That's a good question, but that question was already raised by Arno Schmitt in a more principled and scholarly manner in Public Culture (i.e., without invidious comparison of Joseph Massad and the Islamic Action Front) than Brian Whitaker:
Massad sees conscious forces at work–"efforts of
[Western capital] to impose a European heterosexual
regime on Arab men" (372) plus all "the machinations
of the GI" (380)–, whereas I see heterosexualisation
rather as the result of salaried work, the welfare state
and "the proliferation and hegemony of Western cultural
products" (371). I believe the French popularized
cigarettes in Morocco to make money not in order to
undermine the health of the natives, and that
Time-Warner is more interested in profits than in
spreading the American way of life. ("Gays Rights
versus Human Right: Reply to Joseph Massad's
"Re-Orienting Desire" (Public Culture 14,2)," <http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~arno/massad.html#t6>).
While Massad leans a little to much into the culturalist direction, Schmidt bends the stick into the opposite direction, the direction of economic determinism, too far.
Capitalism doesn't automatically change the regime of sexuality or anything else for that matter. It conditions cultural struggles -- including those over sex -- through proletarianization, urbanization, commodification, medicalization, etc., but does not directly and unilaterally determine their outcomes. Hence my thought that discourse of sexual orientation as such is neither necessary nor desirable -- what's desirable is sexual freedom, including freedom from the peculiar kind of repression and unfreedom that comes with discourse of sexual orientation which has us relegate same-sex love and lust to a minority identity, all others having to repress them to keep up heterosexism. -- Yoshie