How do I re-desensitize myself to violence?

February 29, 2008 10:23 AM

Last fall I served on a jury for a six week murder trial, now I can’t watch scary stuff on my TV.

Jury duty was a positive experience overall. The trial was fascinating. The murder itself was brutal. The verdict was guilty. I had no bad dreams during or after. Talked a lot about it to curious friends after the trial, so I don’t think there was anything I suppressed or repressed. I don’t think about it anymore in day to day life.

But it did leave me altered in that I no longer have the stomach for violent movies or television. It seems to be only violence of the more realistic/brutal kind that I can’t watch. Last night I had to stop watching Scorsese’s “The Departed” after about half an hour. Meanwhile, comic or over-the-top violence is not a problem (for example, “Live Free of Die Hard” didn’t bug me) and neither is just reading about violent acts in novels or newspapers.

So I’m wondering:

1) Is this actually a good thing? Is it more natural to find violence unappealing and revolting? Maybe to find it entertaining in the first place is kind of twisted. But I used to love watching that stuff!

2) If it is a bad thing and I should get over it, how do I become desensitized to the culturally acceptable norm of violent entertainment?

(If this insight into my psyche helps, I grew up in a family that raised animals as food. I got a creepy feeling cutting up cows as a youth and became a lifelong vegetarian. My reaction now to seeing violence on TV reminds me very strongly of my feelings about violence toward animals. At the same time, I have absolutely no problem with hunters and farmers etc. who know/respect where their meat comes from. I am not a militant or against eating meat in general.)

posted by quarterframer to society & culture (32 comments total)

I don't think it's a bad thing. You got a glimpse into real life violence with real life consequences. Of course that's gonna change you.

Being desensitized to violence is a bad thing.
posted by clh at 10:35 AM on February 29, 2008

1) It's probably a good thing. We would be better off if no one liked violent entertainment. Just my opinion.

2) If you want to get over it, nothing numbs like repeated and prolonged exposure. Rent A Clockwork Orange and watch it as many times in a row as possible.
posted by The World Famous at 10:36 AM on February 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

(disclaimer for the above: I am not a trained or licensed professional in the psychiatric, psychological, or medical fields. My post is purely out of speculation and my own untrained opinion. I recommend that you seek the advice of a professional before employing any technique designed to desensitize you to violent entertainment.)
posted by The World Famous at 10:37 AM on February 29, 2008

I don't understand. Is the problem that you want to watch this kind of violent entertainment and you're not able to, or that you think it's weird that you don't like it anymore?

Can't help you with the former, but the latter sounds like a "Doctor it hurts when I do this" situation. I think it's pretty normal to have tastes change.
posted by ictow at 10:40 AM on February 29, 2008

Well, you're going to get some really subjective answers here, so this is mine: yes, I think it's a good thing that you find violence to be revolting. The trial likely made it much more real to you. The murder wasn't on TV. Someone really did die. Someone's family really did suffer. It's likely that you're having an empathetic response to what you watch on TV.

That said, I think that over time it would be normal to become more desensitized again, the way children slowly come to believe that the monsters under their bed won't attack, and that Bambi really wasn't shot. If it continues to cause you anxiety and you're having trouble separating fantasy violence from the real thing, perhaps consider therapy. Or just consider doing something else other than watching TV.
posted by desjardins at 10:41 AM on February 29, 2008

It's apparently not uncommon for jurors serving on murder trials and the like to suffer from some delayed reaction to the stuff they've had to see. Texas is considering offering counseling to jurors who serve on trials that involve graphic testimony.

While I'd agree that it's a good thing to be more sensitive to the effects of violence, sometimes that can become an impairment. You're not alone in having some post-trial problems, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find an understanding counselor should you choose to see one.
posted by stefanie at 11:04 AM on February 29, 2008

like someone said, this is going to get very subjective.

IMO the whole "desensitized" concept is total bunk, and reeks of stale pro-censorship propaganda. The reason most people are able to watch violent acts on tv and film is because they understand they are fiction, not real violence. The reason people enjoy it is because violence is an extreme form of conflict, and conflict is the root of all drama, going back to the Greeks and probably further.

There is no "culturally acceptable norm of violent entertainment" - everyone is free to watch or not watch whatever you want.

I'd hate to speculate on your state of mind, but it almost sounds like some kind of PTSD type reaction to the case. If it bothers you a lot, or other symptoms arise, talk to a therapist. If it has no other impact on your life, just don't watch those kind of movies.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:12 AM on February 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

I used to be somewhat bothered by violence on tv and in movies. Then I had a baby and now it's completely intolerable to me. I don't know why having a child made me feel this way. So I just get up and leave the room if my hubby is watching tv and there's something I can't stand. I've had to step out of movie theaters too, when things heat up on screen. I try to find out ahead of time if it's going to be at all graphic but the bar is set pretty low in my definition of violent, compared to most people. I know I'm missing out on some good movies but so what. I just can't take human cruelty anymore, even when I know it's not real. So, I sympathize with you. And I don't think you're crazy. I think we're the sane ones. Desensitizing yourself to this is dehumanizing, in a way.
posted by Kangaroo at 11:13 AM on February 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Yeah, you've been resensitized. The same thing happened to me after seeing The Godfather for the first time (as an adult).

And likewise, the violence in something like the Transformers movie is not a problem, because that's just "stuff blowing up real good." But just yesterday I had to stop watching "Hard Candy" because a helpless (though not innocent) man was about to be castrated, and that sort of thing, I now know, may actually make me pass out from the discomfort.

But I don't see it as a problem. You're just less hardened, is all. Try not to get a job as a medical examiner or crime scene investigator.
posted by bryanjbusch at 11:16 AM on February 29, 2008

Agreed that being sensitive to this stuff is a good thing.

After personally encountering real-life violence myself, I'm the same way. I've decided that I see no point in watching it as entertainment, and if a movie is over the top violent, I just skip it. If it has bits of violence that are critical to the story, I watch with a friend who tells me when it's safe to open my eyes :)

I don't feel this affects my quality of life in the least - what, so I haven't seen The Departed or No Country for Old Men. No big deal.
posted by chez shoes at 11:17 AM on February 29, 2008

I was never a big fan of violent entertainment, but I react much more strongly to it since I served on a jury for a murder trial.

So now I just don't consume it. Seriously.

I know that I get upset or that it gives me nightmares or that it makes me a crazy paranoid person. My therapist also said to stop reading CNN and other sites that are constantly running stories on violence and violent crime, though it sounds like that isn't an issue for you. My quality of life has improved, even though others think I have lousy taste in entertainment. And I'm okay with that.

For you, I liken it to a food that your stomach doesn't agree with or something. You used to love to eat it, but now your reaction is bad. You can either build up tolerance, or you can stop eating the bad food. Personally, I would stop eating the bad food. Is your love of the genre enough to make you want to get over your reaction? Or are you okay just letting it go? I think it's actually a good thing to react negatively to violence, but like others have said, that's pretty subjective.
posted by ml98tu at 11:20 AM on February 29, 2008

Several years ago, my father-in-law was a jury member for a particularly brutal multiple murder. At the time, those of us close to him instinctively encouraged him to find a way off the jury--we sensed that this thoughtful, sensitive man would encounter lasting ramifications from his service.

He served, and we were right--the aftermath of that service became a catalyst for major and difficult changes in his life, not all good. Such a thing, standing in judgment for another human being, even one who has perpetuated evil, is no small thing, it isn't (nor should it be) like a Law and Order episode where the diverse and solemn jury file quietly out and presumably live on as if nothing happened. Your life has been entwined in a complex way to this other person's. If this person was guilty, you have effectively ended his/her life (even if the death penalty wasn't on the table), and if this person was found innocent, you will always be centered at an apogee of this person's existence. Your previous media habits, I dare say, have undermined the enormity of this service to the point that you feel, somehow, that you should be able to go on living as you always have after your solemn trek from the courthouse.

To answer your question, I think that your sudden sensitivity to portrayals of violence is a good thing and likely means that the court chose their juror well. My advice is to use this newfound and rare aspect for good--to raise questions with others about how violence is portrayed, to protect kids you know from it, to consider your lot as someone who likely put someone away for life (or sentenced them to death) for similar acts. Let it be a catalyst for positive change, direct these aftermaths while you still have the upperhand, unlike my father-in-law who started to drown in all of his uncontrolled contemplations.

You can reject the premise of the question and leave your old self, who blindly enjoyed realistically portrayed violence, behind and start wondering why it's there in the first place, how it's a part of this guilty person who did such horrible things and stood trial for them.
posted by rumposinc at 11:23 AM on February 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

I work at a newspaper where we occasionally cover some pretty brutal murder trials. While editing stories about it is different than experience than being on a jury, I've found that since then, any sort of violence/horror/gore (even the over-the-top kind) is much less appealing to me (it never was that appealing in the first place).

At work, it doesn't bother me to read these stories or even look at bloody photos. Once I'm home, though, it's a different story, and I'd rather not have it in my life.

I think being sensitive to violence can only be a good thing, personally.
posted by darksong at 11:48 AM on February 29, 2008

Is this actually a good thing?

I don't think you've lost anything valuable. I think you've gained a sense of perpective that makes you a better human being.

A lot of entertainment tries to hook us with violence (which has consequences), then soothe us at the end of the narrative by quickly glossing over those consequences. Writers know that an audience can be easily entertained by brief titillation, followed by a quick resolution of conflict as the story return to a palatable state of familiar equilibrium. Your time on the jury seems to have done the exact opposite of this old narrative trick. That is fantastic, that is fantastic. Life, and stories based on life, are real again. That is fantastic.

Is it more natural to find violence unappealing and revolting? Maybe to find it entertaining in the first place is kind of twisted. But I used to love watching that stuff!

Humans are great at being kind and caring, but also great at being assholes, so what's more "natural" is kind of irrelevant -- there's enough of both in our history that either side could use "natural" as a justification for their way of seeing. What strikes me as the most important part of your question, though, is the way you tied your dismay towards human-on-human violence to your childhood aversion to human-on-animal violence; regardless of what the rest of humanity deems acceptable, sadness at suffering appears to be far more "natural" for you. So go for it; why push yourself back into your prior sources of narrative entertainment when you have the really exciting and creatively-engaging opportunity to re-examine what constitutes an compelling narrative?

Your question's actually making me tear up a bit; it does a powerful job at summing up what I find most distasteful about our current state as a species, and what I love the most about our potential.
posted by Greg Nog at 11:53 AM on February 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

As someone who actually creates very violent pieces of art (I write crime fiction), I believe that there are some very valuable lessons to be learned from intensely violent drama, and that it is neither inherently good or bad to be this disturbed by it.

To me, artwork that portays violence as no big deal (think Westerns where a guy grabs his chest and slumps over, or mystery novels that mix murder with recipies for clam dip) are far worse than art that shows violence as what is is: brutal, awful stuff. It's less honest, and less affecting.

To me, violent media allows you to transcend yourself, doing for your sense of mortality much what Superman does for your sense of gravity. If you'd just been in a plane crash, you might find Superman horrifying.

My grandmother is currently slipping into dementia. My parents recently saw The Savages, which I haven't seen, and my father very nearly left the theater because he found it so disturbing. To me that indicates a far better movie than one that treats dementia as something cute that happens before you float away to heaven. Why should violence be any different? Violence is an aspect of humanity, and one that we (rightly) try to keep out of our real life. But still it's there, and shouldn't we look at it openly and honestly.

When a bullet enters a head, horrible things happen. You've had to deal with this in real life, even at one-remove in a trial, and of course it upset you. That shows you're human. If you think your reaction to fictional violence is a result of traumatic stress, you could seek a therapist to deal with the underlying trauma. Or, you could avoid brutal violence in art. But, in a brutal world, you will be missing some of our greatest works: The Godfather, Blood Merridian, American Tabloid, Goodfellahs, The Illiad. That's your choice.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:02 PM on February 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Arrgh. "artwork that portrays"
posted by Bookhouse at 12:03 PM on February 29, 2008

i don't think it's a bad thing, but only you can determine if it's interfering with the life you want to lead.

if it makes you feel better, i've had issues with violence since 9/11 (i was in new york, etc etc). like you, i don't think i have failed to deal with it, it's just that i'm more sensitive to it now. i don't file it under "imaginary" in my brain, i file it under "real." and i guess it makes a difference.
posted by thinkingwoman at 12:09 PM on February 29, 2008

There's a distinction here worth being made. There is more than one way to understand the question, "Is this a good thing?"

Usually, we mean by that, "Is this a morally good, or otherwise valuable, thing?" We can, however, mean, "Is this something that will be good for me?" The first does not imply the second, and vice versa. They are independent questions.

If it is morally good to be distraught by violent movies depends on your views on ethics. It depends. As you can see in this thread, some people think that it is very morally good to be "resensitized," and others don't. I don't know if you can get an answer to this question through Ask.Me.

If it is good for you to be "resensitized" depends on a whole other host of issues, mostly psychological in nature. Clearly, it's normal in our society for people to not be too disturbed by violent movie scenes. But, just as clearly, there is a large segment of the population that is uncomfortable with such fake violence. It does not seem that one way or the other makes you more or less successful at life (for a phrase) than most other people in our society. So, then, the question is, are you disturbed by your recent attitudes? Are you unhappy with your inability to sit through The Departed? Do you think that your newfound outlook on violent films may be related to some deeper issues worth looking into? If so, you should probably seek out a therapist, in order to get a better idea of what's going on in your mind. If not, then, well... Maybe don't go see 300, and continue to live life as well as you can.
posted by Ms. Saint at 12:12 PM on February 29, 2008

I hoped that my questions were straightforward, but to elaborate for those who are unclear: I'm all of a sudden having a reaction that prevents me from watching a lot of great art, including amazing things like A Clockwork Orange (Thanks The World Famous for a both hilarious and multi layered response) and most of this year's Academy Award nominees. Yes, I could avoid all possibility of watching violent entertainment, but I'm now finding out that this kind of violence is more pervasive than I had realized before.

I can live with it just fine and it makes sense to me both emotionally and logically (I don't think it's particularly therapy worthy issue) but I would like to be able see No Country For Old Men someday without being nauseous. Not because I absolutely need to, but because I love me some Cohen Brothers. So with that in mind, I'd just refer back to my original questions...
posted by quarterframer at 12:22 PM on February 29, 2008

Wow, I had a long reload before my clarification post. I REALLY appreciate all of these responses, thanks.
posted by quarterframer at 12:25 PM on February 29, 2008

I have an adversion to violent TV and movies and probably would not be able to sit as a juror on a trial for a violent crime. The things you give as examples of "great art", A Clockwork Orange I have only seen little parts of - I would never watch that. I don't anticipate ever seeing the violent movies that were nominated for an Academy Award this year. I do not understand how anyone could be attracted to this "great art."
posted by thomas144 at 12:58 PM on February 29, 2008

This may be kind of a derail, but given my love for both McCarthy and the Coen brothers, I'd suggest you read the original novel No Country For Old Men. The advantage there might be that because movies subject you to their own timing (especially in theatres, where there's no pause button and thus no available escape except for a literal exit), reading the book instead allows you to put it down periodically, think about it, and decide over the course of a couple hundred pages whether you want to keep taking the story in. Your own ability to choose the pace will also help you to constantly assess how you feel about each character and their decisions, rather than being swept up in the pace the movie's subjecting you to.

I mean, I think the important thing here is to try to hold on to your resensitatization and use it a catalyst for your own further analysis of how violence acts in the world around you, both in narratives and in real life. So reading the novel version of NCFOM first, then following it with the film, might be a great way to go; it's an incredibly faithful adaptation, so you can go into the movie knowing exactly what to expect and when. That approach also seems like it would jibe with your ease in regards to violent stories in novels and newspapers. It's not desensitization, just making a larger space for critical distance.
posted by Greg Nog at 1:13 PM on February 29, 2008

Yes, I could avoid all possibility of watching violent entertainment, but I'm now finding out that this kind of violence is more pervasive than I had realized before...

... but I would like to be able see No Country For Old Men someday without being nauseous.

On at least two occasions, I've experienced something similar to what you describe, where personal events sensitized me to such a degree that I found common themes of mainstream entertainment unwatchable. My experiences are different, but might shed some light on yours.

Over a decade ago, I held my partner's hand while he died a long, slow, hellish death from AIDS. For years after, I found that I could no longer watch medical dramas of any sort --- they plunged me into despair or anger or fear. Now, years later, I can tolerate watching them, but I rarely enjoy them. They often feel empty to me: mawkish or trite. But they no longer make me angry or afraid.

More recently, I was badly hurt (and, more to the point, diagnosed with post-traumatic stress reaction) after being struck by a car. For weeks after, any filmed scene with a character being driven into (and you'd be amazed how commonly this scene appears!) caused me to burst out crying. For months after the event, such a scene would cause me to gasp and shake. I still can't see one without feeling a bit sick.

But common to both of these events for me was this: it got easier to tolerate these elements so startlingly pervasive in mainstream tv and movies. At first, the revulsion and fear seemed impossibly deep. After a while, I just got less sensitive.

I don't presume to predict how you will fare with this; the best I can say is that, if you're like me, you'll be able to watch No Country for Old Men someday .. just not this month.
posted by Elsa at 1:15 PM on February 29, 2008

Personally, I've never been able to watch realistic violence on TV or movies (but cartoony action movie style violence doesn't bother me) and have always thought there was something a little sick or evil about people who like watching it. Think about it... why should anyone *enjoy* watching other people get hurt? Even if what your watching at the moment is fiction, it's called "realistic" violence because those kinds of horrible things actually do happen in reality.

I don't think it's bad thing to be empathetic and not enjoy watching realistic depictions of being getting hurt. Frankly, I suspect that people who really enjoy that sort of entertainment are sick or evil in some way.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:27 PM on February 29, 2008

I could never watch violent movies (when I was a little kid, even cartoon violence upset me-- needless to say, this made me a very popular kid in this society). A film critic I knew said I should get over it because I'd be culturally illiterate otherwise.

I disagree. However, if you want to get over it, the opposite of sensitization is tolerance: the best treatments for trauma exposure all involve some kind of exposure to reminders of the trauma when the subject has control over them. This is done repeatedly until basically, it becomes boring.

If you avoid reminders, this actually reinforces the sensitization because by making the experience more rare, it keeps you from the natural reduction in novelty that comes from repetition.

Memories of traumatic experience are stored differently: they don't feel like they are "in the past," they seem to be recurring *now*. Moving from sensitization to tolerance makes them more like ordinary memories.

That said, I think it's ethically better to remain sensitized to the suffering of others but it is not comfortable in this culture and will deprive you of some of our "entertainment."
posted by Maias at 3:12 PM on February 29, 2008

Personally, violence is not entertaining. I walked out of Pulp Fiction (yes, I know) because I didn't find it entertaining or redeeming at all. In fact, I found it revolting. It's probably just me, but I look to art to be something edifying, rather than shocking or disturbing. You can get enough horror just living life, as you found out by serving on a jury.
posted by hollygoheavy at 3:23 PM on February 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

I think it's great. I had a similar experience on a smaller scale a few years ago, and I've concluded that what it really did was make me see more people as more human than I did before. Took down some of my alienation and totalizing.

If your case is like mine, yes, it will be selective. You will tolerate action that's mechanical and obviously fictional (the "blowing up real good" kind) and violence that is real but historical or fictional but meaningful. The gratuitous and realistic stuff will continue to leave you deeply uneasy, and hyperrealistic "gorno" will be right out. (Harlan Ellison wrote a great essay about this, which I cannot now put my finger on. He's no stranger to the coarse side either of life or of art, but he rips a new one for the makers of splatter movies and argues strongly for their inherent cowardice.)
posted by eritain at 4:14 PM on February 29, 2008

My dear, this is what they call a reality check. You now have closer knowledge of that which previously lived in your imagination.

You have changed a bit, that's all. Something has wedged your perspective open just a bit wider than what's comfortable. When you've adjusted to the change, you will have grown a bit as well. That's the only thing for it.

You can change back no better than a snake can reclaim her shucked skin.

So, rather than struggling toward what you see as the cultural norm, accept your own.

I won't tell you that you'll have more fun that way.
Sometimes, not anywhere near the realm of 'fun.'

But you'll feel better. And next time, you'll be able to adjust a little easier.

There will be a next time.
posted by zennie at 5:37 PM on February 29, 2008

I'm the same way. I just don't watch that kind of stuff. It's kind of pornographic, anyway.
posted by Coventry at 5:42 PM on February 29, 2008

These things can be weird. You were a sort of witness to violence, and it affected you as it would any normal person. Is it normal? Yes. Is it good for you? Maybe.

I personally have no stomach for that "real" Scorsese and Mel Gibson kind of stuff. I thought The Departed was a gratuitous piece of crap. So maybe you were just reacting to that movie? The only good movie Scorsese did, in my opinion, was The King of Comedy.

And maybe it is a touch of post traumatic stress. Again, a completely normal reaction. I've never served on a jury, but I have to think it would be difficult to get all of those different emotions in sync with each other. I would be proud to be a good citizen and humbled that we have an open, fair and honest system where a person is judged by peers. But I think I'd feel a little guilt, irrationally, that I was extracting pride from someone else's crime and victimhood. But that's just me.

A few years ago, I was in a situation where a police officer drew his gun on me. He was investigating something on a foggy, dark night, and I didn't know he was there, and I startled him. Perfectly justified behavior on his part. But every now and then, I get an instant of heebie-jeebies for lack of a better word. I think it's just a mechanism of how our brains process information that we need to reprocess things occasionally.

If it bothers you and causes distress, talk to someone. If all that's happening is that your tastes in movies have change, I reiterate that that's completely normal.
posted by gjc at 12:04 AM on March 1, 2008

Slightly different, but related nonetheless: since having kids, I *cannot* watch scenes where violence/intentional harm is done to children. In many cases, I'll just stop watching whatever it was straight away. I never felt comfortable with it before, but it's gone to a whole new level for me -- but I've never served in the jury for a murder trial, and I don't have any problem with any other fictional violence.

I think it's a good thing overall; but that it will fade over time. Presumably there was a time when you were young that watching such things would have been traumatic for you -- and you slowly developed a tolerance. It'll come back, probably, but you'll never be 100% the same.
posted by 5MeoCMP at 5:34 AM on March 1, 2008

All great responses. I will go with my gut (instead of with guts). Life is always full of changes, but it's been a long while since I had such a deep shift in world view. Thanks for helping me get started on thinking/feeling it through.
posted by quarterframer at 12:04 PM on March 2, 2008