PRIDE Is Dead In New York City

Pride Month 2025: From Street Orgies to Silence—The Collapse of a Cultural Phenomenon

By Annie Fundora

New York, NY -Anyone familiar with New York knows that June—especially the last Sunday of the month, during the height of Pride celebrations—transforms parts of Manhattan into a sprawling stage of flamboyant and often overtly sexual exhibitionism. What began as a commemoration of the Stonewall riots has, in many corners of the city, evolved into a permissive carnival atmosphere where public nudity, simulated sex acts, and graphic displays are not only tolerated but celebrated under the banner of liberation. For many, it’s a bold assertion of identity; for others, it borders on indecency. Even the most socially liberal passerby might find themselves caught between wanting to affirm freedom of expression and questioning whether there are—or should be—limits to it when it spills so unfiltered into public space.

Public acts of oral sex. Full nudity in broad daylight. Men marching down Fifth Avenue visibly erect and sometimes completely unclothed, while police officers—perhaps out of political caution or institutional directives—chose to look the other way. What was once framed as a march for equality gradually morphed into a display of hypersexualized defiance, where the shock factor eclipsed any coherent message about civil rights. The atmosphere no longer resembled a protest or a parade, but a performance—one that treated public space as a stage for exhibitionism, daring anyone to object. Children stood on sidewalks watching what they could not yet understand. Families visiting the city turned away in discomfort. But any criticism, however measured, was met with swift accusations of bigotry. Silence was the social cost of tolerance. And so, year after year, the boundary between liberation and public indecency blurred—protected not by principle, but by fear of backlash.

But in 2025, something has undeniably changed. Whether sparked by the recent election cycle, growing cultural pushback, or a deeper societal exhaustion with the relentless sexualization of identity politics, the atmosphere feels markedly different. The parades are smaller. The crowds, thinner. The noise, dialed down. What was once an unapologetically loud and colorful takeover of the city has quieted into something more restrained—if not absent altogether. Gone are the ubiquitous rainbow banners draped across every government building, boutique window, and corporate billboard by the first week of June. In their place: American flags. Red, white, and blue now dominate the visual landscape—especially in areas that, just a few years ago, had been covered wall-to-wall in Progress and Trans flags. Even in neighborhoods long considered Pride’s most fervent bastions—Chelsea, the West Village, Hell’s Kitchen—the shift is visible. Some see it as a return to civic neutrality; others, a sign of retreat.

Corporate sponsors, once falling over themselves to signal allegiance to identity-based movements, have noticeably pulled back. Campaigns that once celebrated “queer joy” in boardrooms and bank ads now opt for vague gestures or skip the month entirely. This isn’t merely about changing tastes—it reflects a cultural rebalancing, perhaps even a reckoning. For many, the pendulum swung too far, too fast—and now, it’s beginning to swing back.

It’s no longer just about major retailers like Target and Walmart scaling back their once-elaborate Pride-themed merchandise and rainbow-drenched displays. It’s about the realization that these efforts—originally framed as inclusive and affirming—morphed into an unrelenting spectacle of identity marketing. What began as small nods to visibility gradually ballooned into full-blown campaigns featuring LGBTQ mannequins, gender-fluid children’s clothing, trans flag-themed baby onesies, and slogans that seemed more provocative than purposeful. Entire aisles were rebranded for June. Public restrooms were relabeled. Seasonal merchandise that once celebrated mothers or fathers was temporarily swapped out for “parental figures” in a bid to appear ideologically pure.

This overcorrection was not without cost. Many consumers—liberal, moderate, and conservative alike—began to question the sincerity, the timing, and the intensity. Was this really about inclusion, or about exploiting a movement for capital gain? What began as support quickly came to feel like coercion. Pushback followed: social media backlash, boycotts, viral videos of bewildered shoppers, and even internal whistleblowing from employees who felt uncomfortable with the ideological overreach in environments once considered politically neutral.

What we’re witnessing now is a quiet recalibration. Stores still participate, but more cautiously. Advertisements are more subtle. The rainbows are fewer, the slogans softer. It’s not necessarily a rejection of LGBTQ rights—it’s a rejection of performative corporate activism that began to feel more like ideological pressure than genuine support. In this cooling-off period, corporations are learning that while virtue signaling may win short-term applause, it risks long-term alienation if the performance becomes the product.

Consumers grew tired of being force-fed identity politics every June, especially when it came in the form of rainbow-themed credit cards, cartoonish slogans, or gender ideology disguised as progress. For many, these campaigns came off not just as tone-deaf, but as manipulative—using civil rights language to sell tote bags and cereal. The appropriation was blatant: struggle repackaged into seasonal marketing, with no substance behind the slogans and no commitment beyond the month. What once claimed to be about visibility became a commercial circus—corporate mascots donning rainbow capes, fast food chains releasing “pride meals,” and tampon brands lecturing women about inclusive language. Even banks, the very symbols of systemic power, insisted they were allies, proudly displaying “Love Is Love” while funding anti-worker policies and foreclosing on homes. In this context, Pride didn’t elevate marginalized voices—it turned them into mascots.

The message behind it all was clear: buy this, and you’re a good person. Wear this, and you’re on the right side of history. But consumers aren’t stupid. Over time, it became obvious that this wasn’t solidarity—it was exploitation. It was monetizing identity, moral virtue as product packaging. And worst of all, it was done with the assumption that no one would dare question it—for fear of being labeled hateful. But people did start to question it. Loudly. And what corporations are now facing is not just the end of a marketing phase—it’s the collapse of a cynical strategy that tried to convert social capital into market capital and lost both in the process.

And this isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it’s long overdue. People should not be celebrated because of who they like to have sex with. Sexual behavior—no matter how loudly politicized—should never have been elevated to a moral identity or a public spectacle. Yet somehow, desire was transformed into virtue, and preference into performance.

In what other context is a person’s bedroom behavior used to justify parades, endorsements, dedicated months, and entire product lines? None. Because the premise is absurd. No one gets a parade for being straight, monogamous, celibate, kinky, or anything else. The cultural exaltation of sexual identity—especially when divorced from any actual oppression—became a kind of moral theater, where the act of announcing who you sleep with was treated as inherently brave or progressive. It’s not. It’s just marketing disguised as justice.

And as society wakes up to that manipulation, the retreat we’re seeing from corporate Pride campaigns is not a sign of regression—it’s a sign of maturity. A sign that the public is no longer willing to conflate sexual identity with civic virtue, or let multinational corporations define morality based on sales quotas. And the reason heteronormativity has been historically celebrated isn’t because it’s morally superior—it’s because it serves the interests of the men in charge. It reinforces a sexual order built for their benefit. Straightness is glorified not for its ethics, but for its utility: it keeps women sexually available, reproductively compliant, and economically tethered to male-centered households. It packages female sexuality in a way that is legible, controllable, and above all, pleasurable to men.

This is why women’s roles within heteronormative frameworks are so rigid—wife, mother, girlfriend, sex object. Deviate, and you’re either erased or punished. Conform, and you’re rewarded with conditional status. It’s not about love or orientation; it’s about power. And when gay identity began to mimic this same structure—especially through trans ideology and performative femininity—it was not a break from patriarchy, but an extension of it in drag.

So no, heteronormativity isn’t neutral. But neither is the commercial fetishization of queerness. Both operate within male-defined paradigms. One enforces women’s submission through norms. The other cloaks male entitlement in the language of liberation. Either way, women are the ones being shaped, marketed, and consumed. And it is because of this that Pride celebrations are dead—and people are over it. Society has become less tolerant, the charade has worn thin. What once posed as resistance is now an annual marketing ploy. What once claimed to be about rights now reads like a fetish for attention. And what once sought equality now demands submission—to ideology, to spectacle, to the never-ending command to celebrate other people’s sex lives. Pride collapsed under the weight of its own excess—because it was never about dignity. It was always  about dominance. It stopped asking for space and started demanding reverence.  The public is tired. The rainbow-washed capitalism, the forced affirmations, the moral bullying—all of it. And so, the flags are fading. The displays are shrinking. The applause has quieted. Pride is over. Not because people hate gay people, but because they’ve finally realized that none of this was ever really about acceptance but more about normalizing male perversions on a public scale.