Why do ITV audiences like toxicity and aggressive MLs?

This is actually in response to a reply on my post on the new season EDT#5 by missFiesty_69. We both wondered what made the non-toxic Neil's character unlikable to TRP audiences. Why do ordinary characters not click? Why is it always a tensed story and emotionally unavailable leads winning this ratings race? I thought this question requires a separate thread as I have written a long long post. There might be a few points feeling repetitive but I wrote them for emphasis. Kindly bear. Would love to hear other viewpoints about this extremely disturbing topic.

We all know that the audience of these daily soaps is definitely not the miniscule, urbane, sophisticated crowd in metro cities. It's usually the housewives or regressive joint families viewing these shows. Both these categories are direct implications of rooted patriarchy.

There seems to be a trauma bonding between the viewers and the tortured characters in these shows. It's almost like Stockholm Syndrome, where you get emotionally attached to your own kidnapper. They get attached to these traumatised, insane, maddening characters as if they are outlets to their own frustrations. Many viewers from these emotionally and sexually repressive backgrounds, have subconsciously internalized toxic behaviors as “normal.” When daily soaps portray manipulation, emotional blackmail, or dysfunctional families, viewers feel a sense of familiarity, even if it's uncomfortable.

The Psychology Behind This Affection towards Toxicity:

Watching characters cry, scream, or confront each other provides a safe outlet for the viewers' own frustrations or desires. Greek philosopher Aristotle called this catharsis—emotional purification through drama.

Another plausible explanation would be Carl Jung’s theory of the “shadow self”. It explains how people project their hidden or socially unacceptable desires onto others. In daily soaps, viewers may secretly identify with powerful villains, manipulative mothers-in-law, or obsessive lovers—not because they admire them, but because they represent impulses the viewer suppresses in real life. It's again a direct causation of the orthodox and mostly uneducated backgrounds these audiences come from. Women who have grown up seeing all these behaviours around them try to subject their next generation in that toxicity as well. This reflects in the television storylines where there seems to be a generational trauma of the complete control of mothers in law towards the daughters in law, influencing even their sons' decisions, turning them into the typical "mumma's boys".

This about the toxic storylines and FLs. What about the toxic MLs?

Toxic male leads are often written to embody dominance, emotional detachment, control, and assertiveness—traits historically associated with masculinity. In conservative or patriarchal cultures, these men are seen as “strong,” even when their behavior borders on abuse. Audiences, especially those conditioned to associate love with authority and intensity, romanticize this power. Similar to our target audience, isn't it?

I was seeing the Netflix series Adolescence the other day. Absolutely chilling and so eerily real. I have seen the typical manosphere ideas being reiterated by numerous male classmates and acquaintances around me. It's this fragile masculinity that's attracting audiences. Both on ground and on social media. This toxicity is gaining traction and momentum, and therefore, the sadistic portrayals of fictional characters on screen.

Remember one of those childhood stories, "The Beauty and the Beast"? It employs the same toxicity but in a subdued manner.

He doesn’t express love, but he protects her. He hurts her, but he also saves her.

This duality creates a fantasy of taming the beast. It plays into a deeply embedded narrative: “If he’s cruel to everyone but kind to her, it must be true love.” There’s a long-standing fictional trope that the emotionally unavailable, arrogant, or cruel male lead is secretly wounded—and that the female lead (and by extension, the audience) can heal him with love. This idea is especially appealing to viewers socialized into nurturing roles. Again, viewing female characters one-dimensionally, whose only ambition in life is to play the role of a therapist in the ML's life. To fix him, to somehow "teach" him love. But we have forgotten that humans know how to love naturally. Hate is taught, love isn't.

Viewers are conditioned to equate intensity with romance (e.g., surveillance, verbal aggression, coercion), as signs of "how much he cares." This idea is reinforced when these men get a redemption arc or are shown to be victims of trauma themselves—making their behavior seem "understandable" or forgivable. I blame Ekta and Gul Khan for all these dysfunctional, broken men, unattainable men, voyeuristic men tropes. They seem to be just looking through the lenses of these females who are sexually repressed, especially those who feel powerless or emotionally unfulfilled. For this category, the fantasy of being "the one woman" who a toxic man will change for is extremely seductive. It speaks to their desires for validation, power, uniqueness, and emotional rescue. Similar to the mother-in-law patterns of thinking, you see?

What if we show a soft ML for once?

Television soaps rarely offer balanced, emotionally intelligent male leads—and when they do, those characters are often perceived as "boring" or "weak."

Take Neil for instance. Yes, he was marketed as an extremely good man but had senseless dialogues during the pre-wedding track and his actions at the altar were unpardonable. However, he was also not the "best doctor of the year" blah blah... He was an ordinary man. A man we could've bumped into at a supermarket. A man we could talk to at our workplace or university. He cried when he had a heart break instead of going on full revenge on mode. He taunted the girl he loved when she rejected his proposal like we all do. He became indifferent to others because others didn't consider his desires. Yes, he felt creepy for a while. He was impulsive in saying a yes that could change two lives. He was weak. But that made him more human.

Alas, people don't like to watch characters that can expose their vulnerabilities on screen. It's the viewers who are too weak to accept the people they meet in reality. Neil wasn’t the idealized male lead we’re so accustomed to. He was not the charismatic, decisive hero with all the answers. He was very ordinary. He faltered. He felt deeply and let his fears win. And that’s precisely why many viewers couldn’t accept him. Like I said in that post, fiction often serves as an escape, and when audiences turn to television or cinema, they want to leave behind the complexity of real people. They crave the comfort of fantasy, not reminders of the awkward silences they witness daily in their own lives.

Television soaps and commercial films are built on this very principle—they cater to fantasy. So when a character like Neil, stripped of embellishments and heroism, enters that world, he becomes a misfit. And inevitably, a target for backlash.

On the other hand, toxic leads dominate because they provide drama, unpredictability, and conflict, all of which are fuel for serialized storytelling. Healthy, introverted male characters often lack the highs and lows necessary to carry a daily soap for hundreds of episodes. In the absence of compelling, light-hearted male characters, the echo chambers of people hailing Kabir Singh or that annoying Reddit's favourite RK or ASR dominate as flawed but magnetic centerpieces.

The tragedy is not that Neil was poorly written, but that his realism didn’t align with the expectations of a TRP-driven ecosystem. Unfortunately, that ecosystem often rewards sensationalism over sincerity.

Neil wasn’t the problem. He was refreshingly real and human. The makers obviously don't know the nuances and therefore marketed him as goody two shoes. The real issue lies in how unprepared mainstream television is for characters who remind us too much of ourselves.

A few other tags that might be interested

Originally posted by: ThaneOfElsinore

This is actually in response to a reply on my post on the new season EDT#5 by missFiesty_69. We both wondered what made the non-toxic Neil's character unlikable to TRP audiences. Why do ordinary characters not click? Why is it always a tensed story and emotionally unavailable leads winning this ratings race? I thought this question requires a separate thread as I have written a long long post. There might be a few points feeling repetitive but I wrote them for emphasis. Kindly bear. Would love to hear other viewpoints about this extremely disturbing topic.

We all know that the audience of these daily soaps is definitely not the miniscule, urbane, sophisticated crowd in metro cities. It's usually the housewives or regressive joint families viewing these shows. Both these categories are direct implications of rooted patriarchy.

There seems to be a trauma bonding between the viewers and the tortured characters in these shows. It's almost like Stockholm Syndrome, where you get emotionally attached to your own kidnapper. They get attached to these traumatised, insane, maddening characters as if they are outlets to their own frustrations. Many viewers from these emotionally and sexually repressive backgrounds, have subconsciously internalized toxic behaviors as “normal.” When daily soaps portray manipulation, emotional blackmail, or dysfunctional families, viewers feel a sense of familiarity, even if it's uncomfortable.

The Psychology Behind This Affection towards Toxicity:

Watching characters cry, scream, or confront each other provides a safe outlet for the viewers' own frustrations or desires. Greek philosopher Aristotle called this catharsis—emotional purification through drama.

Another plausible explanation would be Carl Jung’s theory of the “shadow self”. It explains how people project their hidden or socially unacceptable desires onto others. In daily soaps, viewers may secretly identify with powerful villains, manipulative mothers-in-law, or obsessive lovers—not because they admire them, but because they represent impulses the viewer suppresses in real life. It's again a direct causation of the orthodox and mostly uneducated backgrounds these audiences come from. Women who have grown up seeing all these behaviours around them try to subject their next generation in that toxicity as well. This reflects in the television storylines where there seems to be a generational trauma of the complete control of mothers in law towards the daughters in law, influencing even their sons' decisions, turning them into the typical "mumma's boys".

This about the toxic storylines and FLs. What about the toxic MLs?

Toxic male leads are often written to embody dominance, emotional detachment, control, and assertiveness—traits historically associated with masculinity. In conservative or patriarchal cultures, these men are seen as “strong,” even when their behavior borders on abuse. Audiences, especially those conditioned to associate love with authority and intensity, romanticize this power. Similar to our target audience, isn't it?

I was seeing the Netflix series Adolescence the other day. Absolutely chilling and so eerily real. I have seen the typical manosphere ideas being reiterated by numerous male classmates and acquaintances around me. It's this fragile masculinity that's attracting audiences. Both on ground and on social media. This toxicity is gaining traction and momentum, and therefore, the sadistic portrayals of fictional characters on screen.

Remember one of those childhood stories, "The Beauty and the Beast"? It employs the same toxicity but in a subdued manner.

He doesn’t express love, but he protects her. He hurts her, but he also saves her.

This duality creates a fantasy of taming the beast. It plays into a deeply embedded narrative: “If he’s cruel to everyone but kind to her, it must be true love.” There’s a long-standing fictional trope that the emotionally unavailable, arrogant, or cruel male lead is secretly wounded—and that the female lead (and by extension, the audience) can heal him with love. This idea is especially appealing to viewers socialized into nurturing roles. Again, viewing female characters one-dimensionally, whose only ambition in life is to play the role of a therapist in the ML's life. To fix him, to somehow "teach" him love. But we have forgotten that humans know how to love naturally. Hate is taught, love isn't.

Viewers are conditioned to equate intensity with romance (e.g., surveillance, verbal aggression, coercion), as signs of "how much he cares." This idea is reinforced when these men get a redemption arc or are shown to be victims of trauma themselves—making their behavior seem "understandable" or forgivable. I blame Ekta and Gul Khan for all these dysfunctional, broken men, unattainable men, voyeuristic men tropes. They seem to be just looking through the lenses of these females who are sexually repressed, especially those who feel powerless or emotionally unfulfilled. For this category, the fantasy of being "the one woman" who a toxic man will change for is extremely seductive. It speaks to their desires for validation, power, uniqueness, and emotional rescue. Similar to the mother-in-law patterns of thinking, you see?

What if we show a soft ML for once?

Television soaps rarely offer balanced, emotionally intelligent male leads—and when they do, those characters are often perceived as "boring" or "weak."

Take Neil for instance. Yes, he was marketed as an extremely good man but had senseless dialogues during the pre-wedding track and his actions at the altar were unpardonable. However, he was also not the "best doctor of the year" blah blah... He was an ordinary man. A man we could've bumped into at a supermarket. A man we could talk to at our workplace or university. He cried when he had a heart break instead of going on full revenge on mode. He taunted the girl he loved when she rejected his proposal like we all do. He became indifferent to others because others didn't consider his desires. Yes, he felt creepy for a while. He was impulsive in saying a yes that could change two lives. He was weak. But that made him more human.

Alas, people don't like to watch characters that can expose their vulnerabilities on screen. It's the viewers who are too weak to accept the people they meet in reality. Neil wasn’t the idealized male lead we’re so accustomed to. He was not the charismatic, decisive hero with all the answers. He was very ordinary. He faltered. He felt deeply and let his fears win. And that’s precisely why many viewers couldn’t accept him. Like I said in that post, fiction often serves as an escape, and when audiences turn to television or cinema, they want to leave behind the complexity of real people. They crave the comfort of fantasy, not reminders of the awkward silences they witness daily in their own lives.

Television soaps and commercial films are built on this very principle—they cater to fantasy. So when a character like Neil, stripped of embellishments and heroism, enters that world, he becomes a misfit. And inevitably, a target for backlash.

On the other hand, toxic leads dominate because they provide drama, unpredictability, and conflict, all of which are fuel for serialized storytelling. Healthy, introverted male characters often lack the highs and lows necessary to carry a daily soap for hundreds of episodes. In the absence of compelling, light-hearted male characters, the echo chambers of people hailing Kabir Singh or that annoying Reddit's favourite RK or ASR dominate as flawed but magnetic centerpieces.

The tragedy is not that Neil was poorly written, but that his realism didn’t align with the expectations of a TRP-driven ecosystem. Unfortunately, that ecosystem often rewards sensationalism over sincerity.

Neil wasn’t the problem. He was refreshingly real and human. The makers obviously don't know the nuances and therefore marketed him as goody two shoes. The real issue lies in how unprepared mainstream television is for characters who remind us too much of ourselves.

I both agree and disagree with this post. There have been many shows with non toxic, realistic male leads on ITV since long which gained decent TRP and acclaim. One example was Mohan Bhatnagar from Na Bole Tum Na Maine Kucch Kahaa. But the show was marketed as a realistic, slice of life show and nowhere Mohan was compared to Lord Shiva or another God. Also, Mohan was a well-rounded character with his own values and goals. Neil has no values or goals that guide him apart from loving Tejaswini. Mohan was firm that he won't compromise exposing truth as a reporter even if the female lead Megha had to suffer because of it. Even in real life, people fall in love but they also have their own set of values, goals and sadly Neil had none of them. If we remove Tejaswini from the story, existence of Neil makes no sense. A lead (whether male or female) should be an independent character and not just a plot device and sadly Neil was reduced to just a plot device.

I also disagree with small town people with regressive mentality preferring 'toxic' male leads. You can see Wattpad stories and fanfics full of Mafia/CEO bad boys pinning female protagonists against the wall, doing revenge marriage, all sort of shenanigans while most of Wattpad fic writing demographic is teenage and Millennials belonging to big-city progressive families. In so called TRP auntie eras, we had soft boy male leads like pre-leap Mihir, Om, Anurag; but when more educated working in metro demographic took the lead in audience, we had leads like Arnav Singh Raizada, Shivaay Oberoi, Rudraksh who married only for revenge.

In fact, the stupid alpha bad boy fantasy started from my generation and I was surprised how much trashy books like Fifty shades of Grey are read by educated, supposedly feminist women in my generation which couldn't even be thought of written in TRP aunties era.

You wrote beautifully! It's a very interesting post! I also wondered why people preferred to watch toxic male leads. These toxic male leads humiliate female leads, always argue with them, and manhandle them. They don't know how to respect women. Yet people feel interested in watching those shows. On the other hand, simple and sober characters like Neil don't get attention from people. Maybe these characters are too bland to add drama. Indian TV shows are all about revenge marriages, forced marriages, multiple marriages, and extra-marital affairs etc. A guy like Neil can't marry someone for revenge or get involved in an extramarital affair with another girl. That's why viewers don't like to watch these types of characters. They enjoy watching characters like RK, who wanted to destroy the life of the female lead, Madhubala. Maybe viewers see more passion in hatred than in love. When the male leads and the female leads continuously quarrel with each other and don't want to see each other, people like their equations more.

Today's itv major ml has two girls running fighting over him. From that perspective only the show suffers because two men running after one girl is unbelievable for people who watch these serials. How dare a woman has two options lmao

I want to see how people react if neil change to Raman bhalla asr randhir type character. Will people like the angst?

Originally posted by: Phir_Mohabbat

Today's itv major ml has two girls running fighting over him. From that perspective only the show suffers because two men running after one girl is unbelievable for people who watch these serials. How dare a woman has two options lmao

I want to see how people react if neil change to Raman bhalla asr randhir type character. Will people like the angst?

ASR and Randhir were insufferable (though I never liked Sanyukta as well. Sadda Haq is one of my most hated shows.) and ASR was so dull and feeka. Randhir was all show, no substance. Though Raman Bhalla had a good enough backstory and I liked his jodi with Ishita. See that's the issue no? People think only wooden feeka characters like ASR or meaninglessly angry guys like Randhir are strong characters. Even Sanyukta-Randhir's angst was so forced and so was ASR's love for Khushi. Before 2013, we used to have characters with both shades (Remember charming jock Samrat with a heart of gold and nerd topper Mayank with a superiority complex in Miley Jab Ham Tum?) Characters should be like real people not caricatures.

As for strong leads, I find Roshni from Channel V Paanch, Durga Thakur from Ek Haseena Thi, Sameera from Main Na Bhoolungi, Mohan Bhatnagar from Na Boley Tum Na Maine Kucch Kahaa, Captain Rajveer Shekhawat, Amardeep Hudda from Left Right Left, even post leap Ranveer in Meri Aashiqui Tumse Hi to be strong characters.

I completely agree with you—it's a very well-articulated and thoughtfully written post. However, there are certain points where I respectfully disagree.

There are two types of audiences when it comes to itv serials and similar dramas. First, the casual viewers—those who watch these shows purely for entertainment or to pass time. They don’t deeply engage with characters or storylines. Then there’s the second type—the emotionally invested audience. These are people who genuinely enjoy the messy, toxic dynamics between the ML and the FL. They’re hooked on the power plays, the fights, and the emotional chaos.

Now, I actually agree with a popular point: daily serials are often an escape from the mundane realities of life. For many viewers, especially women, watching the FL argue, stand up to the ML or challenge his family becomes a cathartic experience. Irl, many of these viewers have been silenced—by husbands, parents, in-laws. So watching a bold, outspoken FL gives them a taste of rebellion, a sense of justice they may never get in real life.

But I disagree strongly with the idea that only small-town or "regressive mindset" people watch these shows. That’s simply not true. Toxic MLs are a global obsession. The reality is, problematic Ml—possessive, controlling, obsessive, abusive—are everywhere, from bestselling romance novels to viral webtoons. Colleen Hoover’s books, for instance (and I say this with due respect to her fans) Many of her male protagonists display borderline abusive behavior, yet her novels top charts globally and are especially popular among educated women and teenage girls. Her work often romanticizes emotional instability and trauma bonding, yet it's hailed as modern romance. That's not just an itv issue—it’s a cultural pattern.

If you step into the world of Korean manhwas, Chinese manhua, and popular web novels, the ml are so abusive it will make you feel sick. Yet these stories have millions of readers, and many of them are young, well-educated women. There's even a "infamous Korean author " notorious for writing where all her Ml's SAed Fl's and Fl's still love the Ml's at the end, and her novel still trend. ( I hate her as* ) So let’s not scapegoat itv audiences or channels alone.

Being a Green Flag Male Lead Isn’t the Problem—Being an Empty Character Is.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with green flag Ml. In fact, many viewers today are actively craving emotionally mature, respectful, and supportive male characters. But here’s the catch: a character, green or red flag, needs to have substance. Depth. An internal drive that shapes who they are beyond just being a love interest.

Take OG Imlie 1’s Aditya for example. Yes, he had red flag traits in terms of his relationship behavior, but as a character, he was layered. He was a fierce journalist, someone who lived by a strong moral code—truth above all. He was ambitious, idealistic, and often so dedicated to uncovering truth that he even clashed with Imlie, despite loving her. His world didn’t revolve solely around Imlie. He had his own identity, his own voice.

Even the most toxic male leads often have a driving force—revenge, passion for a cause—which adds complexity and makes them compelling despite their flaws.

Now contrast that with a character like Neil. On paper, he might be a green flag—realistic—but in execution, he’s flat. One-dimensional. His only defining traits loving Aparajita and chanting Teju’s name. Strip Teju out of the story, and Neil as a character collapses. He lacks ambition, a moral compass, or even a personal goal. His backstory of “used to sing, family stopped it” is so thinly written that it doesn’t give him any real drive or personality.

That’s the real issue. It’s not about red flag vs. green flag—it’s about whether a character has an actual identity. Whether they have inner conflict, ambition, flaws, and growth potential. A green flag male can be just as interesting as a grey-shaded one, if he’s written with intention and depth.

Originally posted by: Autumn09

I both agree and disagree with this post. There have been many shows with non toxic, realistic male leads on ITV since long which gained decent TRP and acclaim. One example was Mohan Bhatnagar from Na Bole Tum Na Maine Kucch Kahaa. But the show was marketed as a realistic, slice of life show and nowhere Mohan was compared to Lord Shiva or another God. Also, Mohan was a well-rounded character with his own values and goals. Neil has no values or goals that guide him apart from loving Tejaswini. Mohan was firm that he won't compromise exposing truth as a reporter even if the female lead Megha had to suffer because of it. Even in real life, people fall in love but they also have their own set of values, goals and sadly Neil had none of them. If we remove Tejaswini from the story, existence of Neil makes no sense. A lead (whether male or female) should be an independent character and not just a plot device and sadly Neil was reduced to just a plot device.

I also disagree with small town people with regressive mentality preferring 'toxic' male leads. You can see Wattpad stories and fanfics full of Mafia/CEO bad boys pinning female protagonists against the wall, doing revenge marriage, all sort of shenanigans while most of Wattpad fic writing demographic is teenage and Millennials belonging to big-city progressive families. In so called TRP auntie eras, we had soft boy male leads like pre-leap Mihir, Om, Anurag; but when more educated working in metro demographic took the lead in audience, we had leads like Arnav Singh Raizada, Shivaay Oberoi, Rudraksh who married only for revenge.

In fact, the stupid alpha bad boy fantasy started from my generation and I was surprised how much trashy books like Fifty shades of Grey are read by educated, supposedly feminist women in my generation which couldn't even be thought of written in TRP aunties era.

I agree with your points to some extent. I didn't only point out the small town people watching these shows. I am talking about regressive families everywhere. I am specifically talking about the ones who propagate such regressive mentality, be it the rich, teenage kids living in their privileged bubble or the already oppressed housewives living in joint families in both cities and towns, passing down generational trauma. I wrote about the sophisticated bunch in metro cities because they have complete access to streaming platforms now where the stories have more depth. Interestingly, education is a double-edged sword. Most conservatives are well educated. But that's not because they desperately wished to be. That's their privilege speaking that gave them the opportunity to study. They live in their own bubble of fantasies, have their own way of explaining issues that affect them and how inter-personal relationships are. Regressive mindsets know no bounds, no urban or rural divisions, even for those supposed feminists who read trash in the name of modern literature.

This post is centred around the current times and how television is evolving backwards. Millennials and early GenZ people saw the very first wave of the Internet all over the world. No wonder they gained control over the narratives gradually as they became the main demographic. Mind you, these generations are the first to experience rapid inflow of money and saw consumerism reach heights. They liked the CEO tropes and richie rich men abusing women from a lower economic background. This directly led to the formation of characters that are driven in materialism. Toxic leads have always been there with or without TRP aunties. We had Sujal when we had Anurag. Although, I don't really think Anurag is non-toxic ML. The case in point is not the exceptions, but the norm.

I am glad you pointed out Mohan from Na Bole Tum Na Maine Kuch Kaha. Yes, Mohan was a non-toxic lead who gained decent TRP and acclaim. But that was more than a decade ago, in 2012. Also by then, the ratings had started depending on both TRP aunties and millennial audiences as they exerted influence. So what went wrong suddenly with the current influx of such overly toxic leads and storylines? We haven't had a normal human being in the lead role since a very, very long time. That's what the post explained. I am not denying that Neil was a weakly written character but how many scenes did he get for us to actually understand what kind of a person he was? The early termination of the couple's storyline has ended any chance of seeing a glimpse of his ambitions or a career. And the reason for early termination? The same TRP aunties and the same millennial audiences. The ones who loved a Mohan in 2012 are not even giving time to a Neil in 2025. What has changed when the audiences have remained the same? Something's wrong with the psychology of the current society. That's what I attempted to explain.

Moreover, Neil's medical profession has already made him an accomplished, well-settled man with the goal ultimately being to have and nurture his own family. For me, being completely in love does not negate a person having their own personality. He was empathetic towards his sister's struggle when no one else was. He was dutiful and took his medical profession seriously, even though his passion was something else. He could selflessly sacrifice although that was his weakness as well. Empathy and duty are human values, extremely important ones. He knew how to support people and encourage them. Those are the values which prove that there was more to him than Tejaswini herself. The show markets itself as one that explores people in relationships and not people navigating their own self. So if we take out Tejaswini from the equation, it'll obviously make no sense. Similarly if we take out Neil, Tejaswini's story will also have no point.

Originally posted by: Randomlurker

I completely agree with you—it's a very well-articulated and thoughtfully written post. However, there are certain points where I respectfully disagree.

There are two types of audiences when it comes to itv serials and similar dramas. First, the casual viewers—those who watch these shows purely for entertainment or to pass time. They don’t deeply engage with characters or storylines. Then there’s the second type—the emotionally invested audience. These are people who genuinely enjoy the messy, toxic dynamics between the ML and the FL. They’re hooked on the power plays, the fights, and the emotional chaos.

Now, I actually agree with a popular point: daily serials are often an escape from the mundane realities of life. For many viewers, especially women, watching the FL argue, stand up to the ML or challenge his family becomes a cathartic experience. Irl, many of these viewers have been silenced—by husbands, parents, in-laws. So watching a bold, outspoken FL gives them a taste of rebellion, a sense of justice they may never get in real life.

But I disagree strongly with the idea that only small-town or "regressive mindset" people watch these shows. That’s simply not true. Toxic MLs are a global obsession. The reality is, problematic Ml—possessive, controlling, obsessive, abusive—are everywhere, from bestselling romance novels to viral webtoons. Colleen Hoover’s books, for instance (and I say this with due respect to her fans) Many of her male protagonists display borderline abusive behavior, yet her novels top charts globally and are especially popular among educated women and teenage girls. Her work often romanticizes emotional instability and trauma bonding, yet it's hailed as modern romance. That's not just an itv issue—it’s a cultural pattern.

If you step into the world of Korean manhwas, Chinese manhua, and popular web novels, the ml are so abusive it will make you feel sick. Yet these stories have millions of readers, and many of them are young, well-educated women. There's even a "infamous Korean author " notorious for writing where all her Ml's SAed Fl's and Fl's still love the Ml's at the end, and her novel still trend. ( I hate her as* ) So let’s not scapegoat itv audiences or channels alone.

Being a Green Flag Male Lead Isn’t the Problem—Being an Empty Character Is.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with green flag Ml. In fact, many viewers today are actively craving emotionally mature, respectful, and supportive male characters. But here’s the catch: a character, green or red flag, needs to have substance. Depth. An internal drive that shapes who they are beyond just being a love interest.

Take OG Imlie 1’s Aditya for example. Yes, he had red flag traits in terms of his relationship behavior, but as a character, he was layered. He was a fierce journalist, someone who lived by a strong moral code—truth above all. He was ambitious, idealistic, and often so dedicated to uncovering truth that he even clashed with Imlie, despite loving her. His world didn’t revolve solely around Imlie. He had his own identity, his own voice.

Even the most toxic male leads often have a driving force—revenge, passion for a cause—which adds complexity and makes them compelling despite their flaws.

Now contrast that with a character like Neil. On paper, he might be a green flag—realistic—but in execution, he’s flat. One-dimensional. His only defining traits loving Aparajita and chanting Teju’s name. Strip Teju out of the story, and Neil as a character collapses. He lacks ambition, a moral compass, or even a personal goal. His backstory of “used to sing, family stopped it” is so thinly written that it doesn’t give him any real drive or personality.

That’s the real issue. It’s not about red flag vs. green flag—it’s about whether a character has an actual identity. Whether they have inner conflict, ambition, flaws, and growth potential. A green flag male can be just as interesting as a grey-shaded one, if he’s written with intention and depth.

I second all of that. I didn't mean to restrict myself to small town audiences. It might have looked like that since I wrote the starting paragraph about the audiences which like the better stuff out there. I do know that it's a global phenomenon. And that's why I included references to Adolescence which explores how such regressive mindsets about male-female relationships are gaining traction all over the world, especially with the younger demographics. Thank you for the other examples as well. :) The post attempted to see what psychology do viewers really have while subconsciously promoting these shows. Of course, I agree for the umpteenth time that Neil was weakly written character but I personally feel the time given for execution was too little. And that's equally the writers' fault as the audiences.

Originally posted by: Autumn09

ASR and Randhir were insufferable (though I never liked Sanyukta as well. Sadda Haq is one of my most hated shows.) and ASR was so dull and feeka. Randhir was all show, no substance. Though Raman Bhalla had a good enough backstory and I liked his jodi with Ishita. See that's the issue no? People think only wooden feeka characters like ASR or meaninglessly angry guys like Randhir are strong characters. Even Sanyukta-Randhir's angst was so forced and so was ASR's love for Khushi. Before 2013, we used to have characters with both shades (Remember charming jock Samrat with a heart of gold and nerd topper Mayank with a superiority complex in Miley Jab Ham Tum?) Characters should be like real people not caricatures.

As for strong leads, I find Roshni from Channel V Paanch, Durga Thakur from Ek Haseena Thi, Sameera from Main Na Bhoolungi, Mohan Bhatnagar from Na Boley Tum Na Maine Kucch Kahaa, Captain Rajveer Shekhawat, Amardeep Hudda from Left Right Left, even post leap Ranveer in Meri Aashiqui Tumse Hi to be strong characters.

Sadda haq was one of my fav shows lol

Randhir sanyukta both had issues and that's what makes the show.

Media as a whole going down and itv was mostly trash since 2000s so expecting anything good sensible from them is useless