See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328865029
“I’m Being told on Sunday Mornings that There’s Nothing Wrong with Me”:
Lesbian’s Experiences in an LGBTQ-Oriented Religious Leisure Space
Article in Leisure Sciences · November 2018
DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2018.1491354
CITATIONS
READS
3
172
3 authors, including:
Carla Barbosa
Toni Liechty
University of Regina
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
4 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
63 PUBLICATIONS 780 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Investigation of the Elements of a Physically Active Leisure Program that Encourages Participation by Older Adults: A Case Study View project
Physical Activity in Later Life: Social Cognitive Factors View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Toni Liechty on 14 August 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Leisure Sciences
An Interdisciplinary Journal
ISSN: 0149-0400 (Print) 1521-0588 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20
“I’m Being told on Sunday Mornings that There’s
Nothing Wrong with Me”: Lesbian’s Experiences in
an LGBTQ-Oriented Religious Leisure Space
Carla Barbosa, Nuno F. Ribeiro & Toni Liechty
To cite this article: Carla Barbosa, Nuno F. Ribeiro & Toni Liechty (2018): “I’m Being told on
Sunday Mornings that There’s Nothing Wrong with Me”: Lesbian’s Experiences in an LGBTQOriented Religious Leisure Space, Leisure Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2018.1491354
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2018.1491354
Published online: 10 Nov 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 87
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulsc20
LEISURE SCIENCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2018.1491354
“I’m Being Told on Sunday Mornings That There’s
Nothing Wrong with Me”: Lesbian’s Experiences
in an LGBTQ-Oriented Religious Leisure Space
Carla Barbosaa, Nuno F. Ribeirob, and Toni Liechtyb
a
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; bUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Champaign, IL, USA
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Research has suggested that some leisure spaces can be unwelcoming for those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) while other
leisure spaces can provide an important oasis for LGB individuals
to escape homophobia and heterosexism. Leisure research, however,
has yet to explore religious spaces as a context for leisure among
LGB people. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of a group of lesbians who attended an LGBTQ-oriented church
as a source of leisure and investigate the meanings they associated
with this unique space. Data collection consisted of individual
interviews with seven women who were members of the church.
Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed
thematically. The findings suggested that the church provided a
space in which the women could find increased opportunities for
leisure activities, build a strong community, experience emotional
healing and spiritual expression, and address institutionalized and
internalized homophobia.
Received 6 January 2018
Accepted 18 May 2018
KEYWORDS
Church; geography; sexual
orientation; Women’s Leisure
Introduction
Contemporary feminist researchers have argued that leisure and leisure spaces are
gendered, contributing to different opportunities, outcomes, and constraints based
on gender and sexual orientation (e.g., Henderson & Shaw, 2006; Pilcher, 2011). For
example, scholars argue that the gendered nature of public spaces can affect women’s
leisure experiences as they negotiate concerns related to safety, power, and gender
expression (Jordan & Aitchison, 2008; Lewis & Johnson, 2011). Scholars have also
highlighted the need to account for diverse experiences among women, because social
markers can lead to different lived experiences. Lesbians, specifically, face unique
constraints due to the potential for homophobia and heterosexism (Pritchard, Morgan,
& Sedgley, 2002; Taylor, 2007). Leisure spaces can present a particular challenge for
lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals due to heteronormativity (the assumption
that heterosexuality is “normal”). Kivel and Johnson (2013) have argued that because
the dominant societal presumption is that a given individual and a given space is
CONTACT Toni Liechty
tliechty@illinois.edu
Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, 104 Huff Hall 1206 S. Fourth Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.
ß 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
heterosexual, “LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people continuously
engage in processes of ‘coming out’” (p. 445). The stress of continually expressing or
concealing sexual identity lead some to feel unsafe in leisure spaces. Similarly, fear of
experiencing homophobia can lead LGB individuals to avoid certain leisure spaces
altogether (Myrdahl, 2011; Nusser & Anacker, 2013).
Constrained access to leisure spaces is concerning because leisure spaces often
provide opportunities for personal benefits. For example, leisure is an important means
of developing spirituality (Heintzman, 2009; Sehlikoglu & Karakas, 2016). In fact, based
on the body of literature documenting connections among leisure, spirituality, and
stress coping, Heintzman (2008) proposed the leisure-spiritual coping model to help
professionals use leisure as a site where individuals can connect with spirituality and
thereby cope with stress. Unfortunately, due to homophobia, many LGB individuals feel
alienated from spiritual places such as churches (Valentine, Vanderbeck, Sadgrove, &
Andersson, 2013). The provision of leisure in LGBTQ-oriented environments can be an
important tool to help LGB individuals connect with other same-sex-attracted people,
experience meaningful leisure, and cope with marginalization and stress (Iwasaki &
Ristock, 2004; Lea, De Wit, & Reynolds, 2015; Mock & Hummel, 2012).
Currently, there is limited leisure research exploring the unique experiences of LGB
people in leisure spaces. Also, studies often combine lesbians and gay men in the same
sample, yet lesbians and gay men likely have different leisure experiences. Furthermore,
no leisure research has explored religious settings as a leisure space for lesbians.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of lesbians
who attend an LGBTQ-oriented church as a source of leisure and the meanings they
associated with this space. Because there is disagreement about how the term lesbian
should be defined based on sexual behavior (Diamond, 2013), for the purposes of this
study we narrowed the focus to women who self-identified as lesbian or women who
self-identified as bi-sexual and were in a same-sex relationship.
Literature review
In 2011, Caudwell and Browne stated that “leisure is fundamental to understanding
contemporary sexual and gendered identities, lives, and communities. These identities,
lives and communities are inherently spacialized” (p. 117). These comments preceded
a special issue of Leisure Studies on “sexy spaces” exploring the nexus of geography,
sexuality, and leisure. Although research has yet to explore the meanings of religious
spaces as leisure for lesbians, recent research has increasingly explored the connections
among sexual orientation, leisure, and geography. To provide context for the current
findings, we review literature related to (a) leisure spaces for lesbians, (b) LGB individuals and religious spaces, and (c) the leisure-spiritual coping model, which provided
a conceptual framework for this study.
Leisure spaces for lesbians
In recent decades, feminist geographers have established that gender and sexuality shape
our relationships with physical spaces (e.g., Domosh & Seager, 2016; Valentine, 2013).
LEISURE SCIENCES
3
For example, some scholars have argued that social expectations associated with feminine and masculine behavior have historically pushed women and LGB individuals
toward private spaces and reduced their autonomy and legitimacy in public spaces
(Aitchison, 2013; Browne & Brown, 2016; Duncan, 1996). Sexual orientation is also
connected to the public/private space dichotomy and plays an important role in our
experiences with spaces (Valentine, 1996) and with leisure (Robinett, 2014). There is
a socially accepted discourse that sexuality should be restricted to private spaces
(Duncan, 1996) and a social belief that urban spaces should be asexual or heterosexual
(Browne & Brown, 2016; Valentine, 1996). This discourse has been used to justify
homophobia and violence against gays and lesbians (Gough, 2002; Valentine & Waite,
2012). However, heterosexuality is often reinforced in public spaces (Salo, Ribas, Lopes,
& Zamboni, 2010). Expressions of heterosexual life (e.g., couples holding hands or
kissing) are so frequent that they become naturalized and invisible (Dolance, 2005;
Myrdahl, 2011). This leads to restricted use of public spaces by LGB individuals, who
are more likely than heterosexual individuals to create ghettos, to socialize in friends’
houses rather than in public spaces, and to constantly monitor their behavior when
interacting in public spaces (Myrdahl, 2011; Oakleaf, 2013).
Research has shown that the lack of safe spaces for LGB individuals influences the
way they create bonds with places as well as their choices in leisure (Mock & Hummel,
2012; Pritchard et al., 2002; Taylor, 2007). Rather than choosing leisure spaces and
leisure activities based on personal interests, LGB individuals tend to focus on socializing in “gay-friendly” spaces where they can avoid experiences with homophobia. These
spatial constraints affect how they develop identity (Kivel & Kleiber, 2000), how they
meet friends or romantic partners (Valentine, 1993), how they build community and
a social support system (Taylor, 2007), and how they develop their faith (Valentine,
2013). The scarcity of safe leisure spaces for lesbians specifically can affect the construction of their identity as women and as lesbians (Kivel & Johnson, 2013; Kivel & Kleiber,
2000). Valentine (1993) argues that lesbians usually have a limited number of places
in which they can socialize with other lesbians, which creates differences from how
heterosexual women (and men) establish friendships. Some authors have discussed the
utilization of gay (male) environments by lesbians and argued that lesbians are not
particularly welcomed in such spaces (Ferreira, 2011; Pritchard et al., 2002; Taylor,
2007). Pritchard et al. (2002) suggest that when studying experiences of leisure spaces,
“homosexuals” should not be understood as a homogenous group.
LGB individuals and religious spaces
Churches or other religious settings are one type of public space that present inherent
challenges for LGB individuals (Barnes & Meyer, 2012; Tuthill, 2016). Scholars have
found that negative attitudes toward homosexuality generally prevail within mainstream
religious settings and that these negative attitudes are often internalized by LGB individuals (referred to as internalized homophobia), leading to psychological distress such
as depression (Crowell, Galliher, Dehlin, & Bradshaw, 2015; Sowe, Brown, & Taylor,
2014). LGB young adults who mature in religious contexts are more likely to have
chronic suicidal thoughts and attempt suicide due to internalized homophobia and
4
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
personal conflict between religious and sexual identity (Gibbs & Goldbach, 2015). Many
LGB individuals negotiate religious homophobia by dissociating from religious
communities and churches; however, others seek to reconcile their sexual orientation
with their faith (Beagan & Hattie, 2015; Miller & Stack, 2014). Foster, Bowland, and
Vosler (2015) have argued that for religious gays and lesbians, addressing the incongruence between sexual orientation and faith through some form of integration can be
valuable for building resilience and improving mental health. Participants in their
study did so by finding religious communities that were either affirming (i.e., actively
welcoming to LGBTQ individuals) or “safe enough” and by reworking their theological
beliefs. Some participants also found empowerment by advocating for social justice
within their church communities.
For LGB individuals who are seeking to reconcile their faith and sexual identity, safe
religious spaces and communities are vital. Some research has suggested that affirming
religious settings are less likely to lead to internalized homophobia than those that
are nonaffirming (Barnes & Meyer, 2012). In fact, scholars have suggested that different
parishes can function as “micropublics” with unique doctrinal views and unique
interactions between individuals of different sexual orientations (Andersson,
Vanderbeck, Valentine, Ward, & Sadgrove, 2011). Religious spaces that provide high
levels of social support from the congregation, challenge homophobia, and resist notions
of homosexual sin are ideal for increasing inclusion of LGB members (McQueeney,
2009; Brennan-Ing, Seidel, Larson, & Karpiak, 2013). In a case study of a metropolitan
area, Nusser and Anacker (2013) explored “queer space” and found that, in contrast to
LGBTQ-oriented bars, LGBTQ-oriented churches represented a safe, inexpensive civic
space for LGBTQ communities to build social connections, access resources, and engage
in community organizing. Participants in the study reported that the institution of the
church increased their sense of safety in the space compared with other buildings, and
that they valued the boundaries of the church which defined a space in which they
could feel relaxed and respected without hiding their sexual identity. Interestingly,
participants in this study described the church space as serving purposes beyond
worship/spiritual practices such as social gatherings and other leisure activities.
Conceptual framework: Leisure-spiritual coping
Many leisure scholars have argued that leisure can be closely connected to spirituality
(e.g., Iwasaki, Messina, Shank, & Coyle, 2015; Schmidt & Little, 2007). In 2008,
Heintzman proposed a model of leisure-spiritual coping, which suggests that just as
some individuals find benefits through general spiritual resources (e.g., connection to a
higher power, belonging to a faith community, spiritual practices) and develop coping
strategies through leisure (e.g., self-determination, social support, empowerment), these
benefits and sources of coping also may be enhanced by recognizing the connection
between leisure and spirituality. The conceptual model provides not only a framework
for scholarly research, but according to Heintzman, also:
… may be used by therapeutic recreation and leisure services practitioners as they work
with people experiencing stress due to a variety of personal and or structural stressors
including disability, chronic illness, discrimination, marginalization, poverty, or other
LEISURE SCIENCES
5
challenges. The model may be used to enable persons to transcend life challenges and to
enhance their quality of life. (pp. 57–58)
To understand the connection among leisure, spirituality and coping, the model takes
into account several individual traits, behaviors, and experiences. First, it considers
spiritual appraisal or how a person attributes causal attributions (e.g., attributing a negative event to God’s will may provide a sense of justice in the world). Second, the model
considers personal factors such as religious denomination and worldviews as personal
beliefs that are often intertwined with religious doctrine and may be tied to a sense of
identity and culture. Next, the model considers leisure-spiritual coping behavior, which
might include organized religious activity such as attending worship services or volunteering with a religious organization, private spiritual practices such as prayer or reading
sacred texts, and nontraditional spiritual practices such as spiritually based relaxation or
spending time in nature. Finally, the model explores leisure spiritual resources (e.g.,
connections to nature, social support, or a transcendent other) and leisure-spiritual
meaning making (e.g., viewing stressful situations as opportunities for growth).
There has been an increase in the research into the leisure-spiritual coping model
and into overall connections between leisure and spirituality; however, existing literature
is still limited. Studies have explored experiences of spirituality in many leisure contexts,
such as travel, music, physical activity, and nature-based recreation (e.g., Harmon &
Dox, 2016; Heintzman, 2009; Parry, 2009). Interestingly, however, little research has
explored spirituality in specifically religious places, such as churches, from a leisure
perspective. Religious spaces (e.g., churches, sacred sites) can serve as both a site of
spiritual expression and as a source of leisure. Religious spaces serve as sources of
leisure when parishioners define church attendance as leisure, when religious organizations host festivals or other social gatherings, and when religious heritage attractions
provide opportunities for tourism (McCormick & McGuire, 1996; Timothy & Olsen,
2006). In these instances, rather than a leisure activity (e.g., hiking or wildlife viewing)
providing a sense of spirituality for an individual, the leisure activity is inherently tied to
religious organizations, beliefs, and structures. For example, Barnett, Weber, and others
(2009) studied parents’ perceptions of the benefits of faith-based recreation programs for
their children. The results suggested that parents perceived faith-based recreation participation to have contributed to religious and spiritual development as well as other desired
characteristics, such as social and physical development, family bonding, and character
development. Overall, however, few leisure scholars have explored religious spaces as
sources of leisure.
Research questions
Despite increased research into leisure among LGB individuals, there are still gaps
in the existing literature. Within the leisure literature, sexual orientation and space have
been discussed in the context of gay bars, music festivals, sport sites, gay neighborhoods, and LGBTQ-oriented tourism (e.g., Dolance, 2005; Eder, Staggenborg, &
Sudderth, 1995; Gilmartin, 1996; Mock & Hummel, 2012; Myrdahl, 2011; Pritchard et al.,
2002; Taylor, 2007). However, there has been limited research exploring sexual orientation
in the context of religious leisure spaces and little investigating the experiences of lesbians
6
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
specifically. To address these gaps, this study explored the experiences of lesbians
who attended an LGBTQ-oriented church in eastern Canada and the meanings they
attributed to this leisure space. Specific research questions included: (1) How, if at all,
do lesbians experience an LGBTQ-oriented church as a source of leisure? (2) Why do
they chose to attend this church? (3) What characteristics of this church would they
like to see in other leisure spaces?
Methods
This research was conducted using a qualitative approach to provide an emic (insider)
perspective of women who attended the church (Creswell, 2014). We used what
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) refer to as a “basic qualitative study,” which is based on the
constructivist perspective that meaning is not inherent to objects or activities, but rather
that meanings are constructed by individuals as they interact with their social worlds.
This type of study aims to explore “(1) how people interpret their experiences, (2) how
they construct their worlds, and (3) what meaning they attribute to their experiences”
(p. 24). This study was somewhat unique in that the first author was a member of the
population being studied (e.g., church members), which can improve access to and
rapport with participants as well as insight related to the phenomenon (Genoe &
Liechty, 2016). Being a member of the population under study, however, also presents
challenges to ensuring the range of participants’ experiences are acknowledged. To
address these challenges, the first author engaged in reflexive journaling throughout the
study to record her own position, viewpoints, and experiences (Dupuis, 1999; Genoe &
Liechty, 2016).
The church
The study took place among members of an LGTBQ-oriented church in eastern
Canada. This congregation was founded by members of the LGBTQ community and
was designed to focus specifically on the needs of LGBTQ people. Church services were
Christian and loosely based on Catholic practices; however, the church welcomed
attendees from all faiths. The church was run mainly by LGBTQ clergy and staff and
the majority of parishioners were also LGBTQ. Participants in the study referred to the
church as “straight-friendly” to highlight the fact that, in contrast to churches labeled
as “gay-friendly,” the majority of members were LGBTQ, but they welcomed people
of all sexual orientations. In addition to providing Sunday morning worship services,
the church offered several other services and activities for members, including social
activities and counseling for mental health concerns. The church regularly organized
opportunities for members to participate in cultural or community events (e.g.,
educational/spiritual lectures, walking in the city’s gay pride parade). The church also
put on an annual women’s retreat, which was a weekend-long event held every winter
in a rural area and featured activities that had both spiritual and social/fun emphases.
For the purpose of this study, the church was assigned the pseudonym Christian Hope
Revival (CHR).
LEISURE SCIENCES
7
Participants
Participants were delimited to women who attended the church and who self-identified
as lesbian or as bi-sexual in a lesbian relationship. The sample was limited to lesbians
to narrow the scope of the study and because lesbians are likely to have different
experiences from gay men. Based on the first author’s experiences with the church and
preliminary conversations with some members, we expected that participants would
view attending the church as a leisure activity. However, to ensure that this was the
case, we asked participants to discuss this topic early in each interview. All participants
agreed it was. Initially, three women were invited to participate who were selected
because of their strong connections within the church; two belonged to the church
choir; and the third was on the committee which organized social activities such
as retreats, camping, and dance nights. As a member of the church, the first author
had established rapport with these three women, which was valuable when recruiting
participants to discuss a sensitive topic. Each participant was sent an email invitation
explaining the purpose of the research. Each of these three women participated and sent
the recruitment email to other potential participants. Purposive snowball sampling was
used to recruit participants who represented a range of characteristics relevant to
the topic, including age, socio-economic status, level of religious involvement, and
relationship status.
Ultimately, the sample included seven women ages 31–65. In providing demographic
information, identities were based exclusively on what was reported by participants.
All seven women identified as Caucasian and as cisgender. Six identified as lesbians
and one as bisexual. One participant who identified as lesbian was married to a man
(she came out later in life and preferred not to get a divorce). The other six were in
relationships with women. Two were divorced (one from a man and one from a woman).
Participants identified as “Christian” (2), “Anglican” (1), “Christian from the United
[Church]” (1), “Evangelic Christian” (1), and agnostic (2). One participant had two
children, one had five, and the others did not have children. Although participants were
not asked about disability status, one participant identified herself as having a physical
disability. Two participants sang in the choir and three others volunteered by making
coffee for social events or organizing the women’s retreat. Three women attended church
at least three times a month and the other four attended less frequently.
Data collection
Data were collected using in-depth semi-structured interviews, which lasted roughly
60 minutes and were conducted in a location chosen by the participant (e.g., restaurant,
participant’s home). An interview guide facilitated the discussion; however, interviews
were flexible to maintain a conversational tone and allow the researcher to ask probing
questions. Participants were asked if they viewed the church as a leisure space and if
they considered attending the church to be a leisure activity. All participants responded
in the affirmative (although with diverse nuances) and were then asked to expand on
their responses in terms of their views of the church as leisure. Participants were also
asked to describe their perceptions of and experiences with the church, including why
they choose to attend and what they saw as strengths and weaknesses of the church.
8
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
All interviews were conducted by the first author due to her rapport with the participants and status as a lesbian, which helped to facilitate open discussion. The interviews
were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were conducted until
saturation was reached. This was determined by concurrently conducting data analysis
and data collection until “continued data collection produce[d] no new information
or insights” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 199). To protect confidentiality, pseudonyms
were assigned to all participants. The study protocol was approved by the Research
Ethics Board at the institution of the first author.
Data analysis
Data analysis followed Szklarski’s (2007) general steps: listing, reduction, elimination,
and hypothetical identification. First, all interviews were read and re-read to get a sense
of the lived experience as a whole (van Manen, 1990). Then, each sentence was read to
understand what was being described about the phenomenon and key statements were
underlined. During the reading, emerging themes were noted in the margins of the
transcripts and labels were used to summarize the passages’ major message. Next,
emerging themes were compared across interviews to find commonalities, repetitions,
and differences. Similar statements were grouped together and repetitions of similar
statements were eliminated. Finally, overall themes that occurred constantly and best
described the lived experience were identified. Although the authors were familiar
with the leisure-spiritual coping model prior to undertaking the study, it was not used
as an a priori framework for data analysis.
Trustworthiness
To improve trustworthiness, regular debriefing and note-taking were used throughout
the research process (Creswell, 2014). In addition, transcripts were returned to the
participants so they could verify their accuracy and provide additional insights to
complement or clarify. Throughout, the first author maintained a reflexive journal to
consider her position as a researcher and her connection to the study (Dupuis, 1999).
This involved writing about thoughts, impressions, and emotions following each
interview as well as writing about her individual position as a researcher, a professional,
a lesbian, and a person of faith (Genoe & Liechty, 2016). Finally, member checks were
conducted in which a summary of the findings was shared with participants, and they
were asked to confirm they were accurately represented. Participants agreed with the
findings and expressed appreciation at the opportunity to share their stories.
Findings
To most effectively address the purpose of the study, from the outset the authors chose
to explore the church as a leisure space rather than only as a religious place. During the
data collection, participants agreed that they viewed the church as a source of leisure
where they came for enjoyment, friendship, and socialization. However, participants
also described their leisure experiences within the church as connected to spirituality.
LEISURE SCIENCES
9
Data analysis produced four overarching themes related to the church as a leisure space.
The findings suggested that the church provided a space for: (a) increased opportunities
for leisure engagement; (b) community building; (c) emotional healing and spiritual
expression; and (d) addressing institutionalized and internalized homophobia.
Increased opportunities for leisure
Participants had different ideas about the definition of leisure and how the church fit
into their understandings of leisure spaces and leisure activities. However, they generally
agreed that the church was an important place for them to learn about and have access
to leisure opportunities with people they met at the church. They mentioned activities
such as the Annual Women’s Retreat, community meals on religious holidays, women’s
dance nights, and card games as examples of leisure opportunities facilitated by
the church.
Participants discussed leisure activities that happened both inside and outside the
church building. This distinction was noteworthy because some participants felt conflicted in regard to what was appropriate inside the church perimeter. For example,
Lauren (65), who struggled with high levels of internalized homophobia related to her
family, mentioned that she felt somehow protected when attending leisure activities
within the church building. She explained:
It is because it is a church and church, to me, is some place that is pure and good and
loving and that is what I feel when I am there, but I don’t necessarily feel that even if I am
with the same people in another space. It has to do with being in church. When I went to
that first women’s dance, the only reason why I could feel even remotely comfortable …
was that I kept thinking: “okay, you are in a church.” That was going through my mind:
“this isn’t bad, you are in a church.”
Because Lauren felt guilty when socializing with LGBTQ individuals in other spaces,
the church was meaningful because it was a place where she could “let go of the guilt”
and just enjoy herself, exploring nuances of her identity as a lesbian. Her sense of
entitlement to that space was linked to religious and/or cultural beliefs about church as
an institution. In contrast, Corinne (53) described feeling uncomfortable using the
church for activities that promoted romantic interaction between participants.
I once went to a women’s dance at the church and that was sort of a leisure thing. I was
uncomfortable … It just didn’t feel right to me. You see women kind of trying to pick
each other up and then you look over there and you see a crucifix on the wall … It just
seemed a little out of perspective … So I wasn’t particularly comfortable in the church
with that particular leisure activity.
It is worth noting that these two women had very different levels of sexual identity
concealment. Lauren, even though she had come out to some family members and
friends, was still very much closeted. Corinne, however, described herself as “completely
out” and had strong ties with the LGBTQ community outside of the church. Because
they had different access and sense of entitlement to lesbian spaces, their attachment to
the church as a place had different nuances.
The women’s retreat was mentioned by most participants as an effective way to
strengthen their relationships with other lesbians and make new friends and acquaintances
10
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
beyond brief interactions on Sunday mornings. The retreat took place outside of the
church building and included both spiritually focused and leisure-focused activities.
This event was described as meaningful because it allowed these women to increase
their social network while having a good time in a safe environment. Indeed, most of
their narratives about friends and the role the church had in their leisure lives started
with “after I went to the retreat, I made new friends and” everything grew from there.
In addition to activities that were organized by the church, participants emphasized
that, because they developed friendships within the church community, they often
organized leisure activities with these friends (e.g., meals, movie nights, birthday parties,
trips, walks). This highlighted the relevance of the church as a significant source of
friendship and, consequently, of leisure activities with other LGBTQ individuals. These
friendships and leisure activities became independent from CHR, but the church was
a crucial starting point.
Community building
One of the most recurrent aspects described by participants as responsible for their
attachment to this church was the opportunity to build community in an inclusive
environment. The participants often mentioned that they appreciated the diversity they
saw within the church membership in regard to sexual orientation (heterosexual,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and asexual), gender identity (female, male, cisgender, transgender,
butch, femme), age, race, ethnic background, marital and parental status, and level of
education. Participants valued belonging to such a diverse and accepting community.
Participants defined community according to a range of factors, such as a place with
likeminded people where friendships start and are developed based on commonalities, as
described by Bree (53): “If you go to our church, you hopefully know that that person
beside you is queer and that they have a spiritual element with their life. So right there,
you have a good place to start [a friendship].” Some participants also described community as a strong support system in which they could find help with life challenges. Ashley
(31), for example, mentioned the depression support group associated with the church.
“I know a lot of people who we’ve brought to church, they’re like ‘oh my god, you guys
have a depression group?’ If they’re coming from another church, other churches aren’t
so open about saying the word depression.” Ashley argued that open discussion about
mental health allowed people to better connect and find support within the community.
Participants felt that the church provided a space for building community which was
different from other LGBTQ-oriented spaces. Tatyana (45) described the church
as special because it offered an environment where LGBTQ people could build a community not based on unhealthy habits or activities. She explained:
I live [in a gay neighborhood]. When I walk down the street I see the same people every
day and they’re like, standing in front of the bar and smoking cigarettes and drinking all
day … and I worry about them. They [CHR] are so far removed from that … That doesn’t
have to be our fate anymore, there’s something else, there’s another place to be and a place
to be gay other than a bar. So I really appreciate that.
Focusing on a more philosophical aspect, Corinne (53) described the differences
between the church community and a social group she also belonged to outside of
the church.
LEISURE SCIENCES
11
[W]hen people come to the [social group] … they have a lot of fear and anxiety whereas,
I think, when people go to church, even if they bring that with them, it gets dispelled
more easily because there’s an expectation that we’re a place to deal with that fear … at
the church, there’s more of a sense of expectation, like the David and Goliath stories.
There’s an expectancy of overcoming those things.
For participants, the church provided a place where individuals could find support
and build up strength through community and spirituality. They emphasized, however,
that they did not find such support in “regular” churches or even in “gay-friendly”
churches. According to them, it was highly empowering to belong to a church that
didn’t simply “tolerate” LGBTQ individuals, but one that focused on the unique
elements of their lives, acknowledging their struggles and their desire to fully belong.
Participants’ sense of community was linked to feelings of support and, because of their
individual experiences with discrimination in other spaces, they greatly valued feeling
included and welcome in this place.
Emotional healing and spiritual expression
When asked about motivations for attending the church, participants frequently mentioned the opportunity for emotional healing and spiritual expression. The women
described the church as a place where they allowed themselves to be vulnerable, which
led to emotional healing, as explained by Corinne (53):
[The main reason to attend this church would be] the opportunity to cry. It sounds kind
of ridiculous to put it that way, but it’s what that represents. It’s that time for selfreflection and I also find a lot of the sermons very meaningful … it’s thought-provoking
and I often learn things I didn’t know, which I really like.
Similarly, Lauren (65) who described herself as “very private person” who would
“never cry in public” highlighted “emotional healing” as a value of attending this
church. She described her first time at the church saying “as soon as the music started,
I started to cry. I cried for the full hour of the service.” For Lauren, and other women
in this study, “being able to cry” represented the freedom to publicly acknowledge that
she was in pain without having to conceal her feelings. It also represented the joy and
relief of finally having a safe and supportive environment to shelter these tears. A place
where being gay was not only “forgiven,” but celebrated, which was described as
“very powerful.”
Participants emphasized that emotional healing and spiritual expression were facilitated by the fact that CHR welcomed people from all spiritual backgrounds. Pamela
(37) explained that there were parishioners who were “Muslim or Jewish or no religion”
who came for both the spiritual and social experience, and Emma (37) remarked that
CHR “believes that there are many paths to God, which is not something that most
churches believe.” Freedom of religion was particularly important as some participants
described having to reconcile with religion in order to fully enjoy their experience
at this church. For example, Tatyana (45) explained:
I wasn’t too into the Christian aspect of it and that was a thing I had to reconcile.
I checked [the church] out and … realized that they’re actually in line with my beliefs,
being progressive and inclusive. I was really happy to find it.
12
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
Participants described this church as a unique religious environment that facilitated
spirituality for those identified with various faiths as well as those who were agnostic.
Corinne, for example, explained that she saw significant differences between other environments and this church. Although she did not “subscribe to any dogma of religion,”
she still reported great levels of spiritual and emotional healing that she did not encounter
in other environments. She explained that, even though she was not a religious person
herself, religious influences from the society around her affected her emotional well-being.
Participants highlighted the importance of the church being welcoming for people with
a diverse range of religious perspectives. It was Christian, but inclusive for members of
all faiths. It had rituals, but attendees were welcome to participate or not. It had communion, but attendees did not have to be baptized to take communion. It was a spiritual
place, but many attendees joined for social reasons. These aspects were reported as meaningful and contributed to the attachment participants created with this place.
Institutionalized and internalized homophobia
The opportunity to experience leisure and community without having to counter
homophobia was the most frequently mentioned reason for attachment to this space.
Most participants explained that homophobic messages were present in their everyday
lives, although it was rarely direct hostility or confrontation. They reported selfconsciousness and constant analysis of the environment to avoid possible challenging
situations. Participants believed that they would face homophobia in many places if
they were to disclosure their identity as lesbians. This was reported as particularly true
when interacting with religious individuals. Bree (53) explained:
I’ve never had anybody saying anything negative to me [about being a lesbian]. But I do
work with some older Christian people that I know who are from the Anglican Church.
I wouldn’t go out of my way to tell them that I’m with a woman … because I know
you’re going to hit some who think that that’s just of the devil or something … So
I haven’t faced that discrimination but I know it would be there.
Some participants mentioned that homophobic discourses were linked to their development of internalized homophobia. Ashley (31), for example, mentioned that before
she started attending CHR, she “didn’t realize the layers of internalization of different
homophobic messages” being promoted in society. She described the United Church
she attended in her youth as “accepting, inclusive, and progressive.” However, going to
a church that “mentions and acknowledges it being a safe space for queer people” made
her realize that her previous church was, in fact, silent about possible struggles their
LGBTQ members faced. The church’s silence delivered the message that she also should
avoid talking about her homosexuality, thus developing her internalized homophobia.
Through positive messages about homosexuality, CHR helped participants cope with
stress caused by homophobic discourses. Participants highlighted the meaning of having
positive reinforcement about their sexual orientation as something ‘normal.’ For
instance, Lauren (65) explained:
I am being told on Sunday mornings that there’s nothing wrong with me, that I am
a good person and being gay is not a bad thing. Being gay is not wrong and I need to hear
those things because I tell myself the opposite quite often.
LEISURE SCIENCES
13
The experience of an LGBTQ identity as being “normal” was experienced in multiple
ways. The first, which was discussed by most of the participants, was the fact that there
were more LGBTQ individuals at the church than heterosexuals. Being part of the
majority was described as positive and empowering. The second aspect, also frequently
described, was the idea of feeling “normal” meaning not abnormal or freakish, someone
ordinary. These two ideas can be observed in Bree’s (53) comment:
So it’s a very free feeling to be in a church where you can assume that most people are
probably gay. So I just feel totally comfortable there. Of course I could express anything—I
feel like I’m amongst family and definitely feel like I’m in my community.
The third aspect of “normal” reported by participants was linked to the idea of
passing as a heterosexual person or of finding commonalities with heterosexual people,
which helped some to cope with homophobia in less friendly places. For example,
Ashley (31), described:
[I]n my former job, people would be like “oh, what are you doing this weekend?” “Oh I
might go to church,” “oh, well, pray for us” as a kind of joke. But it made me feel normal
because I didn’t have a lot of things to say because I wasn’t going to be like “oh, me and
my partner are going to Niagara Falls.” I didn’t want to say anything that would be
coming out of the closet, so church is kind of a support, making me feel normal.
Another positive aspect reported by participants was the possibility of being in
a church with a same-sex partner and having their relationships respected and validated
within a spiritual community. Pamela (37) described her first days at the church saying,
“It was an amazing thing to be able to hold hands in the church or put an arm around
each other … To have communion in a community with your partner and with your
friends is quite something.”
To some degree experiences with homophobia were described by all the participants
regardless of age, religion or sexual orientation concealment. Many mentioned this
as the main reason they attributed meaning to the church. Either as a space, a community, or an activity, this place was meaningful because it made participants feel
safe, respected, valued, supported, engaged, and loved. This place allowed participants
to work on their identity as lesbians, on their faith (independent of what faith meant
to them), on their connection to others and on their acceptance of themselves;
it allowed them to find strength to cope with homophobia and peace of mind to “just
be themselves.”
Discussion
This study investigated the leisure experiences and meanings of lesbians who attended
an LGTBQ-oriented church. Along with providing organized leisure opportunities,
the church provided a space in which participants could make friends who they had
something in common with, which facilitated leisure opportunities outside the church.
The church also provided a space for community building which participants felt
created a sense of belonging, safety, and support. Finally, the church provided a safe
space where participants could reconcile sexual and spiritual identity, address internalized homophobia, and simply “feel normal.”
14
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
Community through leisure
The findings highlight social support as a key characteristic of the leisure space that
made it attractive for lesbians. Previous research has shown that even some LGBTQ-oriented spaces are not always welcoming for lesbians (Pritchard et al., 2002; Ferreira,
2011; Taylor, 2007). The findings in this study indicate, however, that this church was
a space in which lesbians felt comfortable and welcome because they perceived the
church to be accepting of diversity and because they knew the majority of people in the
church were LGBTQ. The fact that the church was run by LGBTQ individuals and
welcoming to heterosexual individuals (as opposed to run by heterosexual individuals
and welcoming of LGBTQ individuals) seemed to increase lesbians’ sense of entitlement
to that space. At CHR, the presence of heterosexual people diluted the idea of a ghetto
(Myrdahl, 2011) and, instead, promoted a sense of normality. In addition, participants’
view of the church as an institution seemed to increase their sense of being in a healthy
and socially accepted environment.
The findings support Nusser and Anacker (2013) study, by suggesting that the setting
of an LGBTQ-oriented church can create a unique space in which participants could
feel safe without concealing their sexual identity, build social connections, and access
resources. Interestingly, the findings suggest that religious spaces may be unique
to other LGBTQ-oriented spaces. Some recent research has suggested that increasingly
tolerant social attitudes, particularly in the urban Global North, and the growth of
mobile dating apps has reduced the need for LGBTQ-oriented spaces or gay neighborhoods (Browne & Brown, 2016; Lea et al., 2015). However, the current findings suggest
that even within a metropolitan Canadian city, an LGBTQ-oriented religious leisure
space provided a respite from daily stress related to fear of homophobia and an
opportunity to develop friendships and access leisure opportunities. In addition, participants felt that because the environment was not only “tolerant,” but affirming of
LGBTQ individuals, engagement with the church provided them opportunities to cope
with internalized homophobia and to reconcile their spiritual and sexual identities
(Barnes & Meyer, 2012). The church, indeed, created a “micropublic” in which
interactions with other members of the church promoted emotional healing and social
support (Andersson et al., 2011; Brennan-Ing et al., 2013; McQueeney, 2009).
Spiritual-leisure coping
Participants described the church as a resource for coping with internalized homophobia, stress and marginalization. According to Szymanski and Chung (2001) internalized
homophobia can be manifested as isolation, fear of discovery, self-hatred and shame, or
moral and religious condemnation of homosexuality, and that such feelings can be
conscious or unconscious. For some participants the moral and religious condemnation
of homosexuality was the most challenging aspect of internalized homophobia to
overcome, and attending a church that openly discussed LGBT issues helped participants address these concerns. The findings support research that has found that leisure
involvement within LGBTQ communities helps individuals who conceal parts of their
sexual identity to cope and create resistance against social prejudice (e.g., Iwasaki &
Ristock, 2004; Mock & Hummel, 2012). Mock, Plante, Reysen, and Gerbasi (2013) also
LEISURE SCIENCES
15
argued that deeper involvement in these communities helps individuals better accept
and publically embrace their identity. The findings contribute to this research by highlighting the unique elements of a religious setting.
For participants in this study, an important aspect of the church was its acceptance
and accommodation for people of diverse religious backgrounds. This supports
Heintzman’s (2008) suggestion that a model of spiritual-leisure coping should consider
an individual’s religious denomination and doctrine. In addition, participants described
spiritual-leisure coping behavior such as attending church, volunteering for the church
organization, and participating in church-sponsored social activities as important
elements of their spiritual-coping. The findings support Heintzman’s argument that
spiritual-leisure coping can be valuable in addressing stress due to structural stressors
such as discrimination and marginalization. The findings contribute to our understanding of spiritual-leisure coping by providing insight into how it is experienced by
lesbians. The findings also contribute to the model by highlighting the potential of
a strong community to facilitate spiritual-leisure coping. Heintzman’s original model
took into consideration social support as one of several important resources. The
current findings suggest that for a marginalized group such as lesbians, the development
of a long-term supportive community in which individuals feel safe may play a larger
role in their spiritual-leisure coping.
Limitations and directions for future research
The sample gathered for this study was limited to White, cisgender, Canadian born,
women between the ages of 31 and 65. Future research should explore samples with
diverse characteristics. For example, research has suggested that transgender individuals
often feel marginalized in LGBTQ-oriented spaces (Nash, 2011). More research is
needed to understand the nuanced experiences of those with diverse sexual identities. In
addition, this study indicates that spirituality can help lesbians cope with homophobia.
Further research should continue to explore other potential spiritual benefits of leisure
as well as the potential negative outcomes of religious leisure for LGBTQ individuals.
It was somewhat surprising that, although they were asked to describe both strengths and
weaknesses, participants in this study overwhelmingly described the church as a positive
environment with positive outcomes. It is possible that this attitude was due to a lack of
other similar spaces available; in other words, perhaps participants were so glad to have
this unique opportunity that they did not focus on negative aspects. However, churches
or religious environments may have negative outcomes and additional research is needed
to explore a larger sample of LGBTQ-oriented religious leisure spaces.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that the LGTBQ-oriented church provided an inclusive, safe,
supportive environment where participants could escape the fear of homophobia and
address the stress of marginalization. By discussing LGBTQ issues, providing a sense
of community and accommodating a diverse membership, the church facilitated
individuals’ reconciliation of sexual and spiritual identity, which participants described
16
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
as healing. These were the main characteristics participants saw in this space that they
would like to see in other places. Some of these characteristics are generally associated
with churches in general. The traditional understanding of church is already imbibed in
discourses of virtue, dignity, appropriateness of behavior (particularly female), and spirituality, which may be difficult to mimic in other spaces. However, some of the meanings participants’ associated with this church could potentially be recreated in other
LGTBQ-oriented spaces, allowing lesbians to have more fulfilling leisure experiences.
The findings indicated that marginalized groups can feel empowered when they have
the opportunity to socialize in mixed positive places where they are the majority and
managing the space. Leisure providers should better explore this avenue when proposing leisure programs for LGBTQ groups, as well as other minority groups.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Aitchison, C. C. (2013). Gender and leisure: Social and cultural perspectives. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Andersson, J., Vanderbeck, R. M., Valentine, G., Ward, K., & Sadgrove, J. (2011). New York
encounters: religion, sexuality, and the city. Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 618–633.
Barnes, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2012). Religious affiliation, internalized homophobia, and mental
health in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(4),
505–515.
Barnett, L. A., & Weber, J. J. (2009). Teaching children about religion, spirituality, themselves,
and others: The role of faith-based recreational activities. Leisure/Loisir, 33(1), 147–178.
Beagan, B. L., & Hattie, B. (2015). Religion, Spirituality, and LGBTQ Identity Integration. Journal
of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9(2), 92–117.
Brennan-Ing, M., Seidel, L., Larson, B., & Karpiak, S. E. (2013). “I’m Created in God’s Image,
and God Don’t Create Junk”: Religious participation and support among older GLBT adults.
Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging, 25(2), 70–92.
Browne, K., & Brown, G. (2016). An introduction to the geographies of sex and sexualities.
In G. Brown and K. Browne (Eds.), The Routledge Research Companion to Geographies of Sex
and Sexualities, (pp. 1–10), New York, NY: Routledge.
Caudwell, J., & Browne, K. (2011). Sexy spaces: Geography and leisure intersectionalities. Leisure
Studies, 30(2), 117–122.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Crowell, K. A., Galliher, R. V., Dehlin, J., & Bradshaw, W. S. (2015). Specific aspects of minority
stress associated with depression among LDS affiliated non-heterosexual adults. Journal of
Homosexuality, 62(2), 242–267.
Dolance, S. (2005). “A whole stadium full: Lesbian community at Women’s National Basketball
Association Games”. Journal of Sex Research, 42(1), 74–83.
Domosh, M., & Seager, J. (2016). Putting women in place: Feminist geographers make sense of the
world. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Duncan, N. (1996). BodySpace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. London,
UK: Routledge.
Dupuis, S. L. (1999). Naked truths: Towards a reflexive methodology in leisure research. Leisure
Sciences, 21(1), 43–64.
LEISURE SCIENCES
17
Eder, D., Staggenborg, S., & Sudderth, L. (1995). The National Women’s Music Festival:
Collective identity and diversity in a lesbian-feminist community. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 23(4), 485–515.
Ferreira, E. (2011). Geographies of (in)equalities: Space and sexual identities. In Proceedings of
Geographies of Inclusion: Challenges and Opportunities. Lisbon, Portugal: Lisboa: Faculdade de
Ci^encias Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Foster, K. A., Bowland, S. E., & Vosler, A. N. (2015). All the pain along with all the joy: Spiritual
resilience in lesbian and gay Christians. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(1-2),
191–201.
Genoe, M. R., & Liechty, T. (2016). Using our whole selves: Our experiences with reflexivity
while researching a community arts-based leisure program. Leisure/Loisir, 40(4), 469–492.
Gibbs, J. J., & Goldbach, J. (2015). Religious conflict, sexual identity, and suicidal behaviors
among LGBT young adults. Archives of Suicide Research, 19(4), 472–488.
Gilmartin, K. (1996). “We weren’t bar people”: Middle-class lesbian identities and cultural spaces.
GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 3(1), 1–51.
Gough, B. (2002). “I’ve always tolerated it but … ”: Heterosexual masculinity and the discursive
reproduction of homophobia. In Coyle, A & Kitzinger, C (Eds.), Lesbian and Gay Psychology.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Harmon, J. T., & Dox, D. (2016). Spirituality, fan culture, and the music of Jerry Joseph & the
Jackmormons. Leisure Sciences, 38(3), 268–283.
Heintzman, P. (2008). Leisure-spiritual coping: A model for therapeutic recreation and leisure
services. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 42(1), 56.
Heintzman, P. (2009). Nature-based recreation and spirituality: A complex relationship. Leisure
Sciences, 32(1), 72–89.
Henderson, K. A., & Shaw, S. M. (2006). Leisure and gender: Challenges and opportunities
for feminist research. In C. Rojek, S. M. Shaw, & A. J. Veal. (Eds.). A Handbook of Leisure
Studies (pp. 417–432). New York, NY: Palmgrave Macmillan.
Iwasaki, Y., Messina, E., Shank, J., & Coyle, C. (2015). Role of leisure in meaning-making
for community-dwelling adults with mental illness: Inspiration for engaged life. Journal of
Leisure Research, 47(5), 538.
Iwasaki, Y., & Ristock, J. (2004). Coping with stress among gays and lesbians: Implications
for human development over a lifespan. World Leisure Journal, 46(2), 26–37. ),
Jordan, F., & Aitchison, C. (2008). Tourism and the sexualisation of the gaze: Solo female
tourists’ experiences of gendered power, surveillance and embodiment. Leisure Studies,
27(3), 329–349.
Kivel, B. D., & Johnson, C. W. (2013). Activist scholarship: Fighting homophobia and heterosexism. In V. J. Freysinger, S. M. Shaw, K. A. Henderson, & M. D. Bialeschki (Eds.). Leisure,
women, and gender (pp. 439–450). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Kivel, B., & Kleiber, D. A. (2000). Leisure in the identity formation of lesbian/gay youth:
Personal, but not social. Leisure Sciences, 22(4), 215–232.
Lea, T., De Wit, J., & Reynolds, R. (2015). “Post-Gay” yet? The relevance of the lesbian and gay
scene to same-sex attracted young people in contemporary Australia. Journal of Homosexuality,
62(9), 1264–1285.
Lewis, S. T., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). “But it’s not that easy”: Negotiating (trans) gender
expressions in leisure spaces. Leisure/Loisir, 35(2), 115–132.
McCormick, B. P., & McGuire, F. (1996). Leisure in community life of older rural residents.
Leisure Sciences, 18(1), 77–93.
McQueeney, K. (2009). “We are God’s Children, Y’All:” Race, gender, and sexuality in lesbianand gay-affirming congregations. Social Problems, 56(1), 151–173.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, S. J., & Stack, K. (2014). African-American lesbian and queer women respond to
Christian-based homophobia. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10(3), 243–268.
18
C. BARBOSA ET AL.
Mock, S. E., & Hummel, E. M. (2012). Sexual minority adults at a seasonal home campground:
An examination of common, unique, and diverse leisure motivations. Leisure Sciences,
34(2), 155–171.
Mock, S. E., Plante, C. N., Reysen, S., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2013). Deeper leisure involvement
as a coping resource in a stigmatized leisure context. Leisure/Loisir, 37(2), 111–126.
Myrdahl, T. (2011). Lesbian visibility and the politics of covering in women’s basketball game
spaces. Leisure Studies, 30(2), 139–156.
Nash, C. J. (2011). Trans experiences in lesbian and queer spaces. The Canadian Geographer / Le
Geographe Canadien, 55(2), 192–207.
Nusser, S. P., & Anacker, K. B. (2013). What sexuality is this place? Building a framework for
evaluating sexualized space: The case of Kansas City, Missouri. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(2),
173–193.
Oakleaf, L. (2013). “Having to think about it all the time”: Factors affecting the identity
management strategies of residential summer camp staff who self-identify as lesbian, gay,
bisexual or transgender. Leisure/Loisir, 37(3), 251–266.
Parry, D. C. (2009). Dragon boat racing for breast cancer survivors: Leisure as a context for
spiritual outcomes. Leisure/Loisir, 33(1), 317–340.
Pilcher, K. (2011). A ‘sexy space’ for women? Heterosexual women’s experiences of a male strip
show venue. Leisure Studies, 30(2), 217–235.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Sedgley, D. (2002). In search of lesbian space? The experience of
Manchester’s gay village. Leisure Studies, 21(2), 105–123.
Robinett, J. (2014). Heteronormativity in leisure research: Emancipation as social justice. Leisure
Sciences, 36(4), 365–378.
Salo, E., Ribas, M., Lopes, P., & Zamboni, M. (2010). Living our lives on the edge: Power,
space and sexual orientation in Cape Town townships, South Africa. Sexuality Research and
Social Policy, 7(4), 298–309.
Schmidt, C., & Little, D. E. (2007). Qualitative insights into leisure as a spiritual experience.
Journal of Leisure Research, 39(2), 222.
Sehlikoglu, S., & Karakas, F. (2016). We can have the cake and eat it too: Leisure and spirituality
at ‘veiled’ hotels in Turkey. Leisure Studies, 35(2), 157–169.
Sowe, B. J., Brown, J., & Taylor, A. J. (2014). Sex and the sinner: Comparing religious and
nonreligious same-sex attracted adults on internalized homonegativity and distress. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 530.
Szklarski, A. (2007). Conflict Experience: A phenomenological study among young people
in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(4), 369–383.
Szymanski, D. M., & Chung, Y. B. (2001). The Lesbian Internalized Homophobia Scale:
A rational/theoretical approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 37–52.
Taylor, Y. (2007). “If your face doesn’t fit … ” The recognition of working-class lesbians in scene
space. Leisure Studies, 26(2), 161–178.
(2006). Timothy, D., & Olsen, D. (Eds.). Tourism, religion and spiritual journeys. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Tuthill, Z. (2016). Negotiating religiosity and sexual identity among Hispanic lesbian mothers.
Journal of Homosexuality, 63(9), 1194–1210.
Valentine, G. (1993). Desperately seeking Susan: A geography of lesbian friendships. Area,
25(2), 109–116.
Valentine, G. (1996). (Re)negotiating the ‘heterosexual street’: Lesbian production of space.
In Duncan, N. (ed.): BodySpace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. London,
UK: Routledge.
Valentine, G. (2013). From nowhere to everywhere: Lesbian geographies. Binghamton, NY:
Routledge.
Valentine, G., & Waite, L. (2012). Negotiating difference through everyday encounters: The case
of sexual orientation and religion and belief. Antipode, 44(2), 474–492.
LEISURE SCIENCES
19
Valentine, G., Vanderbeck, R., Sadgrove, J., & Andersson, J. (2013). Producing moral geographies:
The dynamics of homophobia within a transnational religious network. The Geographical
Journal, 179(2), 165–176.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
View publication stats