Authentic style–fashion–dress negotiations of married lesbian couples on their wedding day

Abstract

In 2015, a United States Supreme Court ruling allowed same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Since that time, there have been over one million same-sex marriages in the United States, and the number of same-sex marriages has increased every year (Romero, 2017). With this work, we conducted an in-depth, exploratory study on how lesbian married couples in the United States negotiated their style–fashion–dress on their wedding day. The work was guided by theory exploring authenticity as related to self-expression through appearance, and in particular, the notion that individuals mobilize a diverse array of products within the consumer marketplace to articulate an authentic identity or self. We conducted a single, semi-structured, in-depth interview with a photo-elicitation component with 10 lesbian married couples. Our analyses revealed themes that interconnected with the overarching concept of authenticity. Specifically, analyses demonstrated that, as participants sought to articulate an authentic identity through their wedding day style–fashion–dress, they often became entangled in gender and other symbolic negotiations that prompted feelings of empowerment as well as experiences of ambivalence and/or the need to engage in various forms of emotional labor or renegotiations of meaning. Four themes that emerged included (1) ambivalence, renegotiations, and labor surrounding the identity or concept of “bride” or what it means to be a bride; (2) gender expressions and experiences as central to the negotiation and construction of style–fashion–dress for the wedding day; (3) representations of the authentic self in wedding day style–fashion–dress; and (4) heteronormative experiences. Findings from the present study also revealed that lesbian couples sought to redefine what it means to be a bride/person getting married, a form of political action enacted through wedding day style–fashion–dress. Findings suggest implications for lesbian, queer, and heterosexual–focused wedding retailers and event planners to consider in order to provide an affirming experience for the increasing number of same-sex married couples in the United States.

Keywords

authenticity identity lesbians same-sex marriage style–fashion–dress weddings

Introduction

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruling (Obergefell V. Hodges) legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states (Pew Research Center, 2015). With this work, we conducted an in-depth, exploratory study on how lesbian married couples in the United States negotiate their style–fashion–dress (Tulloch, 2015) on their wedding day. Here, we use Tulloch’s (2010) concept, “style–fashion–dress,” to encompass (a) clothing, accessories, and beauty routines that may or may not be in fashion and that reflect personal agency and self-narrative (style); (b) looks that are “in flux with time” (fashion) (Riello and McNeil, 2010: 1); and (c) supplements and modifications to the body (dress). Style–fashion–dress is a key component of developing “an ongoing sense of self and identity in a changing world” (Kaiser, 2012: 30). Through style–fashion–dress, we convey to others a sense of “who we are” and “who we are becoming” (Kaiser, 2012). Understanding how these married couples negotiate their style–fashion–dress could illuminate the changing cultural contexts of what being a bride or woman getting married means in the United States after Obergefell V. Hodges. This is especially true as more inclusive definitions of weddings are being perpetuated within consumer culture for women. Findings may also provide insight to designers, retailers, fashion brands, and event coordinators looking to design and market to these wedding consumers. Our work was guided by theory exploring authenticity as related to self-expression through appearance.

Literature review

Theorizing authenticity

Authenticity has been conceptualized in varied ways. Vannini and Franzese (2008) suggest that although authenticity may refer to ideas such as “sincerity, truthfulness, (and) originality,” ultimately, authenticity is “about being true to one’s self” (1621). Vannini and Franzese also suggest that people’s experiences of authenticity are intertwined with their ideas about their identities, personal goals, self-meanings, and personal values. According to Vannini and Franzese, tensions can arise when people must present their self in ways that conflict with their self-values. And, there are times when presenting one’s most authentic self mayelicit disapproval (Vannini and Franzese, 2008).

Erickson (1995) regards authenticity as a commitment to self-values. Her conceptualization of authenticity recognizes the complexity and inconsistency of the self as it is situated in a postmodern cultural context that (a) embodies contradictory sociocultural impulses, (b) emphasizes the consumption of mass-produced commodities, (c) promotes the construction of an individualized self, and (d) presents individuals with vast choices in what to buy and “who to be.” Erickson also acknowledges how individuals may privilege different self-values in varying social contexts, which allows researchers to consider interactional facets of authenticity. Vannini and Franzese (2008) also recognize an interactional component of authenticity, proposing that authenticity shapes self-views as well as how we relate to others.

Authenticity and queer identity

For queer individuals, articulating claims of authenticity provides a sense of belonging and a means of staging resistance, and thus, can represent an important form of identity politics.

(Holt and Griffin, 2003; Weeks, 1995). However, Holt and Griffin (2003) propose that gay and lesbian persons’ attempts to mobilize authentic queer identities may be undermined by two cultural discourses or “logics” (1) that “undermine the distinctiveness” of their experiences (“the normalizing logic”) or (2) that propose that all identities are “arbitrary and fluid” (“the queer logic”) (Holt and Griffin, 2003: 406; Seidman, 2001: 324). Holt and Griffin argue that most lesbians and gay men position themselves between these two logics and that “lesbian and gay experiences continue to be a basis of authenticity” (406).

A discussion of authenticity in the postmodern cultural context also must acknowledge how marketing activities underpinned by neoliberal and postfeminist ideologies cue consumers to realize their most authentic selves through consumption (Bauman, 2001; Erickson, 1995). Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, queer consumers have been targeted as a niche market (Clark, 1991; Gluckman and Reed, 1997), with such marketing activities prompting debates. Some theorists (e.g., Adorno, 1991) have proposed that such marketing campaigns have undermined the efforts of the queer community to stage resistance or to engage in political action. Other scholars, however, have offered a more active vision of the queer subject, who is capable of critically reworking cultural meanings for his/her/their own purposes (e.g., Fiske, 1987).

Expressing authenticity through lesbian dress

Researchers have considered how lesbian women in the contemporary West express authenticity by fashioning a “true sense of self” through style–fashion–dress. This work has explored how lesbians from the United States and the United Kingdom use style–fashion–dress to establish “authentic” identities during the “coming out” process. Findings revealed that lesbians who are in the early stages of coming out may dress more masculinely and reject discourses of hegemonic femininity to affirm and communicate emerging lesbian identities and to align self-values with external appearances (Clarke and Turner, 2007; Hutson, 2010).

Research also suggests that in the United States, lesbians struggle to express authenticity through style–fashion–dress, particularly in lesbian spaces (Hutson, 2010). In such spaces, lesbians encounter the quagmire of “not being butch enough” or of “being too butch” (226). Not being butch enough raises concerns about not being able to successfully establish a lesbian identity, whereas being too butch may prompt concerns about being misidentified as transgender.

Levitt and Hiestand’s explorations of butch and femme identity also illuminate how lesbians seek authentic self-expressions through gender performances and esthetics (Levitt and Hiestand, 2004; Levitt et al., 2003). Levitt and Heistand (2004) found that butch-identifying lesbians experienced pressures to “be butch in a stereotypical or inauthentic manner” and were targets of claims that their gender expressions reflected a “lack of fidelity to their sex” (617), both of which problematized their quest for self-authenticity. Levitt and Heistand (2004) discovered that femme-identifying lesbians expressed a desire that the femme gender/identity be understood as distinct from feminine stereotypes, noting that women adopting a femme identity frequently invoke traditional feminine esthetics to convey “radical meanings” (e.g., political views) (110).

Clarke and Spence’s (2012) work lends insight into how the United Kingdom lesbian and bisexual women negotiate pressures to express their authentic selves through style–fashion–dress. Some participants referenced pressures to conform to the “butch” look, which prompted concerns about their authenticity. Participants navigated these concerns by framing their conformity as a strategic way to destabilize normative conventions of heterosexuality or “as an expression of their inner dyke” (25). Participants who presented as more feminine-leaning sometimes experienced challenges to their authenticity as lesbian and bisexual women, but negotiated this dilemma by proposing that their self-presentations represented a rejection of heteronormativity and/or by suggesting that any woman can be a lesbian. Participants experienced these negotiation strategies as empowering.

Wedding traditions in contemporary western context: Heterosexual and same-sex couples

The lavish wedding experienced a rebirth in British society during the 19th and early 20th centuries owing to the royal wedding of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and to the fact that wedding ceremonies allowed members of the skilled working class to express affluence and to establish respectability (Gillis 1985; Otnes and Pleck, 2003). Throughout the 20th century, economic and cultural factors continued to influence wedding ceremonies, with the growth in wedding advertising (i.e., print publications, broadcast media, and social media) and the construction of the retail wedding industry simultaneously promoting the idea that weddings should be carefully managed to create a “perfect” event driven by consumption and to symbolize or legitimize the union (Gillis, 1985; Howard, 2000; Otnes and Pleck, 2003; Winch and Webster, 2012).

In Western heterosexual weddings, the bride’s identity often is represented through “extravagant displays of femininity” (Pepin et al., 2008: 331), most notably through her appearance, which conveys that she is the “star” of the wedding. Construction of the bride’s identity as feminine, the wedding day as perfect, and wedding planning as “women’s work” all require time, effort, and expenditure (Besel et al., 2009). Given the importance placed upon traditional gender roles in the context of wedding ceremonies, the bride typically assumes responsibility for wedding planning and consumption, and one of the most critical items of consumption is the bride’s archetypal white gown (Besel et al., 2009; Pepin et al., 2008). White gowns were initially signifiers of wealth that took on connotations of purity and virginity during Queen Victoria’s reign, and they are among the “sacred” items in a wedding ceremony that often take on greater meaning than does the self (Otnes and Lowry, 1993; Otnes and Pleck, 2003). For a heterosexual woman, selecting, buying, and wearing a wedding gown can be critical in forming a bride’s identity (Walsh, 2005) and in gaining social affirmation (Carter and Duncan, 2017).

Limited research has explored the role of grooms and their symbolic consumption activities (Kols and Sobal, 2013). Tropes such as “absent groom” or “reluctant groom” imply that the groom plays a peripheral and marginalized role in the wedding consumption process. The groom’s attire does not carry the same symbolic significance as does the wedding gown; it falls into the “profane” realm of ordinary objects, with some brides implying that the appearance of the groom is less important than the appearance of the bride (Howard, 2000; Otnes and Lowry, 1993). Walsh (2005) contends that the dress of the bride is often “subject to scrutiny and subsequent criticism or praise” (252), whereas the groom’s attire attracts little attention. Grooms typically choose to wear a tuxedo or a dark-colored suit—attire that falls under the realm of normative male dress and does not lead to scrutiny of the groom’s taste, personality, or morals (Walsh, 2005). These views of the groom’s attire are consistent with the role of the groom as “manager” (rather than as costar) and the limited attention given to the groom’s appearance and dress in wedding advice books (Pepin et al., 2008).

Research on the commitment ceremonies or weddings of same-sex couples includes investigations into how couples make decisions about the “personal versus the political” in their weddings (Hull, 2006; Smart, 2008). Lewin’s (1998) study of gay/lesbian commitment ceremonies in the United States revealed that some same-sex couples purposely embraced heteronormative wedding traditions, giving importance to public aspects of the ceremony and the involvement of family and friends to provide validation for their commitment, whereas others resisted such traditions. Smart (2008) discovered that same-sex British couples frequently referenced heteronormative wedding traditions; however, they tended to be ambivalent about or opposed to wedding ceremonies that closely imitated heteronormative traditions; personal preferences, compromises between partners, political views, and family considerations often influenced the style of the wedding ceremony. Clarke et al. (2013) provided further understanding of same-sex British couples’ relationship celebrations through interviews with couples who identified as being in a long-term or committed relationship, and included both couples that had and had not chosen to have a commitment/wedding ceremony. Approximately one-third of the 22 couples who participated in the study reported no formal or informal relationship ceremonies, whereas the others reported some acknowledgement/celebration of the committed relationship, most commonly the exchange of rings. Interviews revealed three themes evident in the ceremonies of same-sex couples: (1) lack of scripts for same-sex ceremonies including for language and dress, (2) ambivalence toward ceremonies, and (3) importance of familial and legal recognition of ceremonies. Although some participants chose to exchange rings, they suggested that the rings were not intended to convey the same meanings as heterosexual engagement. Participants expressed discomfort with the terms “marriage,” “wedding,” “reception,” and “honeymoon,” but some were not comfortable with alternative terms. Similarly, one participant questioned whether she and her partner should both wear dresses, but also noted that it would not work for one of them to wear a dress and the other to wear trousers (Clarke et al, 2013).

Kimport (2012) analyzed the wedding photographs of same-sex couples in the United States to examine how their decisions related to appearance and dress disrupted or reinforced the construction of heteronormativity. Using the San Francisco Chronicle’s 2004 online album of same-sex weddings photographs taken at City Hall, Kimport (2012) observed that all male couples presented according to normative gender expectations, but not wedding normativity. They all wore pants and shirts, and approximately one-third of them dressed as grooms by wearing suits or tuxedos. By comparison, not all female couples conformed to gender expectations in their appearance (e.g., hair, makeup, and accessories); less than one-third of the women dressed for the wedding occasion; however, the choice of dress varied among the women. Just over half of the women wore dresses, predominately white in color, and just under half dressed as grooms and wore suits or tuxedos. Two women wore white tuxedos, thereby combining aspects of the traditional heterogeneous bride’s and groom’s wedding attire. The wedding photographs of 30 couples represented wedding normativity with one individual dressing as a bride (e.g., white dress) and one individual dressing as a groom (e.g., dark suit). Seven lesbian couples dressed as two brides and six couples dressed as two grooms, leading Kimport (2012) to conclude that some couples managed their appearance and dress to signal both participation in a wedding ceremony and nonnormative sexualities.

Fetner and Heath (2016) conducted in-depth interviews with women in straight and same-sex marriages to explore the ways by which women adopted (or resisted) normative wedding traditions and related consumption decisions, including bridal showers and bachelor parties, engagement and wedding rings, and the white wedding dress. Their analysis revealed four categories of participants: nonreflexive adopters, who consciously and completely embraced traditional wedding rituals; acquiescent adopters, who conveyed preferences for nontraditional weddings, but who conformed to heteronormative wedding traditions through negotiations with others; same-sex resisters, who consciously sought to resist social norms and expectations (e.g., the role of religion and family) and may have been influenced by feminist and queer criticisms of traditional weddings and social institutions; and frugal resisters, who viewed traditional weddings as wasteful and assumed a more “thrift-based” approach to wedding planning (2016). Findings revealed that all participants considered traditional weddings as a point of reference or cultural norm that informed their wedding and consumption decisions, with both straight and same-sex participants embracing heteronormative wedding traditions. The majority of same-sex participants resisted or rejected traditional wedding rituals owing to their sexual orientation and their “outsider status.” They made conscious decisions to emulate some heterosexual traditions (e.g., white wedding dress, cake, and music) and eschew others, such as choosing nonreligious sites for the ceremony and inviting their “families of choice” (rather than extended relatives) to truly honor their outside status.

The present work contributes to the same-sex wedding literature by exploring the first-hand perspectives of participants in the wedding ceremonies, specifically by building on prior work to consider the meaning of wedding style–fashion–dress for married lesbian couples and how these couples use wedding style–fashion–dress to construct and negotiate identity for the self and for the couple. Of interest was how lesbian married couples constructed an authentic or “true” sense of self through their style–fashion–dress within the context of the same-sex wedding—a cultural space where norms for participants’ behavior and appearance/dress are still being defined.

Methods

An abbreviated version of the constructionist grounded theory approach guided this work (Willig, 2013). With this approach, the researcher is concerned with how “people construct ‘reality’ through language (and other cultural resources) within a social context” (Willig, 2013: 42). Additionally, with this “abbreviated” approach, the researchers do not collect additional data after the first round of open coding (Willig, 2013).

In 2018, we recruited 10 English-speaking lesbian married couples from throughout the United States. Couples were invited to share wedding photographs and to jointly participate in a single semi-structured interview. Participant demographics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant demographics.

Participant code identifier¹	Age	Race/ethnicity	Gender identity	Sexual orientation
1A	31	White	Woman	Lesbian
1B	31	White	Woman, used to identify as “genderqueer”	Lesbian/gay/queer
2A	65	Caucasian	Woman	Lesbian
2B	66	No response	Woman	Lesbian/gay
3A	33	Hispanic	Woman	Lesbian
3B	38	Caucasian	Woman	Lesbian
4A	33	White	Female	Bisexual, but respond to lesbian
4B	33	White	Female	Bisexual, but respond to lesbian
5A	28	White/Caucasian	Female	Gay
5B	30	White/Caucasian	Unsure/muddied/nonbinary	Queer
6A	35	Latinx/Mexicana	Ciswoman. People pan me as masculine presenting/butch, but that is not how I identify	Queer
6B	32	Latina	Woman	Queer
7A	56	White	Cisgender lesbian	Lesbian
7B	51	White	Cisgender	Lesbian
8A	32	White	Queer, nonbinary, predominantly masculine presentation, nonconforming female	Queer, on-heterosexual, and sexually attracted to both males (30%) and females (70%)
8B	34	White	Female or “femme”	Lesbian or queer
9A	32	European/White	Woman	Queer
9B	30	White/Jewish	Woman	Bi/pan
10A	32	Mixed race: African American and White	She/her	Pansexual with same-sex tendencies
10B	27	White	She/her	Lesbian (“lez-be-honest”)

Interviews lasted an average of 83 minutes. We continued recruiting participants until saturation of the data was reached. Before participating in their interview, couples completed a background survey that included demographic questions. We followed an interview schedule including 16 open-ended questions focused on how participants assembled their wedding style–fashion–dress; what they were trying to achieve through their appearances; beauty rituals; cultural pressures; compromises; conceptualizations of the self; expressing a sense of self or identity; authenticity; and adhering to or breaking conventions. Each interview was audio recorded and was transcribed verbatim. We analyzed the transcripts, along with the wedding photographs, using the constant comparison process. A series of coding processes (open, axial, and selective coding) were used to create codes, to collapse these codes together into broader categories, and finally to generate themes and corresponding subthemes. Throughout these varied coding processes, we primarily analyzed the transcripts and then used the photographs for a visual reference.

Checking intercoder reliability resulted in an 87% agreement; we checked 20% of the data and divided total number of agreements by the total number of codes to calculate the reliability agreement. All of the disagreements during this process were discussed between the coders until agreement was achieved. The researchers also continually engaged in bracketing by keeping a reflexive journal during data analysis.

Results

Our analyses yielded four themes that interconnected with the overarching concept of authenticity. As participants navigated a newly available identity for the lesbian community, they renegotiated experiences against a long-standing heteronormative hierarchy for married couples while aiming to maintain an authentic identity through their style–fashion–dress. Specifically, analyses revealed that, as participants sought to articulate an authentic identity through their wedding day style–fashion–dress, they often became entangled in gender and other symbolic negotiations that prompted feelings of empowerment as well as experiences of ambivalence and/or the need to engage in various forms of emotional labor and/or renegotiations of meaning. As part and parcel of these negotiations, lesbian couples sought to redefine what it means to be a bride/person getting married, a form of political action enacted through wedding day style–fashion–dress.

In the following section, we explore the four themes that emerged from our analyses, including: (1) ambivalence, renegotiations, and labor surrounding the identity or concept of bride or what it means to be a bride; (2) gender expressions and experiences as central to the negotiation and construction of style–fashion–dress for the wedding day; (3) representations of the authentic self in wedding day style–fashion–dress; and (4) heteronormative experiences. Throughout the discussion, we refer to photos of the couples’ wedding day style–fashion–dress, which are presented in Figures 1 and 2. In all photos, faces have been obscured for anonymity.

Figure 1.

Photos of couples 1, 2, 3, and 5 on their wedding day. Couple 4 preferred not to share photos; therefore, a line drawing of their wedding day attire is included.

Figure 2.

Photos of couples 6 through 10 on their wedding day.

Theme 1: Ambivalence, renegotiations, and labor surrounding the identity or concept of bride or what it means to be a bride

In the long-standing heterosexual tradition of weddings in the United States, there is a bride and a groom. For the married couples in this study, however, the bride identity and the notion of what it means to be a bride prompted feelings of ambivalence, identity renegotiations, and labor. Some of the participants embraced the term bride, yet shared that they did not always fit into the traditional ideas of how they or others perceived how a bride should appear or act. Participant 6A, who embraced a masculine-leaning esthetic, explained that although she strongly connected with a bride identity, she experienced others making assumptions, based upon her appearance, that aligned more with men’s experiences as the groom. For example, 6A’s sister said “People care more about what 6B (who adopted a feminine-leaning esthetic) looks like than what you’re [6A] gonna look like.”

Some of the participants felt ambivalent about using the term bride in that it fit their identity in some ways, such as them wearing a white dress, but not in others, such as them expressing the desire to maintain equity in their relationship. For example, 5A explained, “I guess I identified with it…I wasn’t adamantly opposed to it…I was referred [to as a bride by other people] more than 5B.” 5A continued to explain that because 5B “didn’t embrace it [a bride identity]” 5A didn’t “want to make a strong distinction of like, (5B’s) not the bride, I am the bride.” 5A felt like strongly embracing a bride identity was “too many lines in the sand.”

Other participants actively avoided the term “bride” and adopted another phrase (i.e., because “bride” did not make sense for them), or did not think through the concept of bride too much at the time of their marriage. Participants 1B, 8A, and 5B, who all had masculine-leaning style–fashion–dress, preferred more neutral language in relation to their wedding-role identity such as “person getting married.” Among the two oldest couples in our sample (2 and 7), who are in their 50s and 60s, both partners did not adopt, prefer, or identify with the term bride. Neither 7B or 7A identified as brides; 7B associated a bride identity with a “white fluffy dress” and “getting her hair done,” which did not fit who they were. 7A and 7B did use the term “bride” in one of their décor signs (See Figure 3), but explained this usage was more about telling the guests to sit wherever they desired and not to indicate that they identified with the bride concept or role. Overall, 7A and 7B did not appear to have thought too much about whether they identified as brides and were seemingly unconcerned that their décor did not directly align with their respective identities.

Figure 3.

Sign at 7A and 7B’s wedding welcoming guests to sit anywhere during the ceremony.

Even though some participants did not actively identify as brides, others referred to them as brides; this typically occurred if they fit traditional ideas of what a bride looks like, such as wearing a white wedding dress or appearing in a feminine-leaning esthetic. These experiences led to the masculine-leaning person sometimes expending some emotional labor. 9A, who identified as a bride in some ways, explained that her family, specifically her father, assigned the groom label to her. 9A related that her father labeling her as the groom was helpful in some ways because it reduced fighting around wedding financials, as once her father labeled 9B as the bride and 9A as the groom, he was willing to pay for the wedding because “that’s what you do for the bride. You make the wedding nice for the bride.”² Yet, 9A continued that, “I wish we could’ve done without it (9A’s father assigning the bride and groom labels), but it was helpful (for 9A’s father in how he made sense of the wedding).”

In a somewhat contradictory experience to that previously mentioned, participants 10A and 10B readily adopted the traditional labels of bride and groom based upon the alignment of their style–fashion–dress, with stereotypical aesthetics of masculine-leaning and feminine-leaning or the butch and femme dichotomy. This also was reflected in the “reveal” where 10A revealed her style–fashion–dress to 10B and they documented it though a photograph (See Figure 4). They ostensibly felt comfortable with this language and the related roles.

Figure 4.

10B (left) and 10A (right) during the “reveal” where 10B saw 10A’s style–fashion–dress for the first time prior to their wedding ceremony.

Theme 2: Gender expressions and experiences as central to the negotiation and construction of style–fashion–dress for the wedding day

Each couple negotiated their style–fashion–dress in a unique way; however, gender expressions and experiences were central to the discussions. In some instances, the couples reflected some of the long-standing stereotypes in lesbian women’s culture, or the butch–femme dichotomy, where there was visually one more feminine-leaning person and one more masculine-leaning person. In other couples, both persons appeared more feminine-leaning or masculine-leaning. Within all of their experiences, participants discussed pushing gender boundaries either in their hairstyles, clothing, shoes, or accessories or adhering to gender norms, which made their sexual identities largely invisible through their appearance when not in the presence of their future spouses.

Some of the couples had styles that closely reflected the femme–butch dichotomy, but they did not necessarily adopt these terms as self-descriptors. For example, participant 3B explained that she knew that she would feel most authentic and comfortable in a dress. 3B’s partner, 3A, had a more masculine-leaning esthetic, but expressed some difficulty in deciding what types of garments to wear for the wedding. After her multiple shopping trips, she ultimately decided on black slacks, a sheer white top, and a white blazer. As 3A was discussing her experiences about choosing what to wear, she related back to some of the stereotypes surrounding gender and queer culture when she said,

I think that if you don't present as feminine, there’s (the) subcultures of queer culture, then it’s like ‘well, then, you’ll be the person who wears the bow-tie or the suit to the wedding.’ But, that didn't actually necessarily feel right to me either. So, I think that was part of the freak out, and trying to find fucking clothes that represent me, and still made me feel beautiful…It definitely did feel like a lot of pressure for me.

3A also had highly styled hair, wore heavy amounts of makeup, and wanted to make sure to wear “soft feminine earrings” to “heighten the feminine factor” in herself. When we asked why, she explained, “I think because I felt… very proud, and I love being gay and being a woman and in love with another woman…so, I think because I am so proud that I am gay, I dunno if I just wanted to make it seem like a woman and a woman.”

Theme 3: Representations of the authentic self in style–fashion–dress on the wedding day

All of the couples related that they felt they represented their authentic selves in their style–fashion–dress on their wedding days. Reflecting their authentic selves through their wedding day appearances was of deep significance to all participants, who frequently expressed that constructing an authentic style for the wedding day entailed wearing styles similar to those worn on an everyday basis, but in a “heightened esthetic.” For example, participant 1B said, “I want to look like myself, but the wedding version,” which led her to purchase and wear a masculine-style suit. All participants reported similar experiences, resulting in feeling that their gender expression on their wedding day was authentic to who they were on an everyday basis. Therefore, if they more frequently wore more masculine-leaning styles, they wore a similar esthetic on their wedding day. The same was true for how formal or fancy their attire was. For example, couple seven explained that they are very casual people, which was reflected in their overall style and wedding event. Participants also related that other people such as family members, friends, or their future spouse did not exert any significant influence over their wedding day looks, meaning they felt they had agency over choosing what to wear, which contributed to representing their authentic self on their wedding day.

In addition to the consideration of gender norms and formality, participants also related that authenticity in their style–fashion–dress resulted in adopting or rejecting lesbian women appearance stereotypes. For example, sometimes they rejected lesbian women appearance stereotypes, such as appearing unfashionable or wearing Birkenstock sandals. On the other hand, they sometimes embraced the stereotypes, such as wearing Doc Marten boots, North Face fleeces, short hair lengths, or Birkenstock sandals. As 7B was discussing the selection of her wedding day look, she related that she wore comfortable sandals during the ceremony that matched her top and the overall fall theme of the event, but then “kicked those babies off and put, you know, the typical lesbian Birkenstocks on, so I was ready to rock and roll.”

Reflecting participants’ authentic selves in their style–fashion–dress also related to other aspects of who they were as members of the lesbian community. For example, authenticity was represented through symbols of resilience, such as featuring succulents in the wedding bouquet (see Figure 5), which for 6A, represented experiences within and struggles of lesbian relationships:

Our relationship is symbolic of the thriving environments that seek to take our rights away, that don't value our love, don't see our family as the same as other families…there is a much deeper meaning to [featuring succulents in our wedding] than it being trendy.

Figure 5.

6A’s flowers, which incorporated succulents to represent the resiliency of their relationship thriving in the current United States cultural context.

Couples also incorporated overt lesbian symbols such as rainbows to show pride in their sexual identity. For example, 10A wore a rainbow flag as a shawl during the wedding ceremony and then 10A and 10B took post-ceremony pictures with the flag wrapped around both of their shoulders (see Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Couple 10 with rainbow flag, an overt lesbian signifier, wrapped around both of their shoulders after the wedding ceremony.

The couples also acknowledged that maintaining authenticity in their style–fashion–dress meant rewriting traditions such as both members of the marital couple wearing engagement rings, the idea of wearing white or not, or not wearing a gown while still identifying as a bride. 9B highlighted how she and 9A rewrote traditions in collaboration with their photographer for their shoe picture because “it’s exactly the kind of picture you’d have with like, dainty little heels, except with Doc Martens and knockoff Doc Martens.”

Theme 4: Heteronormative experiences

Although each couple aimed for and most often felt they expressed authenticity in their style–fashion–dress on their wedding day, arriving at this sense of authenticity sometimes prompted heteronormative experiences. Participants’ heteronormative experiences typically arose during the decision-making process of how to look, the process of purchasing or obtaining wedding day style–fashion–dress, and/or in the context of family members’ responses to their wedding day style–fashion–dress.

When deciding what to wear, selected participants shared experiences connected to heteronormative assumptions. For example, 3A related difficulty in thinking about what to wear because, as she explained, “A girl wears a dress.” Ultimately, however, 3A decided on a masculine-leaning style that fit who she felt she was.

In some cases, masculine-leaning participants who purchased suits for their wedding day shared experiences where sales associates enacted nonverbal cues of confusion or discomfort toward them as they shopped for their wedding day style–fashion–dress. In contrast, 8B, who was interested in wearing and who had purchased a white wedding gown, had positive experiences with the sales associates in the bridal shop, with the exception of an associate who continually referred to her partner as her “husband” after 8B repeatedly used the word “spouse.” This shopping experience affirmed for 8B that onlookers assumed she was heterosexual because she adhered to Western cultural traditions of purchasing a white wedding gown and shopping for the gown with female family members.

Family members’ responses to the couples’ style–fashion–dress were also sometimes rooted in heteronormative assumptions. For example, 6A’s family assumed that the guests would be most interested in the feminine-leaning person’s style–fashion–dress. This made 6A, who wore a masculine-leaning esthetic, feel as though she was “not an important part of the partnership” and that she was “outside the norm of what folks think of as female beauty.” In other cases, family members further assumed that the masculine-leaning person did not identify as a bride or with bridely traditions.

Discussion and conclusion

Authenticity, or “being true to one’s self,” (Vannini and Franzese, 2008: 1621) was of great importance to the lesbian married couples in our study and how they consumed, assembled, and embraced their style–fashion–dress on their wedding day. Each partner in the couple described that they chose a look for their wedding day that reflected their everyday style–fashion–dress, yet in a heightened or more formal esthetic, whether that was masculine-leaning, feminine-leaning, or a mixture of both. Our findings confirm past work exploring the relationship between lesbian identities, dress, and appearance, and the continued importance placed upon rejecting and/or embracing hegemonic femininity and/or masculinity to feel an authentic sense of self (Clarke et al, 2013; Clarke and Turner, 2007; Hutson, 2010; Wilson, 2013).

Past scholars also reported that during the coming out processes, lesbians in the United States and the United Kingdom often conformed to lesbian norms and dressed more masculinely, rejecting hegemonic femininity (Clarke and Turner, 2007; Hutson, 2010). Some of these pressures to appear stereotypically butch prevailed for some lesbian women in the United States in other spaces too (Levitt and Hiestand, 2004). We found that most participants did not feel pressure to deviate from their perceived authentic gender expression on their wedding day, as much time had passed since they came out.

Although participants expressed an ability to present their authentic self on their wedding day, the available consumer choices on the market certainly play a role in fashioning the body. That is, according to Erickson (1995), mass-produced commodities are entangled in the process of an individual’s articulations of their sense of self. Therefore, although participants wore what they perceived was most authentic to who they were, they were limited by the currently available mass-produced goods. Of note is that numerous queer-focused fashion brands emerged around the time of the participant’s weddings (Reddy-Best, 2020), which potentially offered them a variety of products to choose from to construct an individualized self (Erickson, 1995). Also, marketing firms have targeted queer consumers since the late 1980s and early 1990s (Clark, 1991; Gluckman and Reed, 1997) again offering a vision of the queer identity in the media. Yet, most participants in our study did not readily discuss these queer brands or pressures to appear in a way that aligned with cultural constructions of the lesbian or queer identity (Holt and Griffin, 2003). However, one participant (3A) did discuss pressures she felt from larger cultural queer norms; this led her to adopt a heightened feminine esthetic, allowing her to make her form of a political statement (Holt and Griffin, 2003; Levitt et al., 2003; Weeks, 1995) in her wedding day style–fashion–dress that two women, specifically feminine women, were marrying.

In prior work, scholars have reported the experience of negotiating an authentic lesbian identity through style–fashion–dress as empowering, regardless of how that lesbian identity was manifested through appearance (i.e., as masculine-leaning or as feminine-leaning, etc.) (Clarke and Spence, 2012). Our participants, too, related feelings of empowerment and agency as they chose what to wear for their weddings, even in spite of the fact that they (e.g., participant 3A) sometimes needed to expend labor in relation to these choices owing to cultural pressures that stemmed from heterosexual norms and/or the queer community (e.g., experiencing feelings of “not being butch enough”) (Hutson, 2010: 226). In the context of a wedding, participants also felt empowered to celebrate this newly available identity for same-sex couples by incorporating subtle (e.g., succulents) or overt signs (e.g., rainbows) of queer pride. Other signs of pride participants felt empowered to embrace and wear included stereotypical lesbian symbols such as Birkenstocks or Doc Marten boots where meanings of these specific symbols might be available only to those “in the know.” Wearing these empowering stereotypical lesbian and queer pride signifiers, in some ways, represents a form of political action or identity politics (Weeks, 1995) on the participant’s wedding day, actions and identities that stand in opposition to the long-standing heterosexism pervading society and marital institutions (Holt and Griffin, 2003). Thus, our findings align with Fiske’s (1987) perspective of the active queer subject who, through engagement with consumer culture, is able to critically adopt cultural symbols to meaningfully and authentically meet varied ends, including the expression of the self and the staging of resistance.

Participants who challenged gender norms through their wedding day appearances, a form of political action (Weeks, 1995), did not necessarily describe being met with social disapproval from others, but, rather, sometimes noted that others expressed confusion about their appearances or imposed heteronormative assumptions in relation to them. Here, then, we are reminded of the ways in which performing authenticity shapes our interactions with others (Vannini and Franzese, 2008). These tensions around what it means to our participants to be a person getting married also represents the two competing logics (normalizing and queer) as proposed by Seidman (2001). These lesbian married couples collectively can be interpreted as in between the “normalizing” and “queer” logics as described by Holt and Griffin (2003), meaning that although participant’s renegotiated what it meant to be a bride or a person getting married, participants challenged traditional understanding of heterosexual ways of knowing yet did not enact a singular queerness.

In weddings within the Western cultural context, symbolic consumption, including the wedding gown, builds and reinforces a heterosexual bride identity (Otnes and Pleck, 2003; Walsh, 2005). The white wedding gown, which has significant symbolic value as compared to the groom’s attire, has a long tradition dating back to the 19th century (Carter and Duncan, 2017; Kols and Sobal, 2013; Otnes and Pleck, 2003; Pepin et al., 2008). Walsh (2005) reported that selecting, buying, and wearing the wedding gown is a core component in the development of a bride identity. Our participants rewrote bride and groom traditions as they renegotiated the multitude of ways that individuals can be or become a bride, groom, or person getting married either by wearing a traditional white wedding dress or gown or by adopting a more masculine-leaning style such as a white pant suit with a boutonniere. Thus, similar to the same-sex couples in Fetner and Heath’s (2016) study, our participants at times resisted or eschewed selected traditional Western culture wedding conventions. The variety of ways our participants fashioned their bodies in regard to gender norms on their wedding day also reflects Kimport’s (2012) analysis of the attire worn in same-sex wedding photos from City Hall in San Francisco.

In our work, we also found that in contrast to Pepin et al. (2008), the long-standing tradition of the bride being the star, or center of the wedding in the archetypal gown in heterosexual marriages in Western cultures, was complicated in that from our participants’ perspectives, one person in the couple was not more important than the other. Participants in our study who challenged the long-standing Western wedding tradition looks sometimes were subject to heteronormative assumptions such that others assumed that masculine-learning persons might not embrace a bride identity, might not experience social affirmation, or might not have interests in bridely traditions (Carter and Duncan, 2017). Their style–fashion–dress more closely aligned with a groom, whose look and wedding work is not regarded as important or central in Western cultural traditions as compared to the feminine look or woman’s responsibilities (Carter and Duncan, 2017; Kols and Sobal, 2013; Otnes and Pleck, 2003; Pepin et al., 2008). Participants also sometimes experienced heteronormativity when purchasing their wedding day look, which is similar to past findings that heteronormative discourse is embedded throughout the wedding process, for example, in the content of services such as theknot.com (Besel et al., 2009; Tombaugh, 2009). Even after same-sex marriage legalization, heteronormativity is present in same-sex couples’ wedding experiences, indicating that cultural education and change to create affirming spaces are still needed.

Our results suggest that lesbian married couples in the United States have a variety of ways they negotiate their fashion–style–dress on their wedding day. These negotiations reflect the long-standing theme that lesbian and queer women negotiate gender and gender expression as a sign of their sexuality in their dress (Wilson, 2013). These gender negotiations led to expressions of the self that were largely viewed as authentic by the couples, resulting in feelings of empowerment on their wedding day, despite the fact that their style–fashion–dress sometimes prompted feelings of ambivalence, labor, renegotiations and/or heteronormative experiences. Commodities on the market and cultural representations of queerness certainly influence these authentic interpretations of self-expression through style–fashion–dress. Despite the tensions between perceived authentic interpretations and cultural pressures, the unique wedding day style–fashion–dress worn by the couples was politically charged and served as a way to reclaim and negotiate the nuances of their queer expressions in an official and public event that legally bonded their lifelong partnership. The wedding consumption practices and wedding space then became sites for political change for both the couples and the guests as these ways of fashioning the body and consuming commodities as lesbian couples challenged previously held definitions of what it meant to be a bride or person getting married, regardless of how these expressions were negotiating cultural expectations or not.

Implications

Our findings offer implications for further understanding of the lived experiences of lesbian married couples and how they negotiate their style–fashion–dress on their wedding day. These findings can be used to increase cultural competence; for example, families and wedding guests can be more informed about the variety of preferences and experiences of lesbian married couples in how they prefer to identify and be labeled.

Additionally, our work has implications for wedding retailers and event planners to consider in order to provide an affirming experience for the same-sex married couples in the United States. It will be important for these professionals to understand the diversity in how lesbian couples fashion themselves for their wedding days. This may necessitate broadening merchandise assortments and also training staff to being open to supporting expressions that may challenge gender norms. Training also will need to engage staff in a thoughtful consideration of possible heterosexist biases as well as to deepen their understanding of lesbian dress/appearance culture and meanings (e.g., symbols or stereotypes that consumers may wish to embrace or reject and why doing so may be meaningful). So, for instance, sales staff in men’s clothing departments may need training that prepares them to more sensitively engage with masculine-leaning women who would like to purchase a suit to wear for their wedding day. Similarly, sales associates also should be guided to avoid making assumptions about wedding partners of consumers who are buying a white wedding gown. And, retail and event planning staff may need education about the ways in which lesbian wedding participants may mobilize feelings of authenticity by rewriting traditions relative to the wearing of engagement rings or the color white or the staging of wedding photos, so that they can offer genuine support for whatever choices consumers may make. Event planners may need to be educated to seek consumers’ preferences on bride and groom language or whether or not that type of language should be included at all (e.g., in signage, on invitations, etc.). Finally, including images of diverse, “real life,” self-styled wedding couples within retailers’ and event planners’ promotional imagery may help to encourage an ethos of inclusion.

Our work was limited to 10 lesbian married couples in the United States. Future research can consider examining other members of the queer community. As more countries begin to legalize same-sex marriage, research in different geographic locations can also shed light on negotiations of style–fashion–dress for same-sex couples. Additionally, researchers could explore wedding-related retailers and how they are beginning to market to these customers and what possible challenges they are facing in this process. Given the diversity of the queer community and the increasing changes in legislation, there is much more to discover in order to continue to understand how style–fashion–dress is a part of “who we are” and “who we are becoming” (Kaiser, 2012), and in particular for people getting married and for their roles as wedding consumers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kelly L Reddy-Best

Notes

References

Adorno

(1991) The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London, UK: Routledge.

Bauman

(2001) Consuming life. Journal of Consumer Culture 1(1): 9–29.

Besel

Zimmerman

Fruhauf

, et al. (2009) Here comes the bride: an ethnographic content analysis of bridal books. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 21(2): 98–124.

Clark

(1991) Commodity lesbianism. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 9: 181–201.

Clark

Turner

(2007) V. clothes maketh the queer? dress, appearance and the construction of lesbian, gay and bisexual identities. Feminism & Psychology 17(2): 267–276.

Carter

Duncan

(2017) Wedding paradoxes: individualized conformity and the 'perfect day'. The Sociological Review 65(1): 3–20.

Clarke

Spence

(2012) I am who I am? Navigating norms and the importance of authenticity in lesbian and bisexual women’s accounts of their appearance practices. Psychology of Sexuality 4(1): 25–33.

Clarke

Burgoyne

Burns

(2013) Unscripted and improvised: Public and private celebrations of same-sex relationships. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 9(4): 393–418.

Erickson

(1995) The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction 18(2): 121–144.

10.

Fetner

Heath

(2016) Editor's Pick: Do same-sex and straight weddings aspire to the fairytale? Women’s conformity and resistance to traditional weddings. Sociological Perspectives 59(4): 721–742.

11.

Fiske

(1987) Television Culture. London, UK: Routledge.

12.

Gillis

(1985) For Better, for Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present. NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

13.

Gluckman

Reed

(1997) The gay marketing moment. In: Gluckman

Reed

(eds), Homo Economics: Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life. New York: Routledge, 3–9.

14.

Holt

and Griffin

(2003) Being gay, being straight and being yourself: local and global reflections on identity, authenticity and the lesbian and gay scene. European Journal of Cultural Studies 6(3): 404–425.

15.

Howard

(2000) American Weddings: Gender, Consumption and the Business of Brides. Texas, USA: The University of Texas at Austin.Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

16.

Hull

(2006) Same-sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Hutson

(2010) Standing OUT/fitting in: identity, appearance, and authenticity in gay and lesbian communities. Symbolic Interaction 33(2): 213–233.

18.

Kaiser

(2012) Fashion and Cultural Studies. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

19.

Kimport

(2012) Remaking the White wedding? same-sex wedding photographs' challenge to symbolic heteronormativity. Gender & Society 26(6): 874–899.

20.

Kols

Sobal

(2013) Weight and weddings: Engaged men’s body weight ideals and wedding weight management behaviors. Appetite 60: 133–139.

21.

Levitt

Gerrish

Hiestand

(2003) The misunderstood gender: a model of modern femme identity. Sex Roles 48: 99–113.

22.

Levitt

Hiestand

(2004) A quest for authenticity: contemporary butch gender. Sex Roles 50(9/10): 605–621.

23.

Lewin

(1998) Recognizing Ourselves: Ceremonies of Lesbian and Gay Commitment. NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

24.

Otnes

Lowrey

(1993) Til debt do us part: the selection and meaning of artifacts in the American wedding. Advances in Consumer Research 20: 325–329.

25.

Otnes

Pleck

(2003) Cinderella Dreams: The Allure of the Lavish Wedding. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

26.

Pepin

Zimmerman

Fruhauf

, et al. (2008) An analysis of wedding books for grooms: a feminist perspective. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 20(4): 328–356.

27.

Pew Research Center (2015) Same-sex marriage, state by state. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-state-by-state/ accessed 23 May 2019.

28.

Riello

McNeil

(2010) Introduction. In: Riello

McNeil

(eds), The Fashion Reader. London, UK: Routledge, 1–14.

29.

Seidman

(2001) From identity to queer politics: shifts in normative heterosexuality and the meaning of citizenship. Citizenship Studies 5(3): 321–328.

30.

Smart

(2008) 'Can I be bridesmaid?' combining the personal and political in same-sex weddings. Sexualities 11(6): 761–776.

31.

Tombaugh

(2009) Pretty dresses and privilege: gender and heteronormativity in weddings. Sociological Insight 1: 106–123.

32.

Tulloch

(2015) Style-fashion-dress: from Black to post-Black. Fashion Theory 14(3): 273–303.

33.

Vannini

Franzese

(2008) The authenticity of self: conceptualization, personal experience, and practice. Sociology Compass 2(5): 1621–1637.

34.

Walsh

(2005) “You just nod and pin and sew and let them do their thing”: an analysis of the wedding dress as an artifact and signifier. Ethnologies 27(2): 239–259.

35.

Weeks

(1995) History, desire, and identities. In: Parker

Gagnon

(eds), Conceiving Sexuality: Approaches to Sex Research in a Postmodern World. NY, USA: Routledge, 33–50.

36.

Willig

(2013) Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. NY, USA: Open University Press.

37.

Wilson

(2013) What does a lesbian look like?. In: Steele

(ed), A Queer History of Fashion: From the Closet to the Catwalk. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 166–191.

38.

Winch

and Webster

(2012) Here comes the brand: wedding media and the management of transformation. Continuum Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 26(1): 51–59.