There was certainly sexual slavery in the Ottoman empire too. But it was more common after 1700, the people taken were mostly from the Caucasus instead of Eastern Europe, and it involved far fewer individuals.
Why would it be any different in the Ottoman empire ?
Returning to the original topic, the devsirme is nominally slavery, but the substance of the phaenomenon is not really. And some sultans practiced paderasty, but again reducing the devsirme to a periodical collection of homosexual male sex slaves is just not correct. We're talking about the most powerful men in the Ottoman society for the entire existence of the Janissary/Devsirme system. On many occasions they decided and/or dethroned sultans. Many devsirme dynasties obtained immense power and wealth. The Sokollu family ruled the empire for decades and decades. Mehmed Sokollu created the Bulgarian Church and made his brother the patriarch. Until Mahmud II, not bribing the Janissaries enough meant death for the sultans. Now don't tell me these men were succumbed into a system of involuntary rape by that one guy which they get rid of when they want anyways.
Almost all of the brilliant men of the empire were devsirme. Janissaries were too. You might have some funny anger at dead rulers from centuries ago for whatever reason, but reducing the most powerful individuals of the eastern mediterranean during most of the past millennium to sexual slavery is a bit too much.
The Ottoman Janissaries were generally the best troops fielded in the late Middle Ages and a large component of what allowed the Ottomans to dominate the Near and Middle East. Like many military castes, however, the Janissaries ended this means of recruitment (as it diluted the power they accumulated) and became a powerful ossified force that retarded needed modernization, happily killing off any sultan that dared resist them, only stopping (temporarily) when the Ottoman royal line was in real danger of running out of successors.
It's why the last emperors looked as they did.