Nevermind the Bollocks--Here's Maurice!

It's a line both in the book and the film adaptation of Maurice, a line so droll in its Edwardian snobbishness that it drips with humor and truthfulness at the same time:
"England has always been disinclined to accept human nature."
(For any seekers, this line appears on page 211 of the book, during one of Maurice's treatment/visits to Lasker Jones.)
I see loads of truthfulness in this line, as far as what one can observe of English culture from a distance, both in time and miles--from the Brits' banning of specific cultural elements throughout their history, from the illegalizing of pornography during the Victorian era to the banning of illicit "video nasties' (and what a purely, innocently British, nearly childlike, term that is) during the '80s.
And what's the social effect of such acts as placing bans on cultural elements?
4 syllables--say 'em with me:
REBELLION.
Rebellion is a cultural effect, a cultural product, just as, according to Halperin's essay, sexuality is a cultural effect, a cultural product.
Ah, a link shines here. For Maurice Hall, the sexual desires tormenting him, his homosexual wants, are a rebellion forged from British strictures placed against such desires. Forster himself places agreeing hints in his book, as where academic officials admit that homosexuality more or less occurs as a passing fad for boys--a rebellious act akin to pulling a fire alarm or dropping a spider down a girl's dress (my examples, not Forster's, and yes, I'm aware of the Leave It to Beaver-ish datedness of such pranks--nothing else is springing to mind at the moment, sorry!).
I've got to say, too, if England excels in its disinclinations toward human nature, the US, in recent years, seems "superinclined" towards human nature, what with the overflowing media acceptance of homo/hetero/anything-goes-sexuality in film (Brokeback Mountain), tv (Will and Grace), print (Brokeback Mountain, again), and e-everything [ooh, is the Internet gendered?--I know, I know, subject for a future blog entry]. Perhaps such a "superinclination" carries an agenda, as in high tolerancies for sexuality might stifle any attempts at rebellion. Very BushAmerica Chic!
Back to the Brits. I can't help thinking that England's chief cultural rebellion of the '70s, the punk movement, carried not a sexual charge, but screamed a charge of sexuality--or rather, anti-sexuality. I believe the look of the '70s Britpunks, an abrasive melange of male/female elements--black leather, wildly colored hair, jewelry made from misappropriated safety pins and chains--worked to create a largely androgynous image, an image superimposing a singular aggression of rebellion over any binary sexual division.
I feel odd revealing this, as I had my years in a punk "underground," and yes, hearing the opinion of a local backwoodsman in a convenience store several years ago, "Which restroom d'ya go inta?'
Despite my punk years, I never felt the loss of any sexual division.
Then again, I wasn't in London, either, railing against unemployment and Thatcher.
And if Maurice had been written during the late '70s, I wonder in what ways, if at all, the punk rebellion would've changed anything, everything, or nothing.