When Two Become One?: Geographies Of Lesbian

Relationships*

ABSTRACT

Lesbian relationships have largely been excluded from the geographical agenda. This paper

focuses on women currently in a relationship with another woman and examines particular

geographies of lesbian relationships through a conceptualisation of the ‘betweeness of space’.

Using Judith Butlers arguments, it is contended that identities are fluid and that the

problemtisation of heterosexuality can have potent political effects. However, it is contended

that Butlers body is single negating its relations with other bodies. This focus on the

individual is addressed using an understanding of the ‘betweeness’ of space, which is a

relational conceptualisation of space discussed by Gillian Rose (1999). It is argued that

coupled space forms a ‘betweeness’ in which women are separate yet connected. Semi-

structured interviews, photographs and diaries were used to form accounts of the women’s

experiences of everyday life. The formation of individual identities and embodiments in

lesbian relationships is explored through the examples of the everyday practices of food and

eating. It is argued that, for these women, the medium of food and the act of eating

contribute towards the mutual construction of each other’s identities and embodiments.

Furthermore, whilst the ostensibly unifying category of ‘lesbian’ is implicated in the

formation of these women’s identities, the betweeness of coupled space is not appropriated

uniformly.

KEYWORDS

betweeness; lesbian; relationships; food; identities; performativity.

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the IBG conference, University of Sussex, Brighton 2000.

1

INTRODUCTION

Hegemonic heterosexuality frequently renders non-heterosexual relationships invisible. This

marginalisation is addressed here by prioritising the experiences of lesbian relationships.

Whilst recognising that the term ‘lesbian’ is contested (Stein, 1993; Califia, 1995), this paper

focuses on women currently in a relationship with another woman. However, similarities

between women and lesbians are not assumed. On the contrary, lesbian relationships are

seen to be heterogeneous. Obviously diversity between women takes many forms and an

investigation of all of these is beyond the scope of this and perhaps any research. In this

study the women were all white and English. Some differences within this group, which is

usually seen as homogenous, will be explored. In addition, space is also seen as a

heterogeneous construction.

The relative absence of sexualities from the mainstream academic agenda is being addressed.

This is taking many forms, indicating the multiple and diverse sexualities and representations

which co-exist. Therefore, there is no definitive geography of sexuality. However, diverse

geographies of sexualities can be seen to coexist (Bell, 1991). Consequently, geographies of

sexualities have, in different ways, attempted to include alternative sexual practices,

identities and experiences into the geographical agenda. This project has ranged from an

analysis of ‘gay ghettos’ (Levine, 1979) to an examination of the lived experiences of

heteronormativity by lesbians (Valentine, 1996). Probyn contends that ‘the ways in which

bodies only exist in relation to other bodies’ should be explored (1995: 83). Geographies of

sexualities have examined relations between individuals and communities, strangers, work

colleagues and parents (Bell and Valentine, 1995; Grant, 1997; Valentine, 1999b). However,

2

the production of identities within intimate relationships, has yet to be investigated in

geography. This paper seeks to partially address this lacuna.

The study of lesbian relationships is important not only because of the exclusion of non-

heterosexual relationships from geographical literature, reflecting the heterosexist

assumptions of society, but also because relationships are important to individuals. Because

of their importance relationships can function as sites and processes which contribute to the

construction of individual identities. This paper, therefore, aims to investigate how lesbian

relationships contribute to the experiences of everyday life and the negotiation of identities

for those incorporated within them.

The study centralises activities traditionally assumed to be leisure and places them in a spatial

context. Moreover its focus on sexuality and women incorporates aspects of gender studies.

As a result this paper is situated in the borderlands between disciplines and subject fields and

the increasingly permeable boundaries between them. The paper negotiates a

‘poststructuralist’ route in navigating through these fields, asserting at the outset that the

interrelationships between spatiality, sexuality and identity are not fixed or given but

constructed. Empirical research is used to argue that identities, while fluid and

performatively based, are also relationally constituted through the mundane practices of

everyday life.

DESTABILISING HETEROSEXUALITY

Challenging what is usually taken for granted, Butler (1990) argues that our sex is

constructed within the heterosexual matrix. She explains this as:

3

that grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies, genders and desires are

naturalized … a hegemonic discursive/epistemic model of gender intelligibility that

assumes for our body to cohere and make sense there must be a stable sex expressed

through a stable gender (masculine expresses male, feminine expresses female) that is

oppositionally and hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of

heterosexuality

(Butler, 1990: 151)

Basically for 'us' to be intelligible we must understand ourselves as male or female and these

categories are made sense of as opposites meant to come together within the regulatory

framework of compulsory heterosexuality. Importantly, this understanding interlinks

sexuality and gender such that they are both fluid and mutually informing. Moreover, it

suggests that heterosexuality is not ‘natural’ or ‘given’ but is, instead, formed within specific

power relations.

Difficult to read and easily misunderstood, Butler’s work is heavily critiqued. As a ‘post

modern’ author she has been criticised for destabilising ‘the feminist movement’. It is argued

that just as women were gaining a subject position from which to fight patriarchy and

oppression the notion of subject positions became questionable (Hartsock, 1990). Therefore,

deconstructing the subject is seen as not only apolitical but antipolitical (Flax, 1992; Walters,

1996). Some feminist authors contend that diversity cannot form a basis from which to

challenge the oppression of women (Hartman et al., 1996; Jagose, 1996; Spargo, 1999).

There is a pertinent concern that once again women will be excluded and forgotten

neutralising the gender of the subject but reflecting hegemonic norms, the deconstructed

subject maybe rendered male.

4

Butler (1992), however does not advocate the disappearance of the female subject. She,

instead, contends that this category should be fluid. Consequently, deconstructing terms and

categories does not involve their immediate negation or rejection, but

… to continue to use them, to repeat them, to repeat them subversively, and to displace

them from the contexts in which they have been deployed as instruments of oppressive

power.

(Butler, 1992: 17)

In this way Butler’s arguments do not equate with the disappearance of ‘women’ or

‘lesbians’. Instead they highlight that inscribing the category ‘woman’ (or ‘lesbian’ or

‘feminist’) is a political project always contingent to, and imbued with, power relations.

Therefore, it matters when, why and by whom these categories are called upon;

If there is a fear that, by no longer being able to take for granted the subject, its gender,

its sex, or its materiality, feminism will founder, it might be wise to consider the

political consequences of keeping in their place the very premises, that have tried to

secure our subordination from the start.

(Butler, 1992: 19)

Moreover, Butler (1993; 1997) contends that by claiming an essential identity as a ‘woman’,

heteropatriarchical structures remain unchallenged and are even reinforced. However,

understanding heterosexuality as constructed denies its originality (Rapi, 1998).

Furthermore, by deconstructing what is usually considered as ‘given’, Butler’s theories

enable us to see all forms of identities and materialities as performatively produced.

Conceptualising identities as produced denies the existence of a given or natural identity

(Shildrick, 1997). Through reiterated acts imbued with discursive significance, ‘we’ are

5

constantly being made. These processes do not occur in isolation. Instead we are produced

through our interactions, or, in other words, who we are is relationally constituted. Haraway,

in her Manifesto of a Cyborg (1991), contends that we do not pre-exist our social relations

with humans, the environment and machines. Thus it is through performativity and

interrelationality, ‘we’ are constructed.

RELATIONAL SPACE: CONCEPTUALISING BETWEENESS

Recently attention has, within geographies as well as wider social sciences, been drawn to

embodiments and identities. This has taken numerous forms from an interest in the pregnant

body (Longhurst, 1997) to the leisure practices and meanings associated with food

(Valentine, 1999b). However, this literature on the material and discursive production of

identities has focused on the individual body. Similarly Rose (1999) notes that Butler’s body

is single, negating its relation with other bodies. She argues that the space of relation

between bodies should be studied and sees Irigaray's work as trying to work through this

space of ‘betweeness’:

Thus there may be a geography of corporeal space that does not entail solid shape,

boundaries, fixity, property and possession whether of the self or others. It may be

possible to embody a space that allows a different kind of betweeness.

(Rose, 1999: 254)

This is significant when we consider couples as a unit: individuals use strategies to define the

couple’s boundaries and, in this way, construct the ‘couple’. They create a ‘betweeness’

through these practices producing exclusions and, more importantly, when considering the

betweeness of coupled space, inclusions (cf. Bernardes, 1997).

6

These processes incorporate the individual as a member and manufacturer of the couple. This

production occurs through normal everyday activities such as eating. It has been shown that

everyday chores produce the family as a social group (Charles and Kerr, 1988; Bernardes,

1997; DeVault, 1991). In this way, household chores, not only implicate the individual in the

performance of a role, but also construct the family or the couple as the space in which these

roles exist (cf. Dunne, 1997). Perhaps more obviously, within a relationship things are done

for each other and this clearly sets the task in the context of the couple. Moreover, through

repetition these tasks form responsibilities and interconnections. Consequently, within the

couple individuals have responsibilities which, when performed, construct ‘the couple’. In

other words, individuals and couples are mutually constituted. The relations and

performances which make individuals intelligible as couples in turn constitute specific forms

of coupled space.

The fluidity of individual boundaries is exemplified through these shared responsibilities and

realities. Rose’s understanding of Irigaray’s arguments enables us to place individuals within

a couple.

Irigaray is trying to work through a space in which the separateness of identity does not

entail closure, exclusion and imprisonment, where women can be separate yet

connected.

(Rose, 1999: 254, my emphasis)

Here, coupled space is conceptualised as a space where women are distinct but through their

interactions form interconnections. These interconnections can be seen to be significant in the

formation of identities and embodiments. As it is repeated performances which are

considered important, the formation of identities often take place with and through the

7

mundane practices of everyday life (Rose, 1993). The literature on ‘actor network theory’

contends these connections and practices incorporate not only humans but also materialities

in the production of identities (Law, 1991a; b and Latour, 1997).

Whilst there are many ‘mundane’ practices of everyday life, food is chosen as a case study as

it is often taken-for-granted although inherent to our everyday existence. Therefore, food is

not simply a basic nutritional substance; it designs bodies and perceptions of bodies.

Importantly, Valentine (1999b) argues that bodies are the product of interactions and social

relations. The processes of eating and the meanings associated with food are often imbued

with social meanings due to these interactions and social relations. Consequently, the

everyday spaces of food and the ‘mundane’ practices of eating can produce, articulate and

contest identities and bodies.

Clearly, understanding identities and materialities as performatively and relationally

produced enables the reconceptualisation of everyday life. The remainder of this paper

argues that everyday life in turn informs theoretical understandings of everyday life,

specifically the mutual construction of identities and bodies. The next section outlines the

methods used to construct accounts of six lesbian couples’ experiences of food and eating

practices. The information produced through this empirical research, which consisted of

interviews, photographs and diaries, is developed in conjunction with theoretical

understandings to explore food and some aspects of eating within lesbian relationships.

Consequently, using the six couples’ accounts the betweeness of space will be explored in

relation to individual embodiments and identities.

8

METHODS

Feminists have long argued for the inclusion of research related to everyday life to the

academic agenda (Henderson & Bialeschki, 1999; Moss, 1993; Rose, 1993). In order for this

to occur, people’s perceptions of their everyday activities must be prioritised (Punch, 1997).

The objective of this research was to investigate how individual couples negotiated space to

(re)form their relationships and identities. Consequently, qualitative methods, which allowed

participants the openness to express their viewpoints, recount their experiences and articulate

their ideas, were seen as appropriate in constructing accounts of geographies of lesbian

relationships.

Six couples participated in the research and the participants are detailed briefly in table I.

Snowball sampling was used to recruit participants for this research. The ‘snowball’ began in

England and I used my personal networks to recruit participants. As a result all the

participants are white British women who do not have dependent children. Obviously, this

was a self-selecting bias which privileged particular social circles. However, these

recruitment techniques also meant that the social networks used enabled access to

participants who perhaps would not answer advertisements. This is particularly pertinent for

this research due to its focus on sensitive and personal issues. Consequently, social networks

enabled access to women who might otherwise not have been involved in any form of

research.

Couples who agreed to be involved were sent a letter outlining the project and what the

research process entailed. This was then followed by a phone call to confirm their

willingness to participate and to organise times for interviews. Cameras were sent together

with the initial letter and a copy of the research diary.

9

(Table here)

Interviewing was the main technique used in this research. Two forms of interviews were

used, joint interviews with both partners and separate interviews with each partner. In-depth

semi-structured interviews were seen as an appropriate method of constructing accounts for

this project (Denscombe, 1998; Robson, 1993; Valentine, 1997). Firstly, interviews were

seen to be the most appropriate qualitative method because they were a minor intrusion

compared to other forms of ethnography. Participant observation, for example, would not

have been invited. This would have been seen as unwelcome intrusion into ‘private’ space

and activities. Secondly, the major strength of the interviewing technique is that it provides

an understanding of how individual people experience and make sense of everyday life

(Valentine, 1997). In order to achieve this, interviews were constructed in a way that allowed

the couples the freedom to express their opinions and views (Healey and Rawlinson, 1993).

As Fiona believed;

I think the interview’s the most important bit 'cos then you can say what you mean.

(Fiona: Joint interview, Fiona and Susan)

Coupled interviews always proceeded individual interviews. Couples were placed side by

side which proved very effective in encouraging discussion between the partners who often

looked at each other seeking approval or checking for validity. The latter resulted in

participants verifying and adapting others’ stories and ‘jogging’ each other’s memories

(Valentine, 1999a). This addresses Yin’s (1994) assertion that one of the disadvantages of

interviewing is inaccuracy due to poor recall. Coupled interviews addressed the formation of

the relationship, joint activities and shared realities.

10

Placing myself beside the participants in individual interviews meant there were no ‘barriers’

between us. In addition, the participants were assured that the information obtained in these

interviews would not be relayed to their partners. The individual interviews allowed

participants who said very little in the joint interviews, which were on occasion a monologue,

to express their opinions. Therefore these were often very useful in providing a forum where

the approval of the partner was less important. As such, the individual interviews addressed

any issues that were left unresolved in the joint interview as well as individual uses of spaces,

the individual’s perceptions of the relationship and alterations of individual activities since

the relationship began.

An attempt was made to finish all the interviews on a ‘good note’ with joint interviews

finishing on future plans and individual interviews ending on the comparisons between this

and previous relationships. This appeared to be quite successful and, even when painful

issues were discussed during the interviews, most participants appeared to leave with a smile

(or perhaps a grimace!) on their faces.

After the interviews had taken place the participants were asked for their comments and

suggestions for improvements while the tape recorder was still on. This enabled a partial

evaluation of the research process from the perspective of the participants. Perhaps because I

was present, the feedback was mainly positive with some helpful suggestions. All the

participants were eager to see how the information would be used. Therefore the conclusions

of the study along with an extra copy of the photographs taken were posted to participants.

While repeat interviews may have produced interesting information, and participants’

opinions on conclusions are important, it was not possible to include these due to the time

scale of the research.

11

Transcriptions of taped interviews omitted a substantial proportion of the experience of the

interview for me as the researcher. Most noticeably absent was the face to face interaction.

For example, looks were often given which obviously were not recorded yet contained

significant meaning. Although a research diary was kept, writing during the course of the

interviews appeared to make the participants uneasy. Therefore whilst a retrospective diary

was written, interactions and subtle gestures were unavoidably omitted. During the course of

transcription it was noted that noises, that were not words but were still embedded with

significance, were impossible to translate into written text (Denscombe, 1998). Moreover,

lost was the physical contact which occurred between the couples and the adoring looks and

gestures that cannot be articulated. Hence whilst transcription was supplemented by an

interview diary these still could not capture the whole experience. In addition, when

transcribing I often wished to return to the participants and ask them for more detail.

Using self-photography (Aitken and Wingate, 1994) couples were supplied with a disposable

camera and requested to take pictures of places they visited regularly together and places

they considered important. It was hoped that photographs would play a significant role in the

study and were envisaged to be involved in the construction of the interviews. Following

Crang’s (1997) assertion that photographs can be used to stimulate discussion and create new

spaces and experiences, couples were requested to return the cameras prior to the interview.

This occurred on only one occasion. Consequently, while recognising the constructed nature

of photographs (Flick, 1998; Rose 1996) these are used to inform information gathered from

the interviews. Photographs are particularly useful to supplement lifeless transcripts and

interview notes which omit interpersonal interactions. However, gaining access to

photographs was not easy and only four of the seven couples finally returned their cameras

12

for development. In this way participants controlled both the pictures that were taken and the

access to those pictures.

Participants were asked to complete a written record of everything they did together for one

week in a diary. This was adopted following a pilot study that suggested cameras were

difficult to take everywhere and that, on occasion, it would be inappropriate to take a picture.

The diaries were important in facilitating discussion as they were utilised by participants to

reflect, prior to the interview, upon everyday joint activities. The information recorded in the

diaries reflects this and describes specific activities and events.

The interviews, photographs and diaries are used in conjunction with the theories described

in the previous section to construct the accounts of material practices. These are detailed in

the proceeding sections.

I AM WHAT WE EAT?: FOOD, RELATIONALITY AND IDENTITIES

Using the example of food, this section explores whether the betweeness of coupled space

influences identities for those incorporated within it. The meanings of food can be diverse,

ranging from the exotic to the defiled (Douglas, 1970; May, 1996; Valentine, 1999b). The

incorporation of food into the space of the body, and the resulting meanings attached to both

food and body, can be seen in the discussions surrounding the fat body and the anorexic body

(Valentine, 1999c, see for example Bell and Valentine, 1997; Bordo, 1993; Lupton, 1996;

Zdrowoski, 1996). The examination of food in the context of the family illustrates that

eating practices are often relational endeavours (Beardsworth and Keil, 1997; Charles and

Kerr, 1988; DeVault, 1991; Greishaber, 1999; Kemmer et al, 1998; Murcott, 1982). This can

be seen outside the traditional nuclear family, for example ‘Kate’, in Bell and Valentine

13

(1997: 85) and Valentine (1999d: 512), has changed her eating habits in each lesbian

relationship she has been involved in. Moreover, Valentine (1999b) identified the erosion of

individual body boundaries as a result of close proximity to others in the home and in the

workplace. Consequently, it is argued that the processes of forming individual identities

incorporates bodies, the materialities and meanings of food as well as the social relations of

eating. In an attempt to develop the work of Bell and Valentine (1997: 86), this section

explores the role of food within lesbian relationships arguing that individual identities are

produced, articulated and contested through food consumption.

Producing Identities

The production of individual identities in relation to the couple can be observed clearly

where personal eating patterns are reconstructed to enable the sharing of meals. At the most

basic level individuals negotiate time and space to eat together adjusting their schedules and

locations in order to be together. For example Tracy and Barbs, who work in the same retail

outlet, ensured that their lunch breaks coincided. For all the couples simultaneous evening

meals were often arranged. Individuals may adapt what they eat when the couple eats

together. For convenience Rose and Maz ate the same thing.

I suppose its easier, cos if like she’s cooking it saves us cooking two meals, one for

me, one for her. I think that would piss her off a bit.

(Maz: individual interview)

This process often privileges one person’s taste over the other’s. For example, Susan no

longer ate meat as Fiona was a vegetarian. For Barbs changes in her eating habits was more

a gradual process whereby she grew to like particular foods illustrating that taste can be

acquired.

14

I have a lot of peppers and onions and mushrooms and tomatoes and stuff like that.

Barbs didn’t eat anything, she ate pasta but she wouldn’t eat tomatoes, onions, peppers,

mushrooms, so it was like everything I cooked had got ‘em in, so gradually, day by

day, I got her weaned onto them- now and she loves it all.

(Tracey: individual interview)

These practices acquire meanings as the food is attributed particular status. Clearly within

society there is a pressure to assume healthy eating patterns. Perhaps, as a result of this, the

partner whose tastes were more catered for was the one who was seen to have a healthier

eating pattern. Maz, for example, changed what she eats both when she and Rose are

together and when they are not. She perceives her own eating habits to have become

healthier since she has been in a relationship with Rose.

She’s made me more aware of my health … things like that aren’t good for the

waistline so that’s a good thing … I’ve got all the stuff that she eats now at mine …

I’ve started eating it all now …when I do get a chance to cook I’ll cook like … things

that Rose has taught me to do

(Maz: individual interview)

Here Maz links discourses of healthy food to images of healthy (slim) bodies. She sees her

diet as healthier because of Rose and this influences her perceptions of the space her body is

occupying, her ‘waistline’. In this way ‘healthy’ identities are (re)produced through

variations in eating patterns and the meanings attributed to particular foodstuffs (cf.

Valentine, 1999d). Through similar processes ‘unhealthy’ identities can also be achieved in

the betweeness of coupled space. Fiona, for example, believes that Susan has negatively

influenced her eating patterns.

15

Susan: I eat lots of sweets, only because I bring them home all the time Fiona feels the

need to eat them! (laughter) …

Fiona: I’m quite controlling of myself and I wouldn’t eat that many (sweets), but she

always gets them. I never used to drink pop, I used to drink more healthier drinks. ‘Cos

she has it then I want it, ‘cos it’s there. So it’s bad for me.

(Fiona and Susan: Joint Interview)

Articulating Identities

Intimate relationships can produce different performances which, in turn, reconstruct

identities. Changes in identities are articulated on peoples’ plates and through their eating

patterns (Bell and Valentine, 1997). An obvious example of this is when individuals go out to

eat together. In plates 4 and 5 Belinda and Dorothy are sharing a meal in a restaurant. This

is significant because, as they are both students, they would normally eat at home. In this

way, through changes in their eating practices, they are articulating a coupled identity.

Belinda and Dorothy believed that eating out together was an important aspect of being a

couple. However, it is clear from plates 4 and 5 that the pictures were taken while sitting

across the table from each other. There is not a picture of Belinda and Dorothy together. It

could be argued that whilst Belinda and Dorothy are articulating a coupled identity as

lesbians they are simultaneously conforming to the heteronormativity of the restaurant.

(Plate 4 and 5 here)

Barb’s identity as a daughter within a nuclear family meant that she ate meals prepared by

her mother. When she moved in with Tracey her eating habits changed to reflect their

‘coupled’ lifestyles.

16

it has changed a bit ‘cos I mean my mum used to cook me a meal every night and stuff

like that whereas now things change, … I’m working … till about half seven at night

and stuff, and its obviously difficult to come in and cook a meal at like nine o clock at

night when we get in, so we usually have take-always or get an Indian or a Chinese or

sommit like that. So it has changed

(Barbs: individual interview).

By articulating the changes in her lifestyle through her consumption of food, Barbs is also

demonstrating a form of independence: it is up to her to provide her own food. In this way

her identities as partner and as working adult are articulated through her food practices.

Contesting Joint Identities

Greishaber (1999) argues that the meal may act as a site of resistance for children. Similarly,

food can also be used to contest a joint identity as a couple or utilised to maintain an

individual identity. Liz often eats separately from Beth and uses this time to eat food that

Beth does not like.

The wisdom of eating apart is that we can eat things we (as in the other person) don’t

like … some weeks we might only have one meal together ‘cos of work.

(Liz: individual interview)

It also gives her the opportunity to eat food that Liz would prefer she did not. Drawing on

discourses of food and body, Liz argues that Beth would rather she did not go to the chip

shop. However, Liz uses this space to ‘treat’ herself and in this way contests both control of

her eating habits and control of her body.

She (Beth) likes me thinner. When I’m thinner she likes me thinner, fine. But my

attitude is I keep fit, and the fact I keep fit, I just indulge myself

17

(Liz: individual interview).

From the example of food, it can be seen that the production, articulation and contestation of

identities fuses the material, the relational and the ideological. The space of the body is

therefore made through complex webs and processes intersecting the discursive and material.

Moreover, individuals both constitute and are in turn constituted through these webs and

processes. The next section goes beyond food to investigate the betweeness of coupled space

using two participants’ accounts.

APPROPRIATING COUPLED SPACE

Food is not the sole materiality involved in the production of identities. The complex

matrices which produce individual identities not only incorporate diverse materialities, but

they are also appropriated individually. Probyn (1993) argues that it is not enough merely to

stipulate that difference exists, we need to render be specific. Here, two participants who

have been in a relationship for six years have been chosen to explore whether individual

spaces implode in the formation of the ‘betweeness of coupled space’ occurs within, and if

there is a uniform appropriation of, coupled space in the construction of identities.

Liz is 42, employed as a social worker and has been with Beth for six years. Liz and Beth

live separately. Liz could not consciously recall any aspect of herself that has changed

because of her relationship with Beth. Her paid work and unpaid work does not include Beth.

She spends two nights a week apart from Beth and during this time she will watch television

or spend time on the phone. Financially, she keeps her accounts separate and she felt that

Beth has no influence on how she spends her money. In this way Liz actively maintains an

18

individual identity. However, because Beth and Liz are a couple they make decisions

together through communication and discussion. In relation to music, Beth can influence

what Liz listens to by taping tapes for her car. Liz also believes that she is more confident in

the relationship after six years and this has resulted in her becoming more relaxed.

Consequently while Liz has actively maintained her individuality, she is still partly shaped

through her relationship with Beth.

Rachel has been seeing Natalie for six years. She is 30 and works in a women’s refuge.

Rachel has changed her music taste so that Natalie will not think it is ‘naff’. They share a

house and thus bills are shared, the loan on the car is shared and money is budgeted jointly

for holidays together. Rachel believes that Natalie has helped her to become more ‘self

indulgent’ in contrast to her previous attitude which she described as ‘a real self abuser’

(individual interview). Natalie has also had an influence on other aspects of Rachel’s

lifestyle:

… there’s a lot of things I’ve done different since I met Natalie … I used to smoke like

a chimney and I smoked, yeah like, probably for the first year that we were together

but I was trying to cut back and her mum got lung cancer from smoking and I thought

… that I would stop smoking for her and out of respect for her mum really so I stopped

that was about, probably over 5 years ago now and I stopped the hard booze been a bit

of a drinker as well… I do touch (alcohol) every now and then at very special

occasions. Yeah I was a big drinker, big smoker (and) used to do drugs. (I) stopped all

of that when I met her ‘cos Natalie is very clean living.

(Rachel: individual interview).

19

In this case it is clear that Rachel’s individual performances have been constructed through

her relationship with Natalie. This has influenced how she perceives herself. Nowadays she

considers herself to be more confident and self assured. However, as this quote illustrates

Rachel still believes herself to be her own person but only as a result of being with Natalie.

I like that I’m identified with her (Natalie) bearing in mind that I’m very, very much

my own person but only as a result of being with her so the two are sort of entwined

aren’t they?

(Rachel: individual interview).

It is sometimes believed that one person in a relationship will change while the other remains

the same. In this way one partner is seen to be in control of the relationship and thus

‘dominant’. Liz and Rachel were both considered the ‘dominant’ partner in their

relationships by both themselves and their girlfriends. In these examples one partner does

not simply ‘influence/control’ the other. Instead, both partners are produced through the

interactions and interconnections which construct the betweeness of coupled space. However

Beth and Rachel’s distinct stories demonstrate that these processes are not uniform across

individuals. In the construction of individual identities, the betweeness of coupled space is

used differently.

CONCLUSION

To illustrate the main points of this paper I return to an expanded version of a quote used

earlier:

We’ve always been, everybody knows us as Rachel and Natalie really, Natalie and

Rachel, depends on who you’re asking and that’s the way it has always been. I like it, I 20

like that I’m identified with her bearing in mind that I’m very, very much my own

person but only as a result of being with her so the two are sort of entwined aren’t

they?

(Rachel: individual interview).

Within these lesbian couples the participants mutually constructed their identities and

embodiments. In this study ‘leisure’ and spatiality were also seen to be mutually

informative blurring the boundaries between these fields through an exploration of specific

lived experiences and practices. This paper has argued that individuals in couples produce

forms of ‘betweeness’ and are in turn constructed in and through their relationships. This

production is complex and diverse (re)forming women that are separate yet connected.

These processes are multifaceted, reflecting the heterogeneity of women, lesbians and lovers.

While writing, presenting and discussing this research, there has been one common response

or criticism: ‘What is the difference between these lesbian relationships and normal (sic)

heterosexual relationships?’ As I did not set out to provide a comparative analysis I have

struggled to answer this question. Within geographies, the relational formation of subjects

within intimate relationships, both heterosexual and non-heterosexual, has yet to be fully

addressed. Clearly, reactions during the research process suggest that the ‘betweeness of

coupled space’ has applicability beyond lesbian relationships. Further research is necessary

to explore the multiple ways intimate relationships are shaped, positioned and reiterated to

produce interconnections and betweeness and the resulting complexes of identities, bodies

and spaces.

Acknowledgements:

21

Thanks go to Gill Valentine for all her help throughout the Masters and with the development

and conduct of the research from which this paper is developed. I wish to thank Cara

Aitchison for all the time and effort she devoted to helping in the writing of this paper, and

associated conference papers.

REFERENCES

AITKEN, STUART & WINGATE, JOAN (1993) A preliminary study of self-directed

photography of middle class, homeless, and mobility-impaired children, Professional

Geographer, 45 (1), pp. 65-72.

BEARDSWORTH, ALAN & KEIL, TERSA (1997) Sociology on the Menu: An Invitation to

the Study of Food and Society (London, Routledge).

BELL, DAVID & VALENTINE, GILL (1995) (Eds) Mapping Desires: Geographies of

Sexualities (London, Routledge).

BELL, DAVID & VALENTINE, GILL (1997) Consuming Geographies: We are Where we

Eat (London, Routledge).

BELL, DAVID (1991) Insignificant others: lesbian and gay geographies, Area, 23, pp. 323-

329.

BERNARDES, JON (1997) Family Studies: An Introduction (London, Routledge).

BORDO, SUSAN (1993) Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body

(Berkeley, University of California Press).

BUTLER, JUDITH (1990) Gender Trouble (London, Routledge).

22

BUTLER, JUDITH (1992) Contingent foundations: feminism and the question of

“Postmodernism”, in: JUDITH BUTLER & JOAN SCOTT (Eds), Feminists Theorize

the Political, pp. 3-21 (London, Routledge).

BUTLER, JUDITH (1993) Bodies that Matter (London, Routledge).

BUTLER, JUDITH (1997) Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in

phenomenology and feminist theory, in: KATIE CONBOY, NADIA MEDINA &

SARAH STANBURY (Eds), Writing on the Body, pp. 401-419 (New York, Columbia

University Press).

CALIFIA, PAT (1994) Public Sex: The Culture of Radical Sex (Pittsburgh, Cleis Press).

CHARLES, NICKI & KERR, MARION (1988) Women, Food and Families (Manchester,

Manchester University Press).

CRANG, MIKE (1997) Picturing practices: research through the tourist gaze, Progress in

Human Geography, 21 (3), pp. 359-373.

DeVAULT, MAJORIE L. (1991) Feeding the Family: the Social Organisation of Caring

and Gender Work (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

DENSCOMBE, MARTYN (1998) The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Social

Research Projects (Buckingham, Open University Press).

DOUGLAS, MARY (1970) Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and

Taboo (London, Routledge).

DUNNE, GILLIAN (1997) Lesbian Lifestyles: Womens Work and the Politics of Sexuality

(London, Macmillan).

23

EYLES, JOHN (1993) Feminist and interpretative method: how different?, The Canadian

Geographer, 37 (1), pp. 50-51.

FLAX, JANE (1992) The end of innocence, in: JUDITH BUTLER & JOAN SCOTT (Eds.)

Feminists Theorize the Political (London, Routledge).

FLICK, UWE (1998) An Introduction to Qualitative Research (London, Sage).

FOUCAULT, MICHEAL (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Allen

Lane, Penguin).

GRANT, ALI (1997). Dyke geographies: all over the place, in: GABREILE GRIFFIN &

SONYA ANDERMAHR (Eds) Straight Studies Modified: Lesbians Interventions in the

Academy, pp. 115-129 (London, Cassells).

GREISHABER, SUSANNE (1998) Mealtime rituals: power and resistance in the

construction of mealtime rules, British Journal of Sociology, 48 (4), pp. 649-666.

HARAWAY, DONNA (1991) Siamians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature

(London, FA).

HARTSOCK, NANCY (1990) Foucault on power: a theory for women, in: LINDA J.

NICHOLSON (Ed) Feminism/Postmodernism pp. 157-175 (London, Routledge).

HEALEY MICHEAL J. & RAWLINSON MICHEAL B. (1993) Interviewing business

owners and managers: a review of the methods and techniques, Geoforum, 24 (3), pp.

251-265.

HENDERSON, KARLA A. & BIALESCHKI, M.DEBORAH (1999) Makers of meanings:

feminist perspectives on leisure research, in: Edgar Jackson &Thomas Burton (Eds),

24

Leisure Studies for the Twenty-First Century pp. 167-175 (Andover, Venture

Publishing).

HETHERINGTON, KEVIN (1998) Expressions of Identity, Space, Performance, Politics

(London, Sage).

JAGOSE, ANNAMARIE (1996) Queer Theory: An Introduction (New York, New York

University Press).

KEMMER, DEBBIE, ANDERSON, ANNIE S. and MARSHALL, DAVID W. (1998)

Living together and eating together: changes in food choice and eating habits during

the transition from single to married/cohabiting, The Sociological Review, 46 (1), pp.

48-72.

LATOUR, BRUNO (1991) Technology is a society made durable, in: JOHN LAW (Ed), A

Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination pp. 103-131

(London, Routledge).

LAW, JOHN (1991) (Ed) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and

Domination (London, Routledge).

LEVINE, MARTIN P. (1979) Gay ghetto, in: PETER M. NARDI and BETH SCHNEIDER

(Eds) (1998), Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader (London,

Routledge).

LONGHURST, ROBYN (1997) (Dis)embodied geographies, Progress in Human

Geography, 21 (4), pp. 486-450.

LUPTON, DEBORAH (1996) Food, Self and the Body (London, Sage).

25

MOSS, PAMELA (1993) Focus: Feminism as Method, The Canadian Geographer, 37(1),

pp. 48-49.

MURCOTT, ANNE (1982) “On the social significance of the “cooked dinner” in south

Wales”, Social Science Information, 21, pp. 677-95.

MYSLIK, WAYNE (1996) Renegotiating the social/ sexual identities of places: gay

communities as safe havens or sites of resistance? in: Nancy Duncan (Ed) Bodyspace:

Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, pp. 156-169 (London, Routledge).

PROBYN, ELSPETH (1993) Sexing the Self: Gendered Positions in Cultural Studies

(London, Routledge).

PROBYN, ELSPETH (1995) Lesbians in space: gender, sex and the structure of missing,

Gender, Place and Culture, 2, pp. 77-88

PUNCH, KEITH (1997) Introduction to Social Research Quantitative and Qualitative

Approaches (Sage, London).

RAPI, NINA (1998) Representing the ‘Real’, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2(2/3), pp. 1-11.

ROBSON, COLIN (1993) Real World Research (Oxford, Blackwell).

ROSE, GILLIAN (1993) Feminism & Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge

(Cambridge, Polity Press).

ROSE, GILLIAN (1996) Teaching visualised geographies: towards a methodology for the

interpretation of visual materials, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20(3),

pp. 281-293.

26

ROSE, GILLIAN (1999) Performing space, in: DOREEN MASSEY, JOHN ALLEN &

AND PHILIP SARRE (Eds) Human Geography Today, pp. 247-259 (Cambridge,

Polity Press).

SHILDRICK, MARGRIT (1997) Leaky Bodies and Boundaries (London, Routledge).

SILVERMAN, DAVID (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data (London, Sage).

SPARGO, TASMIN (1999) Foucault and Queer Theory (Cambridge, Icon Books).

STEIN, ARELENE (1993) (Ed). Sisters, Sexperts, Queer: Beyond the Lesbian Nation

(London, Penguin).

VALENTINE, GILL (1996) (Re)negotiating the “heterosexual street”: lesbian productions

of space, in: NANCY DUNCAN (Ed), Body Space: Destablizing Geographies of

Gender and Sexuality, pp. 146-155 (London, Routledge).

VALENTINE, GILL (1997) Tell me about...using interviews as a research methodology, in:

ROBIN FLOWERDEW & DAVID MARTIN (Eds), Methods in Human Geography:

A Guide for Students Doing Research Projects, pp. 110-126 (Harlow, Longman).

VALENTINE, GILL (1999a) Doing household research: interviewing couples together and

apart, Area, 31, pp. 67-74.

VALENTINE, GILL (1999b) A corporeal geography of consumption, Environment and

Planning D-Society & Space, 17(3), pp. 329-351.

VALENTINE, GILL (1999c) Imagined Geographies: Geographical Knowledges of Self and

Other in Everyday Life, in: DOREEN MASSEY, JOHN ALLEN & PHILIP SARRE

(Eds), Human Geography Today, pp.47-61 (Polity Press, Cambridge).

27

VALENTINE, GILL (1999d) Eating in: home, consumption and identity, The Sociological

Review, 47 (3), pp. 491-524.

WALTERS, SUZANNA DANUTA (1996) From here to queer: radical feminism,

postmodernism and the lesbian menace (or why can’t a woman be more like a fag?),

Signs, 21(4), pp. 830-869.

YIN, ROBERT R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Second Edition).

(London, Sage).

ZDRODOWSKI, DAWN (1996) Eating out: the experience of eating in public for the

overweight woman, Woman Studies International Forum, 19(6), pp. 655-664.

28

Table I: Brief Summary of the Participants.

Names Occupations Length of Relationship

Rachel

Natalie

30

23

Works for Women’s Refuge

Works for Train Company.

Six Years

Beth

Liz

52

42

Manager

Social Worker

Six Years

Fiona

Susan

24

23

Student

Teacher

Three Years

Rose

Maz

20

20

Student

Works for Train

Company

Three years

Barbara

Tracey

20

26

Supervisor

Manager

One Year

Belinda

Dorothy

20

22

Student

Student

Seven Months

29