Contentwise, this is unconvincing at best- if not, positively sophistic. The implication is that a rapist is driven by his sex drive - he was a ruthless "beast" when he could get it up, then turned into a sensitive mystic once he couldn't get it up- which isn't just uninformed, but bespeaks of a provincial femininity and an ingenuous androphobia, and echoes of such adages that superannuated spinsters use to caution their wards about men : Men are such pigs; a stiff dick has no conscience; and so forth. With a little bit of thought anyone can see that rape or any act of interpersonal violence has for its triggers a wide spectrum of psychological anomalies including hatred, sadism, personal inadequacy, cultural conditioning etc. A rapist isn't motivated by his dick anymore than a murderer is motivated by his gun or an artist by his sable.
Executionwise, it is overwritten and barely imaginative, and seems less to show and more to shout. Phallic penetration, tongue licks, enforced celibacy are all highly redundant word combinations and grate on your intelligence. In a way, they reflect the overall anxiety of the piece to sell the reader on an improbable premise by bashing him over the head with a gushing of such repetitive ideas as : a monster, a beast, an addict, a bachelor; spilling seeds, masturbation, bathroom privacy, less mess; desire to please, focus on her pleasure, satisfied partners. On a slightly closer analysis, this just reads like a wistful, sublimated fantasy of a woman who yearns for men to do more to her in bed than hump and walk out - but alas the solution of that lies elsewhere.