‘I am very straight in my gay life’

Abstract

Studies of gay tourists predominantly focus on gay men. On the basis of an exploratory qualitative study, this article offers knowledge on lesbian tourists and how they differ from more traditional conceptions of gay tourists. Although a very heterogeneous group, the lesbian tourists partaking in the study are less likely than gay men to visit gay destinations and gay spaces and have in many ways more in common with other female tourists than with gay male tourists. ‘Reasons to go’ for the studied lesbian tourists are constituted by a diversity of cultural, nature-based and hedonistic experiences, and lesbian bars, events and communities appear only to be a supplement to the other more central holiday experiences. This contributes with new knowledge to the existing literature. The article discusses these issues and how the multiple identities of these lesbian tourists, for example, being a woman; a mother; a partner; a particular type of tourist; and gay, are all important for their holidaying.

Keywords

Gay tourism holiday choices identity construction lesbian tourists multiple identities

Introduction

Clift and Forrest (1999; 2000) find gender and sexuality of travellers to be under-researched. In the same vein, authors such as Pritchard et al. (1998), Hughes (2002c) and Guaracino (2007) argue that there is a lack of critical academic research on these topics. Focusing on gay sexuality, Waitt and Markwell (2006) further this argument and proclaim that a ‘gay gap’ characterizes the tourism literature. Having reviewed the literature on gay and lesbian tourism, we agree that a number of interesting issues within gay and lesbian tourism do not seem to be adequately covered and particularly relations between gay identity and holiday making seem under-researched. Hopefully, this article qualifies as one, albeit incremental, step towards the closing of the gay gap in tourist studies.

Although a variety of books and articles on gay and lesbian tourists exist (Guaracino, 2007; Hughes, 2006; Medhurst and Munt, 1997; Waitt and Markwell, 2006), some of these contributions may overemphasize the importance of gay and lesbian tourists as a distinct and homogeneous consumer segment (Hughes, 2006). Furthermore, the existing body of literature (e.g. Fugate, 1993; Guaracino, 2007; Hughes, 2002a; Haslop et al., 1998; Philipp, 1999; Stuber, 2002; Visser, 2003) predominantly focuses on traditional marketing issues (i.e. segmentation, targeting and positioning) and especially on gay and lesbian tourists’ income levels, travel patterns and holiday spending. However, before it is possible to consider gay and lesbian tourists as a segment, we need to understand their travel motivations, destination choices, holiday experiences and possible identity construction through holiday consumption.

Apart from the marketing lenses through which extant literature sees gay and lesbian tourists, the majority of this literature focuses upon gay men. Puar (2002a: 937) asks the question whether ‘conventional narratives of (queer) tourism re-inscribe lesbian invisibility?’ Furthermore, Waitt and Markwell (2006) argue that discourses in tourism are gendered as well as predominantly masculine and that particularly lesbians are under-researched. As a consequence, this article specifically investigates lesbian tourists and addresses possible differences between the characteristics of the gay tourists accounted for in the existing literature and those of the lesbian tourists studied here. Thus, voice is given to lesbian tourists who seem in need of being studied as tourists in their own right and not just as part of the ‘gay segment’.

On this basis, the purpose of the present article is to study lesbian tourists in their own right and understand their choices, experiences and identity constructions through holiday consumption. Attention is given first to the characteristics of lesbian tourists and the extent to which they comply with or differ from those of the larger gay segment; and second to whether the characteristics of lesbian tourists are so multifaceted that identification of a lesbian segment makes little sense. In the forthcoming analysis section, we exemplify these complex issues by studying the narratives of lesbian tourists, thereby gaining insight into the individual interviewee’s lifeworld. As this study is undertaken in national contexts different from the majority of studies in gay and lesbian tourism, this may also add to a more nuanced understanding of lesbian tourists.

Theoretical framework

Lesbian tourists’ holiday patterns

Much research on gay tourism is undertaken in an Anglo-American context. For example, research has established that North American lesbians are less likely than gay men to have passports and they also travel less than gay men (Community Marketing, 2008). Moreover, lesbians are said to spend less than gay men while on holiday and are less likely to return to a destination they have visited in the past (Hughes, 2007). However, the last point could relate to lesbians travelling less and, as a consequence, may be inclined to choose ‘new’ destinations, while gay men, who may travel more often, may both make repeat visits and visit new destinations. An interesting conclusion drawn by Hughes (2007) is that lesbians found the presence of gay/lesbian venues less important than gay men when on holiday. This might indicate that gay communities are less important to lesbians – at least during their holidays. Furthermore, Hughes (2007) found that lesbian tourists are more likely than gay men to be in a relationship, which subsequently makes them less likely to go out while on holiday. Additionally, fewer lesbian destinations than gay destinations exist and, although gay destinations also welcome lesbians, these destinations may be male dominated (Hughes, 2007). A few lesbian holiday offers and destinations do, however, exist. Miller (2002) points to Olivia Cruises, which only targets the lesbian market, and other authors mention Lesbos, which both Kantsa (2002) and Puar (2002a; 2002b) suggest to be a place of pilgrimage for lesbians. Moreover, Puar (2002a) draws attention to Isla de Mujeres in Mexico and Provincetown in the United States as possible lesbian destinations.

Elsewhere (Blichfeldt et al., 2011a & 2011b) we have discussed how gay men, on account of their sexual orientation, may have fewer holiday destinations to choose among than other tourists. Hughes (2007), however, suggests that lesbians have a greater number of holiday destinations to choose among than gay male tourists simply because their sexual orientation matters less and/or is less explicit than that of their male counterparts. Accordingly, two lesbians holidaying together might be more acceptable, or less ‘obvious’, than two gay men because both locals and other tourists might perceive two lesbians as ‘just good friends’ – not girlfriends –travelling together. Accordingly, it could be that lesbian sexual identity is less evident to others during holidays than gay male identity and as a result, lesbians may face fewer obstacles, pre-justice and possible harassment than other gay tourists.

Drawing on the sparse literature on lesbian tourists, and comparing it to the literature on gay tourists, it seems that the activities that gay men and lesbians engage in during their holidays may differ and thus the basis for dealing with lesbian tourists as a separate group of consumers seems to exist. The outline above, furthermore, indicates that both internal, psychological constructs of who ‘I’ am and external, social constructs of who ‘the lesbian’ is hold explanatory potential in relation to the holiday patterns of lesbians.

Lesbian identity construction and holiday consumption

In line with the interpretive turn in consumer research (e.g. Holt, 1995; McCracken, 1988; Thompson and Haytko, 1997), this article rests on the assumption that people engage in consumption activities for functional as well as symbolic reasons, the latter pointing to ‘the opportunities for defining self and the world’ (McCracken, 1988: 24) that consumption and, as a part hereof, holidaying offers. Individual experiential and culturally institutionalized meanings of products coexist in a multitude of configurations (Holt, 1995) and so identity construction is characterized by internal and external processes that foster personal as well as a social identity (Askegaard and Firat, 1996; Belk, 1988; Warde, 2004). Speaking of identity as construction turns attention towards identity as a flexible and dynamic construct that the tourist, throughout life, reconstructs and negotiates whereby identity becomes ‘a process of “being” or “becoming” [… which is] never a final or settled matter’ (Jenkins, 2008:17). Hence, in this article, identity construction becomes a salient perspective in which lesbian tourists’ holiday patterns are studied, and the possibility is continually kept in mind that multiple identities, as opposed to one single sexual identity, may be at stake.

The existing literature suggests that just like gay men, lesbians appear to socialize, form communities and create space in which they can escape from ‘heteronormativity’ (Bell and Valentine, 1995; Rothenberg, 1995; Schuyf, 1992; Sender, 2004). According to Schuyf (1992), socializing with other lesbians is an important means to construct lesbian life and identity, and thus lesbian communities and spaces are likely to assist the individual in her construction of a gay identity. However, although sexual identity may influence holiday consumption, other identities (e.g. being a woman, a partner, a parent, a gourmand, a sports fanatic or an adventure tourist) may be equally important to the individual tourist. Hence siding with Hogg and Abrams (1988) and Jenkins (2008), people may both have, and aspire to, several identities, each of which may be more or less important in view of individual holiday projects.

Studies on lesbian identity disagree on the salience of the sexual dimension. Some studies suggest that lesbian identity – diverse and fluid as it may be – is an important identity dimension for lesbians (Jones and McEwen, 2000), though various identity dimensions (e.g. gendered or sexual identity) can only be understood in relation to each other, for example, being a black woman or a black lesbian. Other studies, though, suggest that sexual orientation might not be a particularly salient identity dimension for lesbians (Degges-White et al., 2000; Kitzinger, 1987) in that the lesbians studied perceived their sexual orientation to be only part of who they were – not the sum of their identity. We would, however, argue that lesbian communities may prove to be an important tribe (Cova and Cova, 2002), the acknowledgement of which the individual lesbian tourist might seek in an everyday life context and/or during holidays.

Some researchers (Almgren, 1994; Bell and Valentine, 1995; Hindle, 1994; Valentine, 1993) argue that lesbian communities are not as ‘strong’ as male gay communities and that fewer spaces devoted exclusively to lesbians exist than for gay men. Different reasons are offered for this discrepancy, ranging from lack of discretionary income necessary for socializing in public space (Castells, 1983) and thereby lack of means to support places that exclusively target lesbians (Bell and Valentine,1995; McNee, 1984; Rothenberg, 1995), to lesbians being less outgoing and thus socializing more in private places (Almgren, 1994; Bell and Valentine, 1995; Bondi, 1998; Rothenberg, 1995;). The latter also relates to the argument that lesbians seem to favour establishing and developing interpersonal relations (Bell and Valentine, 1995; Hindle, 1994) which is found to be easier in the private as opposed to the public sphere. As the societal position of women, and with that lesbians, has changed significantly within the past 25 years, the explanatory power of many of the studies above may have diminished, however, the emphasis on interpersonal relations aligns with studies that suggest lesbian communities to be characterized by loose organizational set-ups rather than formalized and material ones (Schuyf, 1992). In the same vein, Almgren (1994) and Adler and Brenner (1992) state that few public lesbian places exist and that those that do exist are only visible for people who seek them very actively. Building on personal relations and more informal structures, lesbian communities may be less important entities of identification than gay communities are for gay males. On the other hand, it may just as well be that gay men and lesbians build tribe membership in different ways. Relating this to tourism, it is, however, arguably more difficult for lesbian tourists than gay male tourists to seek out lesbian communities in unfamiliar contexts as access seems to depend upon personal contacts and insider’s information. This indicates that holiday consumption as a vehicle for sexual identity construction may fall into the background and other identities become more salient.

Finally, the matter of lesbian identity is further complicated by the fact that both the extent and nature of ‘being a lesbian’ might be highly situational and contextual. Valentine (1992: 241) argues that lesbians ‘perceive that different people and organizations will react to their sexuality differently and therefore they negotiate different and contradictory sexual identities in different time/space frameworks’. This means that a lesbian might choose to conceal her sexuality in her home environment whilst openly exhibiting it during holidays or that a lesbian open about her sexuality in (at least some parts of) her everyday life may choose to conceal this dimension of her identity in other time/space frameworks, for example during holidays. Hence different sociocultural conventions on who ‘the lesbian’ is and where and when it is acceptable to display this identity would seem to constitute an influential factor.

Summing up on the key points of the theoretical discussion, it is argued that individuals have multiple, intersecting or even overlapping identities and thus lesbian identity might be only one of the identities of importance to lesbian women. All depending on the context, and sociocultural conventions attached to this, as well as individual dispositions, sexual identity may either be displayed or concealed. Holidays may be a context in which it is difficult to display one’s sexual identity, apart from holidays undertaken at one of the few dedicated lesbian destinations. This is due to the fact that one enters into a different cultural setting in which the sociocultural conventions on ‘lesbianness’ may be unknown, and because of the way in which lesbian communities seem to be constructed. It is hence argued that due to the significance of interpersonal relations, loose organizational set-ups and lack of physical manifestations, it may be difficult to seek out lesbian communities when on holiday, and so sexual identity construction may fall into the background when holidaying and other interests or lifestyle-related identities may become more central. In the subsequent analysis, these theoretical deliberations will be used for understanding the holiday choices of a selected group of lesbian tourists. Prior to this, reflections on the data collection methodology are, however, necessary.

Methodology

Haslop et al. (1998: 318) argue that ‘a social constructionist framework assumes importance in tracing how homosexual identities are developed and expressed in a social and cultural context’ and that ‘both heterosexuality and homosexuality are socially constructed forms of sexual identity’. Therefore, we intend to dig into the lesbian tourists’ enactments of their own lives and interpretations of their lifeworlds (Flick, 2002). The women we study are thus not passive objects, but actively influence the research (Salner, 1989) and thus, knowledge on lesbian tourists presented in this article is constructed through communication between the researchers and the interviewees. As such, we attempt to present what it means to be a lesbian tourist, as experienced by lesbians and, therefore, we give voice to lesbians in their natural settings (e.g. in their homes, in bars and cafes, and during events).

From the outset of the study, relations were formed with various gays. Approaches utilized to gain insight and access include observations, engaging in informal conversations, surfing the Internet, interviewing experts, reading different non-academic literature as well as gay and lesbian magazines. Participant observations were carried out throughout the entire research process – for example while being spectators at The World Outgames and visiting gay and lesbian bars and cafes. Furthermore, informal chats and conversations with gays and lesbians offered a deeper understanding of their world views. Analyses began after the first interviews (as well as observations and informal chats) were conducted and thereafter, literature studies, interviewing and analysis occurred simultaneously. Analyses of data thereby influenced the literature review as we discovered that issues other than the initially identified ones were important. The data collection process took place between February and September 2009.

The interviewees were identified through purposeful sampling (Maxwell, 2009) and a series of different approaches were utilized. For example, some interviews were made in Barcelona in connection with SITC 2009, Spain’s second largest tourism fair. Other interviewees were contacted through an acquaintance who brought along flyers on the project to a lesbian party. Moreover, visits were made to lesbian and gay cafes (one in Copenhagen and one in Aarhus, Denmark’s largest and second largest cities) where the researchers introduced the study. Furthermore, the researchers joined gay and lesbian groups on Facebook and went to The World Outgames in Copenhagen as well as to Stockholm Gay Pride.

The interviews were undertaken in different locations depending on the interviewees’ wishes: in the homes or work places of the interviewer or the interviewee or at cafes and bars. Being very explorative at the beginning, the interviews grew increasingly more structured as both analyses of previous interviews and further literature studies were conducted. In total, 21 lesbian tourists participated in the study. Five of the interviews were done with lesbian couples and 11 interviews were with individuals, and so the study included 16 travel units. Although the number of interviews might seem ‘light’, this number relates to a deliberate choice to do in-depth interviews that uncover not only the interviewees’ latest or most memorable holidays but their entire travel careers and perceptions of relations between different holidays and the interviewees’ identity constructions at various points in time. For example, the interviews with couples also covered holidays the spouses had undertaken before they became a couple. Though the eternal question of whether ‘lives told’ in an interview situation resemble ‘lives lived’ also applies in this study, it seems that the interviewees were both open and honest in relation to their holidaying and how this related to their multiple identities, including their gay identities. That said it is important to emphasize that the study is exploratory in nature and that the purpose is not to make a study that generalizes across lesbian tourists. Instead, the purpose is first and foremost to give voice to a series of lesbian tourists in order to identify potential patterns in holiday consumption and hence contribute to further studies of this, perhaps not that homogeneous, group of tourists.

The age span of the lesbian interviewees is fairly broad (from 23 to 61 years old), and whereas the majority of them are Danish (10), interviewees from Norway (4), Germany (3), Belgium (1), Spain (1) Australia (1) and the United States (1) are also represented in the data. All of the respondents, however, reside in Europe and several of the non-Danes in Denmark. Fourteen interviewees are in relationships and seven are single, four have children (either from their present relationship or from a former, heterosexual relationship) and two were pregnant when the interviews were conducted. Occupations cover students, self-employed, unemployed and publically and privately employed people. The interviewees’ level of education also varies; however, more than a third of the interviewees had university degrees. The interviews lasted at least 1½ hours, they were conducted in either English or Danish, recorded and subsequently transcribed.

Analysis and findings

As will be demonstrated in details below, the interviewed lesbian tourists do not qualify as a homogeneous group, neither in terms of holiday preferences and choices nor in terms of identity construction processes. The analysis will be organized on the basis of the recurring themes that appeared in the interviews and the informal talks and interchanges with the interviewees. The first theme analysed is the holiday interests of the respondents and the ways in which sexuality influence these. Next the interplay between gender and sexuality is in focus until attention is turned towards parental status and its influence on holiday choices. On this basis, the analysis approaches an understanding of lesbian tourists’ identity construction.

Holiday interests and sexuality

The interviews show that the holiday interests of 21 women aged 23–61 are just as diverse as they would be for their heterosexual counterparts. Just to mention a few interests, cultural sites, nature-based experiences, getting to know the local culture or relaxing on a cruise are all ‘reasons to go’ stated by the interviewees. Two quotes illustrate the plethora of holiday interests detected in the data:

For my last holiday I went trekking in Norway. I walked around 500 kilometers in five weeks and it was the best holiday of my life.(Laura, 45, Denmark)

We want to relax during holidays and we will rather enjoy the holiday and each other than run around in order to see all the attractions. (Caroline, 49, Norway)

Furthermore, some interviewees prefer holiday activities that are a continuation of the leisure activities they engage in at home, like Cecilie (32, Danish) who prefers museums, art exhibitions and theatre as leisure activities at home as well as on holidays, whereas others prefer holiday activities that are a total contrast to their everyday lives, like Jennifer (40, American) who is physically active in her spare time at home but prefers total relaxation on a cruise ship when on holiday. Sexual orientation mainly enters the picture in terms of it being ‘a nice bonus if we can go to a lesbian place as well’ (Anna, 38, Denmark), so lesbian bars, events and communities come across as supplements to other more central holiday experiences. For others a gay-friendly attitude at the destination is enough, which does not necessitate the presence of gay bars and accommodation (Sabine, 32, Germany). This is in line with Pritchard et al. (2000) who found that lesbians emphasize the need for acceptance and avoiding uncomfortable situations involving negative reactions from heterosexuals relating to their homosexuality. However, compared to Pritchard et al.’s (2000) study, the present research paints a more multifacetted picture of lesbian tourists as not all of our interviewees long for acceptance and some of them find that they can easily ‘hide’ their sexuality when holidaying, if they wish to do so. However, for most of our interviewees, other lesbians seem to constitute a comfort zone (‘a nice bonus’) in that they provide a context in which no explanations for oneself are necessary (Laura, 45, Denmark), or as Maria puts it:

You can be who you are and walk down the street without being looked at. (Maria, 40, Australia)

Similar views are offered by Christina and Puk (34 and 42, Denmark), though they seem in addition to be driven by social constraints felt in relation to being a lesbian at home. Other respondents who live in small towns such as Christina and Puk voice the same opinion, just as certain types of job situations are felt to hamper social acceptance. For instance, Sara (25, Belgian) who works with young people finds it hard to say or show publically in the vicinity of her workplace that she is a lesbian. So aspects of escape at holidays from ‘heteronormativity’ (Sender, 2004; Bell and Valentine, 1995; Rothenberg, 1995; Schuyf, 1992) are detected in the data. Nonetheless, the presence of other lesbians, lesbian bars, accommodation and events remain secondary in view of conventional holiday interests like nature activities, cultural sites and relaxation, which stands in contrast to much of the established knowledge (e.g. Waitt and Markwell, 2006; Hughes, 2002b; Howe, 2001) in which gay and lesbian communities, places and activities hold a much more central position.

One holiday interest that has been studied extensively in relation to gay men is casual sex, whereas there seems to be no studies on lesbians’ inclinations to engage in casual sex on holidays. In contrast to existing literature that suggests that gay men are often interested in casual sex during the holidays, most of the lesbian interviewees in our study show a disinterest in sexual experiences with new partners on holiday. One interviewee negates the wish for casual sex on holidays and explains that she is simply too conservative:

No. But, then again, I am very conservative. I am very straight in my gay life (Maria, 40, Australia)

In the same vein, other interviewees hold that having sex on vacation is not an issue. In the existing literature (e.g. Blichfeldt et al., 2011a & 2011b), the majority of gay men deem casual sex during holidays important. The lesbian interviewees, on the other hand, are more concerned with permanent relationships. For example, one interviewee says that she is ‘not interested in falling in love 1000 km from home’ (Charlotte, 35, Germany) and consequently often avoids gay bars, cafes and clubbing when holidaying. Another interviewee suggests that lesbians, just like other women, are homemakers and not outgoing like (gay) men (Anita, 51, Denmark) and therefore, having sex – or in other ways engaging in romantic relations – during holidays is not appealing. The fact that this is not an issue for our female interviewees suggests that this is something that sets, at least some, lesbian tourists apart from other gay tourists.

Gender and sexuality

The interviewees in this study most readily identify themselves as women without reference to their sexuality during talks about choice of holiday destination. Middle Eastern destinations are, for instance, identified as interesting, but mainly due to their gender, several of the interviewees would not go there on holiday:

I don't think that I would feel that I could be myself. […] So I think, and I have also heard from my heterosexual friends, that you have to be covered up and especially if they have travelled with their boyfriends, then they had to be in the back seat in the cab and kind of have their personal responsibility taken away. Some places, not all places, but I think that especially in Saudi Arabia. I don’t think I would like that. But of course, I would also find it annoying if I couldn’t hold my girlfriend’s hand. (Cecilie, 32, Denmark)

Cecilie voices two dimensions pertaining to safety in the quote above: first in relation to her gender (i.e. cover-up and back seat) and second in relation to her sexuality (i.e. showing affection towards her partner). However, several interviewees relate the issue of safety on holiday more to their gender than to their sexuality. Ulrikke, for example, reflects on places she would not go to as a tourist:

Maybe Arab countries which are very closed and hostile towards women … or have another view on women.(Ulrikke, 28, Denmark)

Gender is a more prevalent reason why Ulrikke would not go there on holiday than her sexuality. Likewise other interviewees feel that their gender rather than their sexuality would cause them problems and affect their feeling of safety when visiting other countries. This is in line with Black (2000) who found that certain groups in society, including women, might be particularly at risk when travelling. Accordingly, issues pertaining to safety on holiday seem to relate more to being women than to being lesbian.

A few of the interviewees readily identify themselves as lesbians, but say that they just happened to fall in love with another woman, whereby sexual orientation becomes a matter of coincidence:

I have always thought that it was, I mean, that I was completely normal hetero. I truly believed so. I knew that there was something which was not like it ought to be, but I had never, before I met [my wife], thought that it was something like that […]. That’s what I usually say too: ‘I am not a lesbian; I am just in love with [my wife]. (Puk, 42, Denmark)

Frable (1997) and Valentine (1993) argue that lesbians ‘come out’ gradually and usually later than men. Except for a few interviewees, who state that they have known since childhood that they were homosexuals, the interviewees in our study align with Frable’s (1997) and Valentine’s (1993) findings. They are, however, far more aware of their female identity and seem to have been so for a long time, and taken together this may help explain why sexual identity seems of lesser importance to our lesbian interviewees than suggested by studies of male gay tourists.

Parenthood and sexuality

Another issue, which is relevant to discuss in relation to lesbian tourists, is family holidays. In our study, four interviewees have children; two were pregnant during the interview; a lesbian couple was on holiday in Denmark in order to get artificially inseminated; and others would like to have children in the future. Hughes (2007) puts forward that family holidays to homosexuals have recently been introduced in the United States, and lesbians in our study are also concerned with how and where they will be able to holiday as a family. One respondent, for instance, suggests that she might consider her holiday destinations more carefully in the future because she and her wife will travel as a family with dependent children (Anna, 38, Denmark). This viewpoint is shared by the other lesbian mothers in this study. Considering that close to 50% of lesbian couples plan to become parents at some point in their lives (Amato and Jacob, 2004), it is interesting that the literature on gay and lesbian tourism hardly mentions the concept of holidays for ‘Rainbow Families’ (Amato and Jacob, 2004), as this group might have special motivations and needs. Furthermore, what is especially interesting is that those travelling with children (or anticipating to do so in a foreseeable future) emphasize the identity as a caring parent and in that way share common ground with traditional families on holidays.

Approaching an understanding of lesbian tourists’ identity construction

On the basis of the analysis above, it appears that the interviewed lesbian tourists negotiate their identity in view of several central features: their personal interests, their gender, their parental status and their sexuality. However, the interviewees appear primarily to be concerned with staging themselves as particular types of tourists, be that nature trekkers, cultural enthusiasts or relaxing hedonists, which in some cases is a continuation of home-based activities (working within the arts or having culture and nature activities as leisure interests) and in other cases is a search for a contrast to daily life (most often total relaxation). This is well in line with the tourism-leisure continuum (Carr, 2002) in that to some interviewees holidays act as extensions of everyday leisure activities, whereas other interviewees use holidays to engage in leisure activities different from those engaged in at home. Gender and for some parental status are also central identification issues which are quite easy for the respondents to relate to and which in relation to safety and ‘child friendliness’ have an influence on holiday choices. Sexuality is, however, a far more complex and contested element of their identity which for most of the respondents holds secondary importance in relation to holiday choices. As argued by Laura:

I actually don’t think that I have a lot in common with other lesbians […]. The only thing, I share with them, is that I look for other women, and that’s not something you can put on and take off. That does not mean that I have anything to talk to them about necessarily or something in common. (Laura, 45, Denmark)

Apart from constituting a comfort zone, where no inhibitions are felt in relation to displaying affection for your partner, little common interests are identified with other lesbians. This may also help to explain why most of our interviewees do not actively seek out gay spaces while on holiday, which stands in contrast to other studies of gay tourists. The fact that our interviewees are not particularly interested in visiting lesbian destinations (such as e.g. Lesbos) is quite surprising as most of the interviewees were well informed about these destinations and what they have to offer. Furthermore, the mere existence of these destinations indicates that at least a segment of the lesbian population is attracted by such destination. Nevertheless, only one of our interviewees has experienced a lesbian destination, and she offers the subsequent account of her experiences at that destination:

It was so cozy, and there was a really good ambience […]. I mean, it’s kind of a phenomenon from the ‘70s and in the good old days, all kinds of women went there. Now it’s mostly centred around the lesbian scene […]. And it was totally great in the way that I just got to know a lot of different people and there was kind of kinship and it was cozy to do practical stuff like cooking and other practical things with people that I didn’t know. (Ulrikke, 28, Denmark)

Although Ulrikke argues that the destination is ‘centred around the lesbian scene’, it is quite interesting that her account of her visit centres not on sexual and/or romantic encounters but on getting to know different people and the joy of undertaking mundane everyday activities (such as cooking) together with these people. In contrast to Ulrikke, the other interviewees, although acknowledging the existence of lesbian destinations and pointing to their appeal to ‘other’ lesbians, do not find such destinations personally relevant or attractive. This finding does not align with extant theories or with the fact that a series of lesbian destinations do exist. For one of our interviewees, lack of attractiveness and relevance of lesbian destinations seems to be driven from the outside:

I feel a bit like: ‘No, there is no way that I will go to Lesbos because then everyone …, then they could ‘mess around with that’. It is kind of a cliché that you go to Lesbos, right? In fact, I would really like to go because I have heard that it should be the most beautiful island of them all. […] But it is not about the history with Sappho and so on. It’s not. It’s because it’s said to be one of the most beautiful places in Greece. (Linda, 31, Denmark)

Linda, quite explicitly, distances herself from the idea that just because she is a lesbian, she has to go to a lesbian destination as she does not want to live out the stereotypic image other people may have of lesbians. This could be seen as an example of the way that some homosexuals actively manage their identities and consciously choose when to be guided by their gay or lesbian identity and when they choose their holiday destination for other reasons (Bell and Valentine, 1995; Sinfield, 1997; Puar, 2002a). Conversely, this example may equally well be an example of social stigmatization setting certain limits to preferred holiday activities. However, such stigmatization is not found in any of the other interviews. Instead, interviewees simply argue that lesbian destinations are not personally relevant or attractive. One reason why this issue sets our interviewees apart from the lesbians, who visit, for example, Lesbos, could be that several studies focus on the group of gay tourists that actually visit gay destinations. Accordingly, although tentative in nature, our findings indicate the existence of a (perhaps even significant) group of lesbians who are not given voice in gay destination-based studies. Conversely, these findings may also point to the possibility that lesbians, who actually visit lesbian destinations, are simply under-represented in our study.

A significant other in view of whom the respondents negotiate their self is male homosexuals. As two girls showing affection for each other also appears among heterosexuals, there is no external physical manifestation of being lesbian unless you deliberately choose to display such markers. In that way, the respondents conceive their sexual orientation as far easier to handle in view of other (heterosexual) communities than for their male counterparts who are more easily spotted as homosexual. For instance, as expressed by Caroline:

It is easier for other people to accept that two girls are together than to accept two men, and therefore men may be more inclined to seek out places where there are other gay men. (Caroline, 49, Norway)

Gay males are also seen as more flamboyant types of homosexuals than what the lesbians in this study identify with. For instance, Else (47, Denmark) who finds the narcissistic personality of many gay men too extreme, and Charlotte (35, Germany) who thinks that the exaggerated, sexually loaded behaviour of gay males at for instance pride parades is a poor representation of gayness. Hence differentiation from male homosexuals appears mainly in terms of impression management but also in terms of the focus on sex of more extreme male gay communities, which shows that the respondents prefer a less physically obvious lesbian identity where sex is not the focal point. This seems to be a reason for not seeking out the well-established, publically advertised lesbian places and communities when on holiday, and lesbian communities with a different focus are difficult to come by when on holiday as they seem to demand local knowledge to identify. This tallies well with Schuyf’s (1992) understanding of lesbian communities as loosely organized and less obvious than their male counterparts’ communities and may be one reason why sexual identity construction stands out as predominantly secondary in the holidays of our respondents.

Conclusion and implications

If the respondents of the present explorative study resemble other lesbian tourists, voice has here been given to a group of gay tourists that has only been offered scant attention in the existing literature on gay tourists. This is, by the way, a body of literature that predominantly draws on male respondents. For example, the lesbian tourists in our study are less likely to visit gay destinations and gay spaces; are not interested in having sexual experiences with new partners while on holiday; have traits generally in common with other female tourists; and travel more with dependent children, which means they share characteristics with other parents. Furthermore, gay identity seems to manifest itself in a more subtle manner among the lesbians in our study than among gay men studied elsewhere. Hence a segment of lesbian tourists with a less pronounced interest in offers related to their sexuality is identified, which seems so far to have been overlooked. Lesbian bars, events, communities and a gay-friendly atmosphere are not the reasons to go but rather seen as a supplementary bonus that is nice to have. The present study does not try to marginalize lesbian tourists with an interest in gay offers, the mere existence of lesbian destinations and demand of these testify that they are a segment to be reckoned with. Although this gay space-oriented lesbian segment may resemble male gay tourists to such a degree that they can be part of the same research agenda, the present study calls attention to a different lesbian tourist segment with other characteristics that needs to be studied in its own right.

An important practical implication of the present study is that the gay market needs to be approached in a nuanced manner in that it appears to consist of a number of segments. If marketers wish to attract the lesbian segment studied here, prime attention should be directed at a variety of experience offers, which is also the case with heterosexual segments. However, as a gay-friendly atmosphere and a gay bar or two are appreciated as a supplementary bonus, these nice-to-have elements should be given attention as well in the marketing effort towards these lesbian tourists. Subtlety needs, however, to be the guiding principle in marketing gay offers, as these lesbian tourists see themselves in contrast to the flamboyant homosexual and thus seem to possess a less physically obvious lesbian identity. ‘Being straight in their gay lives’ hence seems to encapsulate the hybrid identity of the lesbian segment studied here, and it is in this cross field that the appeal towards this segment should be found.

Although only a minor step in the direction of adequately studying the lesbian tourists, we hope that the findings accounted for in this study will trigger the much needed, further studies of lesbian tourists.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Adler

Brenner

(1992) Gender and space: lesbians and gay men in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16(1): 24–34.

Almgren

(1994) Community with/out pro-pink-uity. In: Whittle

(ed) The Margins of the City: Gay Men’s Urban Lives. Hants and Vermont: Arena, Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp. 45–63.

Amato

Jacob

(2004) Providing fertility services to lesbian couples: the lesbian baby boom. Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause 2(2): 83–88.

Askegaard

Firat

(1996) Towards a critique of material culture, consumption and markets. In: Pearce

(ed) Experiencing Material Culture in the Western World. London, UK: Leicester University Press, pp. 112–139.

Belk

(1988) Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15: 139–168.

Bell

Valentine

(1995) Introduction: orientations. In: Bell

Valentine

(eds) Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–27.

Black

(2000) Sex and travel: making the link. In: Clift

Carter

(eds) Tourism and Sex: Culture, Commerce and Coercion. London & New York: Pinter, pp. 109–130.

Blichfeldt

Chor

Milan

(2011a) Zoos, sanctuaries and turfs: enactments and uses of gay spaces during the holidays. International Journal of Tourism Research 14(4): 1–14.

Blichfeldt

Chor

Milan

(2011b) It really depends on whether you are in a relationship: a study of ‘gay destinations’ from a tourist perspective. Tourism Today 12: 7–26.

10.

Bondi

(1998) Gender, class and urban space: public and private space in contemporary urban landscape. In: Aitchison

Jordan

(eds) Gender, Space and Identity. Leisure, Culture and Commerce. Brighton, UK: LSA, Leisure Studies Association, pp. 3–31.

11.

Carr

(2002) The tourism-leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of Tourism Research 29(4): 972–986.

12.

Castells

(1983) The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. London, UK: Edward Arnold.

13.

Clift

Forrest

(1999) Gay men and tourism: destinations and holiday motivations. Tourism Management 20: 615–625.

14.

Clift

Forrest

(2000) Tourism and the sexual ecology of gay men. In: Clift

Carter

(eds) Tourism and Sex: Culture, Commerce and Coercion. London and New York: Pinter, pp. 179–199.

15.

Community Marketing (2008) 13th Annual Gay and Lesbian Tourism Study: US Profile. San Francisco, CA: Community Marketing.

16.

Cova

(2002) Tribal marketing. The tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing. European Journal of Marketing 36 (5/6): 595–620.

17.

Degges-White

Rice

Myers

(2000) Revisiting Cass’ theory of sexual identity formation: a study of lesbian development. Journal of Mental Health Counselling 22(4): 318–333.

18.

Flick

(2002) An introduction to qualitative research. London, UK: Sage Publications.

19.

Frable

DES

(1997) Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of Psychology 48: 139–162.

20.

Fugate

(1993) Evaluating the US male homosexual and lesbian population as a viable target market segment. Journal of Consumer Marketing 10(4): 46–57.

21.

Guaracino

(2007) Gay and Lesbian Tourism: The Essential Guide for Marketing. Oxford and Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.

22.

Haslop

Hill

Schmidt

(1998) The gay lifestyle: spaces for a subculture of consumption. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 16(5): 318–326.

23.

Hindle

(1994) Gay communities and gay space in the city. In: Whittle

(ed) The Margins of the City: Gay Men’s Urban Lives. Hants, England: Arena, Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp. 7–25.

24.

Hogg

Abrams

(1988) Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London, UK: Routledge.

25.

Howe

(2001) Queer pilgrimage: the San Francisco homeland and identity tourism. Cultural Anthropology 16(1): 35–61.

26.

Holt

(1995) How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research 22: 1–16.

27.

Hughes

(2002a) Gay men’s holidays: identity and inhibitors. In: Clift

Luongo

Callister

(eds) Gay Tourism: Culture, Identity and Sex. New York and London: Continuum, pp. 174–190.

28.

Hughes

(2002b) Gay men’s holiday destination choice: a case of risk and avoidance. International Tourism Research 4: 299–312.

29.

Hughes

(2002c) Marketing gay tourism in manchester: new market for urban tourism or destruction of ‘gay space’? Journal of Vacation Marketing 9(2): 152–163.

30.

Hughes

(2006) Pink Tourism: Holidays of Gay men and Lesbians. Oxfordshire and Cambridge, UK: CABI Publishing.

31.

Hughes

(2007) Lesbians as tourists: poor relations of a poor relation. Tourism and Hospitality Research 7(1): 17–26.

32.

Jenkins

(2008) Social Identity. 3rd ed. London, UK: Routledge.

33.

Jones

McEwen

(2000) A Conceptual Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Journal of College Student Development. 41 (4): 405–414.

34.

Kantsa

(2002) Certain places have different energy: spatial transformations in Erosos, Lesvos. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 8 (1–2): 35–55.

35.

Kitzinger

(1987) The Social Construction of Lesbianism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

36.

McCracken

(1988) Culture & Consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

37.

Maxwell

(2009) Designing a qualitative study. In: Bickman

Rog

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi and Singapore: SAGE Publications, pp. 214–253.

38.

McNee

(1984) If you are squeamish. East Lakes Geographer 19: 16–27.

39.

Medhurst

Munt

(1997) Introduction. In: Medhurst

Munt

(eds) Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Critical Introduction. London and Washington: Cassell, pp. 11–27.

40.

Miller

(2002) Better living through circuitry: lesbians and circuit parties. In: Clift

Luongo

Callister

(eds) Gay Tourism: Culture, Identity and Sex. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 214–225.

41.

Philipp

(1999) Gay and lesbian tourists at a southern USA beach event. Journal of Homosexuality 37(3): 69–86.

42.

Pritchard

Morgan

Sedgely

Jenkins

(1998) Reaching out to the gay tourist: opportunities and threats in an emerging market segment. Tourism Management 19(3): 273–282.

43.

Pritchard

Morgan

Sedgely

Khan

Jenkins

(2000) Sexuality and holiday choices: conversations with gay and lesbian tourists. Leisure Studies 19: 267–282.

44.

Puar

(2002a) A transnational feminist critique of queer tourism. Antipode 34(5): 935–946.

45.

Puar

(2002b) Circuits of queer mobility: tourism, travel and globalization. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 8 (1–2): 101–137.

46.

Rothenberg

(1995) ‘And she told two friends’: lesbians creating urban social space. In: Bell

Valentine

(eds) Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 165–181.

47.

Salner

(1989) Validity in human science research. In: Kvale

(ed) Issues of Validity in Qualitative Research. Copenhagen, Denmark: Studentlitteratur, pp. 47–71.

48.

Schuyf

(1992) The company of friends and lovers: lesbian communities in the Netherlands. In: Plummer

(ed) Modern Homosexualities: Fragments of Lesbian and Gay Experience. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 53–64.

49.

Sender

(2004) Business, Not Politics: The Making of the Gay Market. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

50.

Sinfield

(1997) Identity and subculture. In: Medhurst

Munt

(eds) Lesbian and Gay studies: A Critical Introduction. London and Virginia: Cassell, pp. 201–214.

51.

Stuber (2002) Tourism marketing aimed at gay men and lesbians: a business perspective. In: Clift

Luongo

Callister

(eds) Gay Tourism: Culture, Identity and Sex. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 88–124.

52.

Thompson

Haytko

(1997) Speaking of fashion: consumers’ uses of fashion discourses and the appropriation of countervailing cultural meanings. Journal of Consumer Research 24: 15–42.

53.

Valentine

(1992) Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: lesbian time-space strategies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18(2): 237–248.

54.

Valentine

(1993) Desperately seeking susan: a geography of lesbian friendships. Area 25(2): 109–116.

55.

Visser

(2003) Gay men, tourism and urban space: reflections on Africa’s ‘gay capital’. Tourism Geographies 5(2): 168–189.

56.

Waitt

Markwell

(2006) Gay Tourism: Culture and Context. New York, London and Oxford: The Haworth Hospitality Press.

57.

Warde

(2004) Consumers, identity and belonging: reflection on some theses of Zygmunt Bauman. In: Keat

Whiteley

Abercrombie

(eds) The Authority of the Consumer. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 58–74.