Oh, I do assume that my view of the world and my moral outlook are very much affected by the stories I have watched and read. I’ve read a lot of Pratchett, after all. I just don’t make the simplistic assumption that everything I see will lead to my imitating it, which is the relationship that you keep insinuating as my view of things.
I also think by always returning to only the point of violent behaviour, you are extrapolating from a very specific phenomenon in a very specific context and then broadening the conclusions to issues that are quite different.
Once again: you can look at all kinds of cultural norms and see how they were expressed in movies over times. American movies from the 30s will, for example, be racist in all kinds of ways against black people, native Americans, Asians and whatnot. Same goes for attitudes towards women, obviously, and all kinds of cultural norms that have been subject to change since then.
Aristotles’ idea of a catharsis is is still valid in many ways, but your representation of it is just as overly simplistic as that of the opposite approach. People don’t not kill and rape because they’ve seen it a lot in the movies. Nor would Aristotle claim that; remember that catharsis is a state to which you get through phobos and eleos, fear and pity - meaning that you suffer with the characters, not enjoy their suffering.
EDIT: And we should probably wind this down before Jim or another mod has to remind us that this is not the Relationship-Between-Art-and-Life thread but the Sexual Objectification Thread, no wait the DC movie thread… so I’ll stop here and not respond anymore but leave the last post on this up to you, even if it means gnawing off my hand.