How Natural is Natural? And Who Are You to Decide?

[MonPetite]

Great discussion ladies, thank you!

 

[Kirei]

I don't think it matters how natural you are, people need to worry about themselves.

It not that serious.

People act like being natural will get you into heaven or answer the problem to world peace, it doesn't so why does it matter so much? It shouldn't.


~Liyah

 

[AfroKink]

"natural" when it goes to hair generally means natural hair texture. If you put a realzer on for just 1.456 seconds, you're no longer natural because you don't have your natural hair texture. Yes, you hair still resembles someone elses natural texture, but it's not yours so it's not natural.

something similar goes for colour. If you dye your hair, you no longer have your natural hair colour.

You have have your natural texture, but not your natural colour and vice versa.

Lys

 

[glamazon386]

I understand where you're coming from but if you have a silkener or texturizer you are not natural. I don't care how many tangles and what not the person deals with they are still not natural. It is a chemical. I understand the color argument as well but color is not supposed to change the texture of your hair.

 

[loulou82]

I use the term "virgin" to describe hair that is unaltered by chemicals (color and/or relaxer/perm/texturizer, etc.)

I use "natural" to describe texture that has been unaltered even if color has been applied to the hair.

 

[MonPetite]

"natural" when it goes to hair generally means natural hair texture. If you put a realzer on for just 1.456 seconds, you're no longer natural because you don't have your natural hair texture. Yes, you hair still resembles someone elses natural texture, but it's not yours so it's not natural.

something similar goes for colour. If you dye your hair, you no longer have your natural hair colour.

You have have your natural texture, but not your natural colour and vice versa.

Lys

This was my opinion too. It still may be. I'm on the fence. Yet, to those women who get a silkener, etc. do I really have the right to tell them they aren't natural when the rest of the world sees them that way? And hair color CAN change your texture.

Can you really be natural and have platinum blond hair if your natural color isn't?

I don't understand how that is natural but a woman with her natural color who went from 4b to 4a isn't? It seems hypocritical (to me -NOT SAYING YOU ARE!) and I don't want to be a hypocrite. Is it because historically we don't have a love/hate relationship with hair dye like we do relaxers? It wasn't our hair color that was different -our texture was. But that shouldn't make you more natural for keeping your texture vs changing your color....Or should it?

I understand where you're coming from but if you have a silkener or texturizer you are not natural. I don't care how many tangles and what not the person deals with they are still not natural. It is a chemical. I understand the color argument as well but color is not supposed to change the texture of your hair.

I would say the same thing above here. Or used to. I don't know yet.

Still...being an unnatural red head gets you more punches on your natural card than going from 4z to 4b? It used to make since to me, what you've said...but now I don't know. I don't want to "knock" anyone by how I define myself. It's really tearing at me.

I use the term "virgin" to describe hair that is unaltered by chemicals (color and/or relaxer/perm/texturizer, etc.)

I use "natural" to describe texture that has been unaltered even if color has been applied to the hair.

THIS makes much more since to me. I still have the same issue though...having PINK hair is more natural than having your natural color and going from 4a to 3c? Why?

Is it again, because historically we were told it wasn't our hair color that was the issue but our hair texture? That shouldn't be used as a "get out of jail free card" for naturals who color, right? I'd have no response for someone who said that to me in a conversation and I would feel terrible about it. Especially if I said he or she wasn't natural right before hand.

It sounds like I'm saying if YOUR natural isn't MY natural then YOU bear the responsibility of calling yourself something else because you're not like ME. I'm TERRIFIED of coming across that way. It sounds so bull-headed. But if it's the truth....


Keep it coming ladies.

 

[beautifulisaunderstatment]

Natural means it grew out of my head like this. To say anything else is a straight up lie.

If you met a woman with bleached hair and asked her what color she used and she said "oh no this is my natural hair." She's a liar. I think if you PERMANENTLY alter your hair its not natural.

What I dont like is if someone has naturally looser curl texture or straight hair and people claim they arent "natural enough." THATS some ole bull if I ever heard it.

 

[beautifulisaunderstatment]

I understand where you're coming from but if you have a silkener or texturizer you are not natural. I don't care how many tangles and what not the person deals with they are still not natural. It is a chemical. I understand the color argument as well but color is not supposed to change the texture of your hair.

But it can/does. And it cant be undone.

 

[Irresistible]

"natural" when it goes to hair generally means natural hair texture. If you put a realzer on for just 1.456 seconds, you're no longer natural because you don't have your natural hair texture. Yes, you hair still resembles someone elses natural texture, but it's not yours so it's not natural.

something similar goes for colour. If you dye your hair, you no longer have your natural hair colour.

You have have your natural texture, but not your natural colour and vice versa.

Lys

Thats basically what I was gonna say

I dont think once you put anything that will permanently alter your hair texture you can still call it 'your' natural hair

 

[AfroKink]

THIS makes much more since to me. I still have the same issue though...having PINK hair is more natural than having your natural color and going from 4a to 3c? Why?

Because when people say "natural" and talk about "natural" hair, they are generally talking about "natural texture". I think it's as simple as that. Someone with pink hair is seen as "natural" because they still have their natural hair texture. When people are talking about natural in relation to colour, they usually specifically state "natural colour", thats when you hear "natural blond".

If you dye your hair and experience a texture change, then you no longer have your natural texture...

Lys

 

[MonPetite]

Natural means it grew out of my head like this. To say anything else is a straight up lie.

If you met a woman with bleached hair and asked her what color she used and she said "oh no this is my natural hair." She's a liar. I think if you PERMANENTLY alter your hair its not natural.

What I dont like is if someone has naturally looser curl texture or straight hair and people claim they arent "natural enough." THATS some ole bull if I ever heard it.

You're touching on the color issue. No one's really digging into it:

Why can you call yourself natural even if you color your hair?

If that can fly...why can't their also be gradients in "natural"ness with texture?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and I fear that's what I'm trying to do when I say to someone with a silkener or tex: You're not natural. IE: I'm more natural/real/truthful than you.


Someone PLEASE take a wack at this dye vs. relaxer . We've heard the standard perspective: chemical for any time + hair = not natural. And "hair color isn't supposed to change your texture". I've used those arguments myself, actually. Now that I think about it.

But that seems to gloss over the nitty gritty in just how natural is natural -how much is societal/communal vs. just science?

 

[Irresistible]

Because when people say "natural" and talk about "natural" hair, they are generally talking about "natural texture". I think it's as simple as that. Someone with pink hair is seen as "natural" because they still have their natural hair texture. When people are talking about natural in relation to colour, they usually specifically state "natural colour", thats when you hear "natural blond".

If you dye your hair and experience a texture change, then you no longer have your natural texture...

Lys

yeah 'natural' is just generally a 'texture' or a permanent straightening chemical/or lack of reference

but some people see those of us who press our hair as 'less than natural' too

*sucks teeth*

 

[glamazon386]

But it can/does. And it cant be undone.

Well mine didn't. I understand what you're saying because the color is a chemical but it just makes things messy. So because i have highlights only 3/4's of my hair is natural? It's probably more than that now since the color is only on the very tip. And once I cut that does that mean I'm back to being all natural again? I usually only use the word natural to refer to texture. Not color. When somebody says that have natural hair I take it to mean they do not relax or texturize their hair. Nothing more. The whole process of going natural does not refer to choosing not to color your hair anymore. People are just making it out to be more than it needs to be.

 

[glamazon386]

yeah 'natural' is just generally a 'texture' or a permanent straightening chemical/or lack of reference

but some people see those of us who press our hair as 'less than natural' too

*sucks teeth*

i

And that's whole other can of worms. Because heat can permanently alter your texture too. Next they'll be saying conditioner is a chemical.

 

[Irresistible]

You're touching on the color issue. No one's really digging into it:

Why can you call yourself natural even if you color your hair?

If that can fly...why can't their also be gradients in "natural"ness with texture?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and I fear that's what I'm trying to do when I say to someone with a silkener or tex: You're not natural. IE: I'm more natural/real/truthful than you.


Someone PLEASE take a wack at this dye vs. relaxer . We've heard the standard perspective: chemical for any time + hair = not natural. And "hair color isn't supposed to change your texture". I've used those arguments myself, actually. Now that I think about it.

But that seems to gloss over the nitty gritty in just how natural is natural -how much is societal/communal vs. just science?

I think your trying to take a stab at the reference of 'natural' all together

I think what everyone is saying is although it may not be totally applicable to the total truth regarding color

its a general broad term known and used by most of us to just simply reference the lack of permanent alteration of what is actually growing out of our heads texture wise

like some may call any texture of our hair 'nappy' in jest. Really its not such a technical reference but still understood by most

 

[Irresistible]

And that's whole other can of worms. Because heat can permanently alter your texture too. Next they'll be saying conditioner is a chemical.

thats true! it can

I think once its altered as far as the texture, not just some heat damage here and there but the whole texture is altered, then I guess it would no longer be natural either

oh god why did I start on this thread

lmaooooooooo

 

[Irresistible]

Natural means it grew out of my head like this. To say anything else is a straight up lie.

If you met a woman with bleached hair and asked her what color she used and she said "oh no this is my natural hair." She's a liar. I think if you PERMANENTLY alter your hair its not natural.

What I dont like is if someone has naturally looser curl texture or straight hair and people claim they arent "natural enough." THATS some ole bull if I ever heard it.

not natural, whats natural, not natural enough

she doesnt embrace her naturalness, anti straights, anti products to manage natural hair or if you do use said products, then your anti natural and not embracing your natural hair, anti curly, anti color, anti heat , anti styles, shyt!

Ive seen it all

makes my brain hurt

 

[trendybosschicebz]

I understand where you are coming from. At this point in time, I have really stopped caring about whether others see me as "natural" or not. People will always have different perceptions/definitions of what natural is. I press my hair regularly and some consider me not be natural. I AM natural and I could careless what others think. At the end of the day, if you are happy with the condition of your hair, thats all that matters.

 

[zzirvingj]

Alot of the time when people ask me if I'm natural I just say I'm "relaxer free". Cuz I have no idea what natural may mean to them (I dye my hair) LOL

When I refer to my hair as being natural, I am using the definition that natural=relaxer free. I can understand the reasoning why others may say that my hair ISN'T natural, and I may actually also AGREE with them...but I use the word natural because it's a simple answer to what can be a complicated question since everyone has their own definitions. There is no one word to describe "hair that is relaxer-free, but although it gets dyed occasionally (which means its chemical structure may be altered), it's visual texture is virtually unaltered" LOL

 

[Sui Topi]

Natural means is it how it is growing out your scalp. If you color your hair its not natural anymore...highlights, whatever, that part is not natural so you can say, "its mostly natural, but I have highlights"...if its relaxed, texturized, silkened or whatever. If there is any chemical on your hair...its not natural.



But keep in mind...


we dont need to be like....natural police and run around on people's fotkis telling people they arent natural for this reason or not.

 

[Je Ne Sais Quoi]

I use the term "virgin" to describe hair that is unaltered by chemicals (color and/or relaxer/perm/texturizer, etc.)

I use "natural" to describe texture that has been unaltered even if color has been applied to the hair.

This is solid

 

[Irresistible]

Alot of the time when people ask me if I'm natural I just say I'm "relaxer free". Cuz I have no idea what natural may mean to them (I dye my hair) LOL

When I refer to my hair as being natural, I am using the definition that natural=relaxer free. I can understand the reasoning why others may say that my hair ISN'T natural, and I may actually also AGREE with them...but I use the word natural because it's a simple answer to what can be a complicated question since everyone has their own definitions. There is no one word to describe "hair that is relaxer-free, but although it gets dyed occasionally (which means its chemical structure may be altered), it's visual texture is virtually unaltered" LOL

Just want to say WOW @ your progress in your siggy!

 

[Irresistible]

Ive seen it where a long time natural put a texturizer in her hair and her hair looked almost exactly the same still and she was still considered no longer natural

in fact back in that day , a bunch of naturals turned on her , and kinda got on her case, sad to see

 

[Irresistible]

This is solid

yeah maybe one day we will walk around calling natural *non relaxed* hair virgin hair


we have gradually made other 'politically correct' terminology changes

it can happen

 

[RegaLady]

I don't care how natural another woman is, or how natural I am. Life is toooooooooo short to be up in arms about who is natural and who isn't. Does it mean, the more natural you are to more you love yourself. Ummmm, I don't think so! Some people have different definitions. And quite frankly as I have said before, whether a woman is natural or not has nothing to do with me!

 

[Southernbella.]

I never run into this discussion IRL.

On hairboards, the term "natural" is shorthand for people who don't use chemicals to alter their hair texture.

It really isn't that deep, IMO. If I see a woman with kinks/curls/naps, I assume she's natural until she tells me otherwise, even if her hair is platinum blonde. I know that's most likely not her natural color, but so what? I give props to anyone who wears their kinks/curls/naps. That, to me, is way more important than the color.

 

[MonPetite]

I think your trying to take a stab at the reference of 'natural' all together

I think what everyone is saying is although it may not be totally applicable to the total truth regarding color

its a general broad term known and used by most of us to just simply reference the lack of permanent alteration of what is actually growing out of our heads texture wise

like some may call any texture of our hair 'nappy' in jest. Really its not such a technical reference but still understood by most

I suppose I am, as for the first time I'm having to find exactly what I mean by it when I say it to describe myself.

not natural, whats natural, not natural enough

she doesnt embrace her naturalness, anti straights, anti products to manage natural hair or if you do use said products, then your anti natural and not embracing your natural hair, anti curly, anti color, anti heat , anti styles, shyt!

Ive seen it all

makes my brain hurt

Agreed.

I understand where you are coming from. At this point in time, I have really stopped caring about whether others see me as "natural" or not. People will always have different perceptions/definitions of what natural is. I press my hair regularly and some consider me not be natural. I AM natural and I could careless what others think. At the end of the day, if you are happy with the condition of your hair, thats all that matters.

I agree. However the pressing vs non-pressing issue is more easily defeated in a discussion, IMHO. Are you going to tell a Japanese woman who uses a curling iron she's no longer "natural"? No. Yet, a natural-hair wearing Black woman use a pressing comb or flat iron and she's suddenly not natural? Even if, when she and the Japanese woman who curls her hair with a curling iron both get caught in a rainstorm thier hair "reverts".

Natural means is it how it is growing out your scalp. If you color your hair its not natural anymore...highlights, whatever, that part is not natural so you can say, "its mostly natural, but I have highlights"...if its relaxed, texturized, silkened or whatever. If there is any chemical on your hair...its not natural.

In this case a lot of naturals on this board have some siggies to clarify. Again, this touches on, what is "natural". Is it a figurative adjective given definition by the society that spawns it or just simply a matter of chemical + hair. If it was, we wouldn't have relaxed vs. natural debates. Because given the right spin, I could argue how relaxed hair is still natural. I think it'd be silly and quite insane...but given some time to think about it I could. And if any of ya'll want to pay me to do so...PM me. College is expensive!

Ive seen it where a long time natural put a texturizer in her hair and her hair looked almost exactly the same still and she was still considered no longer natural

in fact back in that day , a bunch of naturals turned on her , and kinda got on her case, sad to see

This...breaks my <3.


Being natural or defined as such mainly comes down to how your hair "looks". A step further how it looks + how it behaves under certain conditions.

Posters are get bogged down in chemicals + hair = relaxed. I'm inquiring about the social construct of the "natural" label itself.


Consider this:

If I and another woman are walking down the street and I am 3c/4a and she is "naturally" 4abcdefg and texlaxes to a 4a, and an obnoxious individual drives by and yells: "DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT NAPPY HAIR!" at the both of us, does it make ANY SENSE AT ALL for me to turn to her and say, "You're not natural...that was just about me. What're you looking funny about? I'm the one who should be astonished/angry/surprised/etc.!"

As far as anyone is concerned were both "natural" and in this case apparently "nappy". Is it worthwhile or even SENSIBLE for me to then decide to segregate her from myself when the rest of the universe does not? It seems like the problem would lie with ME and MY perceptions.


Anyone care to take a nibble? I'm loving all these thought provoking responses. I hoping for more that move beyond the usual replies and poke at some of the things that have become norms for us "natural heads"...when what is natural can be so easily redefined.

 

[lilsparkle825]

I understand where you're coming from but if you have a silkener or texturizer you are not natural. I don't care how many tangles and what not the person deals with they are still not natural. It is a chemical. I understand the color argument as well but color is not supposed to change the texture of your hair.

co-sign...its the texture, not the color, that makes you natural in my mind.

 

[Irresistible]

I suppose I am, as for the first time I'm having to find exactly what I mean by it when I say it to describe myself.



Agreed.



I agree. However the pressing vs non-pressing issue is more easily defeated in a discussion, IMHO. Are you going to tell a Japanese woman who uses a curling iron she's no longer "natural"? No. Yet, a natural-hair wearing Black woman use a pressing comb or flat iron and she's suddenly not natural? Even if, when she and the Japanese woman who curls her hair with a curling iron both get caught in a rainstorm thier hair "reverts".



In this case a lot of naturals on this board have some siggies to clarify. Again, this touches on, what is "natural". Is it a figurative adjective given definition by the society that spawns it or just simply a matter of chemical + hair. If it was, we wouldn't have relaxed vs. natural debates. Because given the right spin, I could argue how relaxed hair is still natural. I think it'd be silly and quite insane...but given some time to think about it I could. And if any of ya'll want to pay me to do so...PM me. College is expensive!




This...breaks my <3.


Being natural or defined as such mainly comes down to how your hair "looks". A step further how it looks + how it behaves under certain conditions.

Posters are get bogged down in chemicals + hair = relaxed. I'm inquiring about the social construct of the "natural" label itself.


Consider this:

If I and another woman are walking down the street and I am 3c/4a and she is "naturally" 4abcdefg and texlaxes to a 4a, and an obnoxious individual drives by and yells: "DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT NAPPY HAIR!" at the both of us, does it make ANY SENSE AT ALL for me to turn to her and say, "You're not natural...that was just about me. What're you looking funny about? I'm the one who should be astonished/angry/surprised/etc.!"

As far as anyone is concerned were both "natural" and in this case apparently "nappy". Is it worthwhile or even SENSIBLE for me to then decide to segregate her from myself when the rest of the universe does not? It seems like the problem would lie with ME and MY perceptions.


Anyone care to take a nibble? I'm loving all these thought provoking responses. I hoping for more that move beyond the usual replies and poke at some of the things that have become norms for us "natural heads"...when what is natural can be so easily redefined.

Girl no! That comment from someone would be ignorant! but nappy is not natural and natural is not nappy.....lol dammit , this making sense?

I mean people can call any hair nappy but the commenter didnt say 'natural' so the issue in that instance is not whether its natural its that its not straight

I do get what your trying to work out in your own mind though

its about whats exactly technically correct. But its a long long road to end the use of the word 'natural' to describe hair

I remember when an afro was also called 'a natural'

 

[Southernbella.]

I
If I and another woman are walking down the street and I am 3c/4a and she is "naturally" 4abcdefg and texlaxes to a 4a, and an obnoxious individual drives by and yells: "DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT NAPPY HAIR!" at the both of us, does it make ANY SENSE AT ALL for me to turn to her and say, "You're not natural...that was just about me. What're you looking funny about? I'm the one who should be astonished/angry/surprised/etc.!"

As far as anyone is concerned were both "natural" and in this case apparently "nappy". Is it worthwhile or even SENSIBLE for me to then decide to segregate her from myself when the rest of the universe does not? It seems like the problem would lie with ME and MY perceptions.


Anyone care to take a nibble? I'm loving all these thought provoking responses. I hoping for more that move beyond the usual replies and poke at some of the things that have become norms for us "natural heads"...when what is natural can be so easily redefined.

I agree. That's why I said...this is more an issue on hairboards than IRL. If I see you and your friend, and you both have nappy or kinky or curly hair, I would consider you both natural without knowing the circumstances. I don't see how I would even know the circumstances unless I walked right up to you and asked you exactly how you got your hair that way.

It's funny...I wore a twistout this weekend and got lots of compliments from strangers. My hair looked 3C (which it's not), and for some reason, I felt obligated to tell everyone who complimented me that my hair was not naturally curly like that. One lady, before I told her this, said, "your hair is so pretty! You better not ever perm it!!!"

So I told her that I had just cut my perm off, that my natural hair is kinky, and that I was wearing a twistout (I had to explain what that was).

Anyway, that wasn't really relevant.The point is...I applaud anyone who wears natural looking hair, because I know that just wearing it is a deviation from the "norm".