Fantasy vs. Reality: How Genre Shapes Our Response to Dark, Dysfunctional Stories

Introduction: Two Dark Tales, Two Very Different Reactions

My wife recently binge-watched The Hunting Wives, a sleazy and twisty modern thriller set in suburban Texas. I found its portrayal of bad behavior downright abhorrent – yet I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the equally graphic violence and scheming of Game of Thrones. How could I stomach (even savor) the beheadings and betrayals of a fantasy epic, but cringe at the scandals of a contemporary Texas drama? At first glance, it’s a head-scratcher. Both shows are filled with dysfunction, sex, and violence. Both had us hooked. So why did one leave me uneasy about what it was selling, while the other felt like harmless (if brutal) escapism?

It turns out psychology and sociology have some answers. Dark, dysfunctional stories don’t all affect us the same way – genre and setting make a huge difference in how we perceive and internalize them. An epic fantasy drenched in dragons and magic invites a different mindset than a show that takes place in our own world. One can serve as a cautionary fable, while the other might inadvertently glamorize toxic behavior by making it feel uncomfortably real. The popularity of both suggests something about us, too – our appetite for darkness, and what we might be normalizing without even realizing it.

Don’t worry: you won’t need a psychology degree to follow along. Let’s break down, in plain language, what social science research says about how stories affect our minds and values. Then we’ll dig into why the court intrigue of Westeros can feel so different from the gun-toting housewives of Texas. By the end, we’ll see what these cases teach us about being careful consumers of entertainment as we “grow in humanity.” (Hint: it involves using that all-important third part of the human trinity – our will – to stay aligned with our values, no matter what we watch.)

Understanding the Psychology of Dark Stories

Decades of research in psychology and behavioral science have explored how violent or unethical media content can influence viewers’ thoughts, feelings, and even behaviors. Here’s a quick primer on key concepts – consider this an accessibility bridge from scientific findings to everyday understanding. We’ll keep it punchy and relatable:

• Monkey See, Monkey Do (Social Learning): Humans (especially kids) often imitate what they see. In Albert Bandura’s classic Bobo doll experiments, children who watched an adult beat up a toy clown copied the aggressive behavior almost step for step. This demonstrated observational learning: people can learn new behaviors just by watching others, without any direct reward or punishment. In media terms, if a character lies, cheats, or kills and seems cool or rewarded, viewers might absorb the lesson that such behavior is acceptable or even desirable. Role models matter, even fictional ones. The more we identify with a character, the more we might mirror their actions or attitudes in real life.

• Numb to the Shock (Desensitization): The first time you see a graphic murder on screen, you likely feel horror or disgust. But after the hundredth murder? Not so much. Repeated exposure to violence or dysfunction can dull our natural emotional reactions. Psychologists call this desensitization. Essentially, we get habituated – our heart rate, stress and revulsion drop with each exposure to gore or cruelty . Negative emotions that would normally arise in response to a violent or gory scene decline in intensity after many exposures. Over time, what once made us flinch becomes no big deal. This isn’t just theory – experiments show that after watching a lot of on-screen violence, people have lower physiological responses to real violence and may be less disturbed by it . In plain terms, we can become numb. The danger is that desensitization might make us more tolerant of aggression or cruelty in real life because it starts to feel normal.

• “It’s So Real!” (Identification & Realism): Not all media affects us equally. A big factor is how realistic and relatable it seems. If we see a behavior as “just fantasy” or far-fetched, we keep more mental distance. But if a show feels close to real life, it can hit harder. Research finds that viewers who perceive on-screen events as “just like real life” are especially likely to internalize what they see . Likewise, if you strongly identify with a character – seeing them as someone like you or someone you aspire to be – their actions imprint more on you . One long-term study found children who identified with violent TV characters and believed the violence was realistic had significantly higher rates of aggression later in life. In short, relatability amplifies impact. A charismatic antihero doing bad things in a familiar setting can be more problematic for impressionable viewers than an alien warlord doing the same in a galaxy far away.

• Normalization and “Everybody’s Doing It” (Cultivation Theory): Sociologists talk about media as a culture cultivator. Over time, heavy TV watchers can absorb a distorted idea of what “normal” life is . George Gerbner’s famous cultivation theory argues that the more time people spend immersed in TV or movies, the more their own worldview shifts to align with the TV world. For example, if every show you watch depicts ultra-rich, backstabbing socialites or ultra-violent cities, you may start believing that’s how the world really is. For many, “the distorted and partial reality portrayed on television represents what the world is really like” . This happens subconsciously – our brains compile what we see frequently and use it as a reference for reality. So if dysfunctional relationships are constantly glamorized on screen, we risk normalizing them. Studies have noted that consistent portrayals of certain behaviors can increase public acceptance of them. In other words, the more we see cheating, violence, or cruelty treated casually or rewarded in media, the more likely we are to consider it a routine part of life . Society’s collective moral compass can be nudged by what’s normalized in popular shows.

Keep in mind: none of this means “watch one violent show and you’ll turn into a criminal.” Human behavior is complex and media is just one influence. But peer-reviewed research does indicate that media can shape our attitudes and norms in subtle but real ways. Understanding these effects arms us to be more critical viewers. Now, with this toolkit of concepts (monkey-see-monkey-do, desensitization, identification, normalization), let’s apply it to our two case studies – the fantasy bloodbath of Game of Thrones versus the contemporary chaos of The Hunting Wives. The goal is to see how genre and setting change the equation of influence.

Case Study: Game of Thrones vs. The Hunting Wives – When Setting Changes the Message

Dark, dysfunctional content comes in different flavors. In Game of Thrones (GoT), we’re plunged into a medieval fantasy world. The violence is epic – knights clashing, dragons torching armies, nobles betraying and murdering for power. It’s graphic and often shocking. The Hunting Wives, by contrast, unfolds in presentday Texas with a clique of wealthy suburban women indulging in debauchery – think Real Housewives meets murder mystery. There’s drugs, infidelity, exploitation of a student, and eventually a killing, all amid gated communities and country clubs. Both series revel in taboo and transgression, but the context couldn’t be more different. Here’s how those differences matter:

• Distance vs. Immersion: GoT’s fantasy setting provides a psychological buffer. Most viewers have zero frame of reference for riding dragons or living under feudal lords. This built-in distance makes it easier to treat the show’s brutality as allegory or escapism rather than instructions for life. We’re aware that Westeros is not the real world – it’s a metaphorical stage where themes like power corruption play out in exaggerated form. In contrast, The Hunting Wives is set in a world much like our own. The characters drive SUVs, attend PTA meetings (before sneaking off to wild boozefests), and live in a community that could be down the road in real-life Texas. That familiarity blurs the line between fiction and reality. Viewers can more easily imagine “this could happen here.” Social psychology suggests that when people see events as typical or plausible in the real world, they judge them as more realistic and thus more influential . So, the modern realism of The Hunting Wives potentially packs a bigger punch in normalizing the depicted dysfunction. It immerses viewers in a setting close to home, which lowers our guard and makes any glamorization of bad behavior more impactful.

• Moral Framing – Critique vs. Glamorization: Another major difference is tone and narrative purpose. Game of Thrones (at its best) was often a critique of power and violence. Yes, it showed gruesome acts, but frequently to make a point: unchecked lust for power destroys humanity, honor doesn’t always win, etc. Notably, many of the truly heinous characters in GoT meet grim ends (poisoned, stabbed, blown up by wildfire…). The story, for all its shock, usually signaled that evil is not ultimately rewarded – if anything, it’s a cautionary tale of a world trapped in cycles of violence. The Hunting Wives, on the other hand, has the vibe of a trashy thriller that revels in the very misconduct it portrays. Critics and fans alike describe it as a “sleazy, twisted…super fun romp” – basically a guilty pleasure that “has everything a good summer binge should have… mystery, sex, lies, and twists” . The show makes no bones about being shameless entertainment. The problem is that it normalizes and even glamorizes the dysfunction as titillating drama. The characters are often presented as alluring bad girls; the transgressions (drunken gun games, affairs with teens, covering up crimes) are played for suspense and excitement rather than serious critique. When immoral behavior is depicted without clear condemnation – or worse, with an attractive sheen – it can send a message that such behavior is desirable or common. Research warns that violent or antisocial acts by charismatic protagonists, especially if justified or rewarded in the story, are most likely to increase imitation in viewers. In The Hunting Wives, the antiheroes are charismatic (wealthy, beautiful, confident) and largely “get away with it” until the very end. That runs the risk of vicariously rewarding viewers for siding with bad behavior. By contrast, while GoT certainly had viewers cheering for antiheroes at times (who didn’t love Tyrion’s witty scheming or Arya’s kill list?), the show’s overarching narrative was more condemnatory of wanton brutality. It’s easier to come away thinking “what a brutal world – thank goodness it’s fiction” rather than “secret affairs and murder cover-ups seem thrilling, maybe I need more excitement like that.” The genre frames the morality: epic fantasy naturally feels like a fable, whereas a suburban thriller can feel like spicy gossip – one educates (arguably), the other titillates.

• Identification and Aspirations: We touched on identification earlier – how much you relate to or idolize characters. In Game of Thrones, unless you have a Napoleon complex, you’re probably not aspiring to become a medieval warlord or a dragon queen in real life. Viewers might admire characters’ courage or cleverness, but it’s generally fantasy fulfillment. Meanwhile, The Hunting Wives features lifestyles that some viewers do find aspirational or at least conceivable: the sexy, daring socialite who breaks the rules, drinks top-shelf liquor, and doesn’t seem bound by humdrum norms. It’s a bit like how reality TV portrays “rich and reckless” personas – it can create a parasocial desire to emulate that glamour. Social research suggests that when people identify strongly with on-screen figures and see their behavior as realistically achievable, the media’s influence on their own attitudes intensifies . So, a viewer might consciously disapprove of the wives’ actions (“these characters are terrible people,” as one review put it ), yet still subconsciously absorb the idea that their brand of rebellious decadence is part of a normal, enviable life for the wealthy. With GoT, identification is more symbolic (we root for Jon Snow’s honor or Daenerys’s quest for justice, perhaps), but few will literally model their personal behavior on a sword-swinging knight or a Machiavellian queen – those roles aren’t available in real society. Identification with The Hunting Wives crew, however, taps into real social archetypes (the queen bee, the trophy wife, the rebel mom, etc.) that viewers might encounter or fantasize about. This makes the social learning aspect more directly relevant: if Sophie or Margo on the show treats marriage, friendship, or legality like a joke and still seems “cool,” it edges toward normalizing such attitudes in the real social sphere.

In summary, Game of Thrones and The Hunting Wives may both indulge our dark curiosity, but the genre context filters their impact. Fantasy provides a safer sandbox – we can enjoy the cathartic rush of violence and betrayal, then close the book (or turn off the TV) knowing it was all make-believe. A slick modern drama doesn’t give that same safe distance; it imports the darkness right into settings and roles that exist in our world, which can blur the moral and psychological boundaries. This isn’t to say one genre is “good” and the other “bad” – both can be problematic or thought-provoking in different ways. But it does illustrate why I personally felt The Hunting Wives was more unsettling: it was just a bit too close to real life, flirting with the idea that this kind of dysfunction could be desirable or normal in our own communities.

Why Are We Drawn to Such Dark Content Anyway?

Before we conclude, it’s worth asking: if these shows are so dark and potentially mis-aligning for our values, why do we love watching them? Clearly, millions of people (myself included) willingly dive into these morally murky worlds. What gives? Social and behavioral science offers a few insights here as well:

• Thrill and Arousal: Dark shows often provide an adrenaline rush. From medieval battle scenes to illicit suburban escapades, there’s excitement in witnessing danger from the safety of our couch. Psychologically, this is sometimes called “benign masochism” – enjoying negative emotions in a safe context. We get a jolt of stress or fear (that fight-or-flight response kicks in with a spike of adrenaline, cortisol, etc.), but we know we’re not actually in danger. It’s the rollercoaster effect: the ride is scary-fun because you’re strapped in. Research on horror and violent media finds that some people high in sensation-seeking actually crave these intense stimuli – they get a dopamine reward from the arousal. So, part of the appeal of GoT’s shocking deaths or The Hunting Wives’ salacious twists is pure biochemical thrill. It’s exciting, and that can be pleasurable.

• Curiosity and “What If?” Exploration: Dark fiction lets us explore the shadow side of human behavior without real consequences. There’s a natural curiosity about taboo or extreme situations. Sociologist Jack Katz talked about the concept of “seductions of crime” – the allure some feel toward transgression. Watching a show like The Hunting Wives might let an ordinary person vicariously experience the rush of breaking rules, manipulating others, or living a hedonistic lifestyle they’d never actually choose. It’s a form of psychological play-acting – exploring the “what if I did this awful thing?” scenario safely through a character. In the case of Game of Thrones, viewers can ponder big moral questions (Would I avenge my family at all costs like Arya? Would power corrupt me like it did so-and-so?) in a dramatic sandbox. This kind of media experience can even be educative in a way: it forces us to think about our own values and limits from the sidelines. (Though if it’s purely presented as glam fun like Hunting Wives, the introspection might be less and the vicarious indulgence more.)

• Social Connection and Commentary: Popular shows become cultural conversations. Many people watch just to be able to talk about it with friends, or to participate in the buzz (remember the global chatter around Game of Thrones episodes?). Consuming the latest dark, twisty show can be a social experience – we debate character choices, condemn villains, swap theories. In doing so, we’re actually engaging our moral reasoning. Even my negative reaction to The Hunting Wives became a conversation with my wife about why it bothered me. In a roundabout way, consuming “guilty pleasure” content can spark useful dialogue about values (“Wasn’t it messed up how the show made infidelity look fun?” “Would any of us go that far for revenge?” etc.). Of course, this benefit only comes if we actively reflect and discuss. Passively absorbing without critical thought is when normalization effects are strongest – which is why having a social or analytical angle (even reading think-pieces or blog articles like this!) can counteract the more disturbing influences by making us think twice.

In short, dark media isn’t purely a societal evil we’re helpless against. There are reasons we’re drawn in – some primal, some thoughtful. However, it’s a double-edged sword: the very factors that make these shows compelling can also make them subtly influential on our mindset. Enjoyment and influence aren’t mutually exclusive. As an audience, we can enjoy the wild ride and stay aware of the messages we might be soaking up.

Conclusion: Treading Carefully with Eyes Wide Open

There’s an old saying: “We are what we eat.” If that’s true for our diets, it’s at least partly true for our media intake as well. Both Game of Thrones and The Hunting Wives serve up heavy helpings of violence, betrayal, and moral ambiguity – the kind of fare that can either offer insightful critique or just numb our senses. The difference in flavor between an epic fantasy and a glossy modern thriller shows how context matters. Fantasy wrapped its darkness in the guise of myth and parable, making it easier to digest as fictional commentary on real issues. The modern setting stripped away that protective layer, risking normalization of the very dysfunction it portrayed.

So, where does that leave us as we binge these kinds of shows? It doesn’t mean we should banish all dark or violent media. But it does mean we should consume with caution and consciousness. Be aware of when a show is pushing your empathy or ethics in a strange direction. Ask: Is this behavior being glamorized or critiqued? Do I admire this character for the wrong reasons? If something that would appall you in real life starts to feel oddly acceptable or aspirational on screen, take a step back – that’s the time to engage your critical mind (and maybe watch something more wholesome next!). Remember that repeated exposure can shift norms and dull reactions , so mix up your media diet with content that recenters positive values too.

Ultimately, maintaining our moral alignment in the age of binge-watching comes down to that third piece of the human trinity we mentioned: the will (our capacity for self-awareness and choice). We can’t control everything the media throws at us, but we can control how we engage with it. That means using our willpower to pause and reflect, to discuss with others, and sometimes to say “no thanks” to the next episode if we sense the wrong lessons seeping in. As we grow in humanity – hopefully becoming wiser and kinder – we must choose our influences thoughtfully.

In future discussions (teaser: tying this into the broader Infinite Structure framework of personal development I’m exploring), we’ll delve even deeper into strategies for building an “infinite” inner structure that helps us filter and withstand unhealthy societal inputs. For now, the takeaway is clear: dark stories can illuminate real truths or cast long shadows on our norms – and it’s largely up to us, the audience, to decide which it will be. Enjoy the dragons and drama, but keep your inner light on.

Sources:

Huesmann, L. (2007). The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research. J. Adolesc. Health. (Review of media violence effects – notes that viewers who perceive TV violence as realistic and identify with violent characters are more likely to be influenced . Also discusses how justified, rewarded violence by heroes increases imitation , and how habitual viewing in childhood predicts aggression in adulthood .)

Bandura, A. (1963). Social learning experiment (Bobo Doll). (Famous study demonstrating children imitating aggressive behavior observed in adults . Showed that watching others can teach new behaviors.)

Bushman, B., & Anderson, C. (2001). Media violence and desensitization. (Research summarized by Huesmann: repeated exposure to violent media reduces viewers’ negative emotional response – desensitization – making them less sensitive to real violence .)

Gerbner, G. (1986). Cultivation theory. (Long-term television viewing can shape viewers’ perceptions of reality. Heavy viewers may come to believe the real world resembles the TV world , normalizing behaviors seen frequently on screen.)

Mittal, S. (2015). Media and normalization of violence. Journal of Psychiatry (Literature review noted that consistent portrayals of violence in media can increase public acceptance of such violence – essentially normalizing it through desensitization and cultural framing.)

Reddit user reviews of The Hunting Wives (2025). (Informal reactions indicating the show’s tone: described as “sleazy, trashy, fun… characters are terrible people” and a guilty pleasure) . Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research - PMC https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2704015/ Gerbner's Cultivation Theory In Media Communication https://www.simplypsychology.org/cultivation-theory.html Contribution of Media to the Normalization and Perpetuation of Domestic Violence https://austinpublishinggroup.com/psychiatry-behavioral-sciences/fulltext/ajpbs-v1-id1018.php I can’t lie anymore. The Hunting Wives is sleazy, twisty and a hell of a summer binge. : r/netflix https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/1mbi3pw/i_cant_lie_anymore_the_hunting_wives_is_sleazy/ Why do we like to be scared? The psychology of fear, fright-nights ... https://www.bps.org.uk/blog/why-do-we-be-scared-psychology-fear-fright-nights-and-exploring-unknown Why do we enjoy horror? Science explains https://carey.jhu.edu/articles/research/why-we-enjoy-horror-science-explains