Mark, the purpose of my post was to point out that you shouldn't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for not including a female character whose backstory includes rape. What you did was worse. You utterly objectified not only one woman, but an indeterminate number of women and treated their suffering (being raped) not only in an offhand and dismissive way, but then make light of it by saying how pleased the character is with having a willing partner for a change. That's some vile **** right there.
You say repeatedly that you are free to write what you like. Yes, you are, but you're simultaneously trying to avoid the responsibility and consequences of that freedom. You're rejecting the very notion that you also have to deal with the consequences of your writing, i.e. others objecting to it. Your freedom to write doesn't somehow limit others' freedom to respond. You're free to write your books, and others are free to criticize them. Yours doesn't limit ours. To think otherwise is nothing less that self-serving intellectual dishonesty.
As mentioned in some of the linked articles, grimdark is sometimes lauded as being more "realistic" than your typical fantasy fare. It's claimed that it's more "realistic" because it doesn't flinch away from the consequences of violence or the consequences of living in these kinds of worlds. Rather than no mention of blood aside from the hero wiping off their sword, grimdark battles feature more than their share of blood and gore. The cliche of simple black & white morality is abandoned for grey scale morality, and characters are often anti-heroes. All basically in an attempt to make the piece more realistic. Not that realism here in an on/off switch, but rather a scale that grimdark writers want to dial up, increasing their relative realism compared to high fantasy, for example.
Yes, rape is a reality. Yes, it happens. Yes, racism, homophobia, violence, moral cowardice, corruption, despicable leaders, etc all these things exist and have causes and consequences. But to deal with these topics so nonchalantly, so offhandedly, and refusing to fully deal with the actual consequences of some of these topics (namely rape), grimdark fantasy (and its authors) are making just as unrealistic fantasy pieces as anything Tolkien ever wrote. Focusing almost exclusively on straight white men who are borderline sociopaths, or worse, is just as unrealistic as elves, dwarves, and dragons. Having straight white men dominate the setting story after story is just as unrealistic as any magic. The glaring absence of strong, independent female leads who are more than simply objects to be used and thrown away (or dealing with them as fully formed characters in their own right, rather than the flimsiest of cardboard characters) is just as unrealistic and hackneyed as any D&D novel.
No, I don't decry the fall of Western Civilization at the hands of grimdark. "Crusaders, to me!" I'm just completely at a loss that this is the best we can do. This? Really? Infantile power fantasies of adolescent boys getting to rape and pillage and murder at whim, who eventually kill enough people that they get to be in charge of the kingdom and force everyone to obey them. That's the good stuff? That's what this is all about? It's the same arguments as the pulps, basically. We've been here before. Only this time it's a bit darker, a bit more intentionally nasty. But, the readers will eventually move on and the vast majority of the words (and their authors) will be thankfully forgotten.
