I read the article, and I think it's unfair to say it's a strawman argument. The article is talking about realism / "honest" depiction of war because that was the justification given by Tony Gilroy (second quote in the article). The author talks about a number of other horrific things that happen to people in war that weren't included, and explains how including a rape scene doesn't fit the story well, and makes the argument that shows include rape scenes of extremely attractive actresses because it is an audience expectation, not because the plot demands it or because it makes for a realistic or honest depiction of the circumstances.

I too read the article. They take quotes, ignore the art, and then assign a narrative based on their projection of what they think others are seeing. It's all very unreasonable. I have to wonder if their motivation is actually social justice or divisive engagement.

The art isn't ignored, the article specifically focuses on how the scene fits into the story, with reasoning that you have not addressed. I think saying "it's an artistic choice" is a weak argument, like responding to criticism of poor anatomy or wonky perspective in a drawing by saying "that's just my style."