I'm going to push back a bit and point out the double standard in this attitude. If a person doesn't want to consume media with swearing or sex or other "inappropriate" content, then she (or he) shouldn't be reading the scriptures. The scriptures contain sex (including rape, masturbation, and incest), violence (including rape, murder, cannibalism, and war), and swearing (archaic swearing is still a type of swearing). And yet even the Molliest of Mormons doesn't consider for a second that she should only be reading the "clean" books of scripture. So, why the double standard?First, props to you for sticking to your high standards. You rock!
I would like to posit that the reason we believe it's OK to read the scriptures in spite of their content is because we believe that (1) the content is an inherent part of their message and (2) the overall message has a positive effect on the reader. I would also like to argue, then, that Mormons who consume media which might have "inappropriate" content do so for the same reasons. So, although I absolutely believe that there is such a thing as gratuitous sex/violence/language, I think that some, shall we say, "strong content" is not gratuitous, i.e., that you genuinely can't tell some stories without including that content. The question then becomes whether or not the overall message or experience of that media has a positive influence on the reader/viewer/listener.
Now, I don't particularly care where an individual reader chooses to draw the line to decide whether or not something is appropriate for them. (I'm also aware that my argument doesn't really address the question posed by the reader because I'm focusing on a different cultural phenomenon.) I do care that we automatically assume that a stricter standard based on superficial content evaluation is the same thing as high standard.
As an analogy, last night I went to a concert which had refreshments afterwards (basically a table full of cookies). Now, I try to avoid having sugar too often, because it tends to make me sick, so I looked at those cookies and thought "Is this worth it?" Going back to point (1), is the sugar in the cookies gratuitous? I would say no. The point of cookies is to be sweet; you couldn't follow that same recipe but leave out the sugar and expect the product to be edible. (On the other hand, if I made a nice salad and then dumped sugar on it, that would be gratuitous sugar.) So then we turn to point (2), is the overall experience of the cookie worth it? For me, it wasn't, although for a lot of other people, it was. And I have no problem with that. I know my own body, I'm capable of weighing the pros and cons of decisions regarding it and sometimes I'll go one way and sometimes I'll go another way. But I don't think that I have "higher" standards than the people who ate cookies last night, in the same way that I don't think I have "lower" standards for having watched two R-rated films last year.
Lastly, I should say that I'm not trying to call out Ms. O'Malley, personally (which is why I didn't put her name in the quote). I think that she was just trying to be supportive of the reader, who is finding herself in a tough situation. I'm more frustrated by the larger cultural attitudes that we buy into without really examining them.