My point was the wicked act Lot was reffering to couldn't have been rape since he himself was willing to let his daughters to be raped.
He was willing if it meant that his guests would be spared. Women were property; Lot would only be out 50 shekels per virgin (under the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which also requires women to marry their rapists), it was an acceptable loss if it meant he would protect his guests from harm.
And how could the wicked act not be rape when the men were trying to barge down his door while demanding to have sex with his guests? How is that not threatening rape?
Unless Lot considered himself wicked.
It was Lot's responsibility to protect his male guests from harm. You think it would have been wicked for Lot to offer his daughters to be raped, but that's precisely what he did in the story. Just as the Gibeah resident offered his guest's concubine who then got raped all night long. If the story wasn't about rape but instead about sexual orientation, it would make no sense for Lot to offer his daughters to them.
The only thing he was not willing to let happen was a group of men have sex with two other men.
Again Lot is not concerned with the prospect of his guests "going gay" and piously keeping them from having a hot date with some horny men. The situation is one of a violent, angry mob barging down his front door making threats. They were threatening rape.
I'll ask you if Lot was ok with raped(as indicated by him offering his daughters to be raped), what was the wicked act he didn't want the men to commit.
Sexual violence against his male guests (men had rights and privileges that women did not have; sexual violence against women was not the same thing). Violence that very well would have cost them their lives. If we look at the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine, this is how the Levite describes the threat against him: "The inhabitants of Gibeah rose up against me, and they surrounded me in the house at night, intending to kill me, and they abused my concubine and she died" (Judges 20:5). This not a matter of sexual orientation; this is rape which the Levite considered a threat to his life.
The story doesn't tell us why they rejected the women or why they targeted these two men in the first place
I already quoted the very next verse that shows what their response was. They don't reject the women per se, they instead extend the threat against Lot himself. And it isn't just an assumption on my part that the motive is inhospitality to strangers, for they explicitly talk about this in their response: "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them" (v. 9, NASB). They aren't saying, "My goodness Lot, you're a fine lookin' man yourself, real sexy, why don't we all get it on?" They are outraged that this uppity stranger dares to tell them what to do, that he is an "alien" too, and because he dares to think himself an arbiter in that situation, they would treat him "worse" than his guests. Notice also the part about treating Lot worse. It is a threat of violence.
The Gibeah story also concerns strangers who come to spend the night in the city. Like the angels in Sodom, they decide to sleep in the public square, for "no one took them into his house to spend the night" (Judges 19:15), so the people of the city know that these are travelers and they show themselves to be inhospitable to them. And like Lot, the old man begs the Levite to not spend the night in the square. I wonder why.
The story doesn't tell us why in either case but the most logical conclusion based on the what the story tell us is because they were homosexuals.
They don't specifically reject the daughters; they extend the threat of rape to Lot himself because he is an uppity alien. That's what they say to his face.