[slayer666]

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

Speaking as a 'norm' (hopefully), I would say the effects of extremely violent films are positive. Violent imagery can act as a catharsis, when it breaks the rules humans subconciously desire to break and shows us what can happen, what can be done, what hurts. Campaigners wanting to censor and ban such films are typically in denial of their roots and instead follow strange, irrational and doomed ideologies such as religion. This is not to say we are all murdering savages just beneath the surface, but we all have morbid curiousity for a reason, and humans have long been killers and meat eaters.

To points are relevant here. First, the negative effects of media violence are well-researched, and the consensus position is that prolonged exposure to media violence is detrimental. This is not a religious position but a scientific one with ample research supporting it. Although these findings are not specific to horror films, we have no reason to expect significant differences. Second, the catharsis hypotheses you mentioned has been thoroughly discredited. If this hypothesis were true, we would expect an inverse relationship between media violence and actual violence (i.e., the greater the exposure to media violence, the less chance of actual violence), but we find the opposite. Additionally, an impressive body of psychological research shows that the cathartic effect of symbolic aggression (e.g., punching a pillow when you are mad) increases the risk and severity of actual aggression.

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

It's worrying that you seem to think experiencing the likes of Guinea Pig can only lead to seeking out 'harder stuff', and as is hinted by you raising the question you are suggesting a slippery slope into 'real' violence (otherwise, why ask about it?). Do you think all cannabis users end up on heroin, and, more suitably, porn viewers turn out to commit sex crimes?

Again, my comments here are not simply my opinion. Research indicates that the mechanism through which media violence exerts its effect is through desensitization. I am not claiming that everyone who watches exploitation films will attempt to find more extreme material. What I am saying is that persons who are exposed to these films over time tend to find them less and less disturbing over time. If they sought them out initially to provoke intense reactions, they find that they need more extreme material to evoke similar reactions.

I understand why you think the drug analogy might be relevant here, but it really doesn't apply for one reason. Different classes of drugs operate through different neural pathways, suggesting that the tolerance phenomenon you describe cannot apply across classes. A better analogy would be to say that a heavy drinker needs increasing amounts of alcohol over time to achieve the same effect. This would be relevant to the issue of media violence.

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

When the latest Guinea Pig, August Underground, Eric Stanze or CAT III movie comes out and purports to be even more extreme than has gone before, I want to see it. 'What comes after' that remains to be seen, and I'll want to see that too, and so on. Extreme films can also be very boring, particularly when they all start playing the same tune. Which answers your last question too: I'll watch something else, like Titanic.

And this is precisely why it would be a mistake to argue that all viewers of media violence experience problems. When extreme films are no longer extreme enough, many people will simply abandon the genre and look elsewhere for entertainment. Others will cope in less healthy ways. Unfortunately, this does not permit us to conclude that prolonged exposure to extreme violence has no effect on the majority of viewers. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary.