I've told you my own reactions to violent imagery (catharsis, education, flirtation, titillation), but you have stated only thoroughly researched conclusions which I am sure could be countered to the contrary by quoting of other thorough research. I think all the conclusions to the effects you suggest can be made secondary through overwhelming evidence that the majority of people who watch violent films do not act these out or use them in their actions, and that There Are Nutters. I saught Guinea Pig out for intense reactions, and I got them. There is no doubt that others interpret things differently (I've seen and considered it many times), but my automatic pilot of instinctively offering humanity to the spectacle does not mean that other, less vocal souls, view hardcore carnage as influential or abnormally arousing.
Desensitisation is undeniably true, but to what cost, or - more interestingly - what benefit? Exhausting genres, genre effects, can only be positive for the evolution of the human race. The minority who want to torture and kill are the broken eggshells in the omlette. When they start outnumbering 'us', we'll have a re-think about arts and entertainment.
I think the drug analogy is extremely relevant to questions about the hardened violence-watcher wanting to up his ante. Smoking more cannabis is likened to seeking more of the same, but the relevant jump between Freddy Krueger, through Cannibal Holocaust, to Guinea Pig and August Underground is a very significant changing of channels. As is evident from reading this very message forum, many horror viewers have no desire whatsoever to 'progress' ('regress'?) from R-rated 'safe' viewing. A more adventurous person - or 'class' perhaps? - wants experiences in the same sport, but not necessarily in the same ballpark. Again, this might only lead to physical abuse through the minority psychos.
__________________
|