The online dictionary defines it this way:
"One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous. "Considering this definition one word pops out at us right away: righteous. This word is probably a good reason why the word prude is not considered to be a complement. Le'ts take a closer look at that word, righteous as well to see why. Merrian Webster defines it as "acting in accord with divine or moral law".
So we can see now why there is no such thing as a prudish homosexual. The term prudish homosexual introduces cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is like saying that it is forbidden to forbid, or, there is no truth... and that's the truth. These statements are inconsistent with logic. In the same way, accusing a person who rejects the existence of absolute moral law of being excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous, is also inconsistent with logic.
Interestingly enough, the online dictionary goes on to say this:
"Being called a prude is rarely considered a compliment, but if we dig into the history of the word prude, we find that it has a noble past."This "noble past" points to a time when it was generally accepted that there was such a thing as righteousness. While the Christian perspective is that there are none righteous, no not one, this does not wipe away the existence of righteousness from which mankind falls short. It remains that being a disciple of Christ, and thus being transformed into his righteous image, and being sanctified, ought to be the out-workings of that relationship. The word prude, therefore, while causing us to be an object of contempt to the world, ought to give us reason for thankfulness in our hearts to God who has seen fit to transform us by the renewing our minds.
Note 1: From the Christian perspective there is no such thing as a Homosexual Christian no more than there is such a thing as an adulterous Christian. Christians find their identity in Christ, not whatever garden variety of sin that happens to be "besetting" them. "Homosexual Christian" does not describe, therefore, a Christian who struggles with same-sex attractions. Such a Christian could easily be considered prudish, and given the shame all mankind inherently feels about his sinful behavior, Christians, above all, would not be desirous of waving as a banner, or claiming as an identity, their shame.