UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: 11-Feb-2010 I, Ahoo Tabatabai , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology It is entitled: Vanishing Act: Doing Non-Straight Identity in Heterosexual Relationships Student Signature: Ahoo Tabatabai This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Annulla Linders, PhD Annulla Linders, PhD Rhys Williams, PhD Rhys Williams, PhD Steven Carlton-Ford, PhD Steven Carlton-Ford, PhD 4/26/2010 398 VANISHING ACT: DOING NON-STRAIGHT IDENTITY IN HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School at the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) In the Department of Sociology McMicken College of Arts and Sciences 2010 By Ahoo Tabatabai B.A., University of Cincinnati M.A., University of Cincinnati Dissertation Committee: Dr. Annulla Linders (Chair) Dr. Steve Carlton-Ford Dr. Rhys H. Williams Dr. Erynn de Casanova (Reader) ABSTRACT This research examines how women who experience a change to a partner of a different gender, use categories of gender, sexual identity, and sexual orientation to make sense of this shift both to themselves and to others. Specifically, the study draws on interviews conducted with self-identified lesbian, bisexual and queer women who have moved from relationships with female partners to relationships with male partners. Examining the stories people tell about their sexual selves provides not only an understanding of individuals’ sense of who they are, but also the ways in which a given culture organizes sexuality. In examining how women use and negotiate sexual identity categories, this research contributes to scholarship concerned with the ways in which sexual identity categories are shaped and become powerful forces in shaping people’s lives. Far from considering sexuality a dichotomous system of classification, with exclusive categories such as heterosexual and homosexual, recent scholarship has emphasized how individuals navigate sexual identity categories and engage in behavior that defy simple and dichotomous classification schemes. Despite this shift towards a more fluid understanding of identity, sexuality scholars have for the most part neglected to examine movement between or across sexual identity categories. This is so especially true regarding individuals who transition from marked to unmarked identity categories. After having lived most of their lives within a “marked” category (lesbian, queer, bisexual) the women interviewed for this study suddenly found themselves in an “unmarked” category (straight or heterosexual) once they entered into relationships with men. Far from experiencing this transition as a relief, as might be expected, the invisibility associated with being unmarked was neither expected nor welcome. In fact, it brought a sense of discomfort. Many tried to renegotiate a marked identity for themselves: one that was ii different from their previous lesbian identity. The stories of lesbians who begin relationships with men therefore inform us about how individuals navigate issues of belonging and the embodiment of desire, and how they connect identity and community. In short, their narratives of change to a partner of a different gender are a powerful way of “doing” their non-straight identities. iii Copyright, 2010 Ahoo Tabatabai iv FOR SHANE AND OUR TEAM v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When I was 7 years old, my parents bought me a desk. It was the biggest piece of furniture in my bedroom. Although I could have easily used the space underneath it for an awesome hiding spot during a good game of hide and seek, I never did. My desk was a place where I felt like I was a grown-up. The purchase of the desk was one of the many ways that my parents showed me how much they valued education. I thank my parents, Zhaleh Gharibi and Mousa Gargari, for providing me with opportunities (and desks) that made this endeavor possible. I thank my mother specially, who gave birth to me twice: once when I was born and a second time when my son was born. A friend once told me that a whole family gets a PhD, not an individual. I thank my favorite human, my partner Shane for being the best teammate, in every sense of the word, not only for helping me think out my half-formulated ideas, but for keeping me fed physically and emotionally, and for making me a better person than I thought I could be. I would like to thank Dr. Anna Linders for her guidance, encouragement and mentorship and for her generous support of me and my work. I will always cherish the times we spend working over “theoretical puzzles.” I would like to thank Dr. Steve Carlton-Ford for his guidance and support and for presenting me with opportunities that enriched my academic life and beyond. I would like to thank Dr. Rhys Williams and Dr. Erynn de Casanova for their critical insight and their encouragement of this project. My sincere thanks also go to Dr. Jennifer Malat and Dr. Sarah-Beth Estes for their support. I would like to thank Linda Kocher, Cheryl Lindsey and Kim Raterman and the entire sociology department faculty and staff whose investment in my success sustained me over the years. For all the soul-satisfying conversations, discussions, musings, meals, drinks, music, coffee breaks, walks, art, parties, support and love, I thank my family and friends: Aaron Howell, Aidin Gargari, Alan Wight, Azadeh Namakydoust, Behrod Hosseinzadeh, Betty Johnson, Brian Bresser, Francine Black, Jackie Elcik, Jaime McCauley, Jen Ridenour, Joe Michael, Julie Hilvers, Letitia Karrupan, Lisa Link, Marcy Cameron, Melodie Fickenscher, Micah Holland, Molly Seifert, Sarah Montpetit. Sharon Johnson, Stephanie Carson, Stephan Groschwitz, and Unkyong Ho. This brief mention is in no way the extent of my gratitude. Thank you for making my life more beautiful. Without the generous participation of the women who agreed to be interviewed, this project would have not been possible. I thank each of them for their time, honesty, and willingness to give of themselves. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….........1 I. Theoretical Framework………………….…………………………………..6 II. Research Questions and Design……………………………………………17 III. Limitations………………………………………………………….......….22 2. Stories…………...…………………………..…………………………………23 I. Classic Coming-Out…………………….………………………………….25 II. The Phase…………………………………………………………………..29 III. Just Happened…………………………………………….………………..32 IV. Big Event….……………………………………………………………….35 V. Biology.………………………………………………………………….…38 VI. Conversion……….………………………………………………………...41 VII. Gender-Blind ………………………………………………………………43 VIII. Love Script ………………………………………………………………...47 IX. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………...49 3. Appearance……………………………………………………………………51 I. Sex/Gender/Desire/Dress ………………………………………………….53 II. Appearance and LGBQ Identities …………………………………………54 III. Dress and Change.…………………………………………………………55 IV. What Happens to Appearance.………………………………...…………...56 V. No Change ………………………………………………………………...57 VI. Male partners.……………………………………………………………...68 VII. Presence of Child..…………………………………………………………71 VIII. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………...73 4. Not Bisexual...…………………………………………………………………74 I. Sex, Gender and Sexuality…………………………………………………77 II. Authenticity...………………………………………………………………81 III. Essentialism and Identity..…………………………………………………88 IV. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………97 5. Not Lesbian..………………………….………………………………………99 I. Investment in Identity ……………………………………………………100 II. Self-Labeling.………………………………………………………….…104 III. Public Spaces.………………………………………………………….…109 IV. Commitment and Salience.……………………………………….………111 V. Postmodernity ……………………………………………………………112 VI. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….113 6. Not Straight …………………………………………………………………115 I. Heteronormativity...………………………………………………………115 II. Straight……………………………………………………………………119 vii III. Not Straight….……………………………………………………………122 IV. Attraction....………………………………………………………………126 V. Challenging Assumptions…...……………………………………………129 VI. Challenging Homophobia…...……………………………………………130 VII. If Asked……………………...……………………………………………134 VIII. Telling…..………………...………………………………………………136 1. Who to Tell..……………………………………………………136 2. How to Tell..……………………………………………………139 IX. Not Telling..………………………………………………………………142 X. Marriage…..………………………………………………………………150 XI. Why not straight…..………………………………………………………157 7. Summery and Conclusion.………………………………….………………162 I. Substance and Story-Telling...……………………………………………163 II. Authenticity and Intelligibility.…………………………………………...172 III. Fluidity……………………………………………………………………174 8. Appendices 1. Bibliography……………………………………………………178 2. Participants …………………………………………………….189 3. Interview Prompt ………………………………………………190 4. Call for participants…………………………………………….192 viii Vanishing Act Tabatabai CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION It was some years ago when a friend came up to me at a party and asked if I had heard that our mutual friend, Jessica, had “Anne Heched”. Jessica, who was one of the 5 or 6 lesbians with whom we hung out on campus, had started dating a man. Although it had not been very long since any of us had been out, the possibility that one of our friends could so dramatically change what we understood as who she was as a person left us bewildered and confused. Who could be next? Many people both within the LGBTQ community, and outside, seem to have similar stories. Everyone seems to know someone who has deserted. Examining stories people tell about their sexual selves allows not only an understanding of individuals’ sense of