However, if we go out and interview a thousand rapists and they tell us they did it for the sex, I'd say there's definitely a trendline there that we ought to pay attention to no matter what the expert facilitators might wish to tell us.
A text-based discussion can easily escape it's own subject. I'm not certain what you mean by "flip", but let's start over with the assumption that I somehow ended up out in left field.
Going back to the post I responded to:
"You may think the current policy is silly, and the rest of us would probably agree ~ still, allowing gays in the military under any pretext is harmful. You need look no further than the homosexual assaults againts prisoners at Abu Ghraib to see the problem."
Your argument appears to be that the rapes (and the fondling) qualify each man who participated as homosexual. (not speaking of the unwilling victims here)
We could probably each find plenty of things to cite that "prove" that rape is an act of desire or one of power. While I refuse to act like a high-school debater and suggest that "my studies are more valid than your studies", I will submit that perhaps we should ignore studies involving cases of heterosexual rape altogether. Male rape will probably never (other than within prison systems) be a highly documented subject. It has a bit too much of a stomach-turning quality to it. In the end, that aspect of our discussion may be moot.
It still seems highly likely to me that most of these men saw, and still see, themselves as being "heterosexual". If this is the case, how would a "no gays allowed" policy have kept them out of the military?