It's difficult to accept but it isn't speculation. Verse 24 tells us that: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Ham "uncovered his father's nakedness".
Lev. 20:11 - And the man that lieth with his father's wife "hath uncovered his father's nakedness...
......Ping
There is no “Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness” anywhere. The episode in Gen 9 is told not as a metaphore but as a common occurence to anyone who has ever slept in a tired state (drunk or not): the clothes get uncovered. Ham is guilty of disrespect, while Sem and Japheth show respect. If, as you maintain, Ham did something other than look and tell others, then what sense does it make to describe the process of covering Noah in such physical detail?
First, yours is a speculation, — which I do not necessary fight or find “difficult to accept”, merely point out its extrascriptural nature. Second, the argument is about a putative sin of Noah, and not Ham. I agree on the main point, that Ham committed a sin, and earned himself a curse. Whether that sin was exactly as the Scripture described, gawking at his father as he slept, or there was something sexual the scripture chose not to explain, is of little concern to me.