Do the gains from exposure to virtual traumatic fiction outweigh the losses from that exposure?

The perspective on fiction as a phenomenon developed evolutionary to provide training for real life situations is very interesting, while being allowed a larger margin of error, then one would be allowed in a real-life situation. Indeed, having more time at your disposal to think about solutions to extreme situations and not being pressured as stringently by fear or even panic, can prove to be a useful exercise. However, it is important to make a distinction between the quality and the quantity of such experience, in order to help us evaluate the gains and losses.

In connection with this view is Aristotle's theory of why people go to tragedies, and although tragedies and horror and not the same, tragedy still seems to be the foundation of horror. Aristotle thought that one was constantly being weighed down by certain feelings that may not be that helpful in one’s daily life. Tragedy cleanses two of these particular feelings, pity and fear. The understanding one gets is that, by being cleansed that one then becomes a more courageous being. For this to be the case it should be that after one sees the play, is exposed to it, then the material portrayed in the tragedy should no longer provoke sentiments of fear or pity when faced with reality. It’s as though the tragedy has desensitized the individual in a way. This desensitization is helpful.
Both theories point to horror or tragedy being a kind of necessity as an explanation as to why one would enjoy the genres.

What do we make of Aristotle's theory?