So while, ordinarily, I'd say that the portrayal of rape and sexual violence against women is not a priori hands-off, and it can be done (if not tastefully) in a way that has meaning and power (see: Stieg Larsson), it does give me some pause to contemplate the argument that he included it just because it's historical. Well, bull-freaking-crap. History ain't got no place here. History has been flayed and beaten and painted over. This is Martin-land. So if there's too much violence against women, history can't be to blame.
Well, as you know that i have nothing but open doors for you regarding your comment on history.
Regarding the whole "it's in there because it's historical" argument. Yeah, of course that's silly.
The justification for it to be in there is that it matters to us today, not because it's historical.
I understood that tangent of the debate to be implicitly about... well... if it didn't belong there, if it was put it in for shock value or for more nakedness sells, then there'd be a case.
But since it actually caused serious debate of these issues in all sorts of media commonly considered serious, it's hard to argue that it could not have been intended as social commentary on the present.