How have LGBTQ activists interpreted the desexualization of their movement over the course of the assimilationist phase underway since the 1990s? Although it is difficult to measure the commitment of activists as such, particularly among a so-called “invisible” minority, it is possible to observe the changing shape and objectives of a political movement and collect testimonies from grassroots actors. Since the 1990s, a chasm has emerged between LGBTQ politics and erotics, which reflects a quasi division of labor in identity politics between organizations – in charge of representing the group according to institutional codes – and the market – responsible for satisfying the demand for hedonism, or even eroticized consumerism. The commercial proliferation of “rainbow” products and services has now become the privatized counterpart of the political movement's bureaucratization.

In this linear and polarized space, there is little room for the provocative expression of a sexualized political identity. The institutionalization of the LGBTQ movement thus evolves alongside a disengagement among activists. In fact, the reasons for an individual activist's disengagement are often expressed in the same terms as their mobilization was. For many, the search for personal fulfillment has now shifted toward other ways of living out their LGBTQ identities. This disenchantment is often expressed in sexual terms, with some actors no longer recognizing themselves or their individual issues – shaped by the experience of alternative sexuality – in the movement's objectives.