0
For me, violence in any context is difficult to watch, but I abhor, especially, physical violence (assault & battery type stuff), especially domestic violence (spousal/child/animal abuse). In the "Shawshank Redemption..." Frank Darabont said in his commentary that when Boggs was raping Andy, he did not go in for the close up shots etc. of the action but he stayed at a distance and at angles that did not show the action, "sort of like a Victorian Lady covering here eyes..." as he stated. He felt it wasn't needed to color the story. After all, the classic male rape had been done in "Deliverance..." wasn't needed there. And I applaud his thinking.
Otherwise, it really depends on the story being told but, in general, "gratuitous sex/nudity/drug use" without a legit contextual purpose to the story are things I don't need to see. Recall the movie "Silkwood" (Meryl Streep, Cher, etc.) I believe there was either an accidental nuclear exposure at the plant (or a drill for it) but it resulted in them showing an elderly female worker being sent to emergency washing shower (torso exposed). Not sure that was necessary to enhance the story to watch an old bare breasted lady being showered. I think I would have gotten it without that specific visual. And no, even if it were someone younger and more "endowed," I still wouldn't need to see that, in the context of that visual.
But a lot of this is "eye of the beholder" sort of stuff.... so I'll have to take each film as it comes and judge them individually.