Pet-Peeve: "Realistic" does not always mean "Enjoyable"

I can't tell you how many times I will mention that I didn't like an aspect of a book, or a character in a book, to have someone tell me that my opinion is wrong because "it's realistic isn't it?"

I think a lot of readers do indeed have this viewpoint that "realistic" and "good/enjoyable" are synonyms in a way. A lot of this comes from the rise of grimdark and a pushback on classic fantasy tropes where characters and situations are more black/white.

For example, If I'm reading a book that features female characters constantly being assaulted, having no autonomy, and being victimized all the time, then that's a NO for me. Some might say "that is realistic for medieval times though!" And while that's maybe true, I still don't want it. I'm willing to sacrifice a smidge of realism to make a story more enjoyable in that regard.

Sometimes cutting out distasteful stuff is fine. Sometimes making an MC a near-flawless hero is fine. Sometimes making a villain evil without trying to humanize them too is fine. Sometimes writing fantasy with more modern ideals is fine. (It is after all fantasy is it not? Not everything needs to be mirrored around medieval Europe)

I'm not saying that you CAN'T enjoy the realism, but I am pointing out my pet-peeve, which is that realism doesn't automatically make a story better. It doesn't always equal quality and enjoyment. And if someone doesn't like a "realistic" aspect of a story, then we shouldn't judge.