown like with other ST couples.)

Byler: Consummate Love (Has all three elements. Both have a mutual understanding to each other's needs, both have a mutual pining, even though it's much easier to see on Will's side. Both have a commitment to the other in their own way. All other popular ST couples have this love and would fit in with Byler's)

Im so scared to post this because it's so different from my other posts. But hopefully you see that even if Byler is not endgame, Mileven being endgame would not be a true show of 'love defeats all' -- because it is not a healthy love.

153 notes · View notes