The 50 miles would be worth it, if it's the only place to get Virgil's.
I'm for throwing most of it out the window and I think the over all value of the content of the average TV station would possibly improve without the censor board wringing their hands over maturity ratings and "it's for the good of the children !"
Why do you think it would work that way?
...and extreme violence/gore is considered normal, and shown regularly on TV. It's pretty infuriating to live somewhere where something as natural and beautiful as the human body is viewed as taboo and "corrupts" our youth, but a guy getting his head cut off or getting beaten to death is perfectly okay for kids to watch. We're desensitizing the wrong thing.
This person is confused in a number of ways.
Just because sex and/or nudity is verboten in some venues doesn't mean that everyone is perfectly happy with children watching everything that isn't sex/nudity. There's plenty of discontent with the violence, language, and other content in entertainment media. Some notable examples would include the controversies over
Django, other Tarantino films,
The Passion of the Christ, and the perennial complaints about video games (most recently in the wake of the Newtown shootings). Those most likely to make such complaints are also the ones most vocally opposed to sex/nudity in media. If they had their way, I suspect both would be very much curtailed.
Secondly, and for the umpteenth time, no one is saying that the body itself corrupts anyone. By that logic, we all think our social security numbers are taboo, and would corrupt others.
Thirdly (tertiarily?), he/she suggests that we are "desensitizing" children to violence, when we should desensitize them to sex and/or nudity. Why would we want people to be "desensitized" to sex, or to the private parts of the opposite sex? Am I, as a man,
not supposed to find the sight of a naked woman highly interesting? Wouldn't there be something wrong with me, if I didn't?