I can't thank you enough for this.
People don't realize that the hair/skin color analogy is actually a pretty good one. Each one cannot be changed permanently. Sure, you can bleach your skin to make it lighter, and relax your hair to make it straight. But it can't change your biological makeup. I can understand if a guy doesn't like a particular outfit I'm wearing, or the makeup I put on my face, etc...because these are not
a PART of me. But my hair IS so much a PART of me, it basically makes up my physical/genetic makeup. I think that's why AA women want their men to "accept" their hair in it's natural state. To
NOT accept it is basically (IMO) saying that you don't even accept the woman as she naturally IS. Outfits, makeup, clothes, etc......These are things I DO to myself. I wear my clothes, I relax my hair, I dye my roots, etc. I can always take these things off if these things aren't desirable to my man. But to go natural is not "doing" anything to yourself. You're not "controlling" it, you're not "taming" it, "hiding" it, etc. You're letting your hair be free to grow how God intended it to grow w/out chemicals.
I'm being completely honest when I ask... What is your reasoning behind this comment in bold? I'm just curious. I'm wanting to see the difference that you mention, because to me it's pretty much one in the same.
Just one is more subtle than the other.
Whereas, a man's "member" (as another poster mentioned lol!) is pretty much the SAME while born across the races. No one race male baby comes out "uncut" while another race male infant baby is born "cut".
But black women are pretty much the only race of women with type 4 hair in general, so I'm just still trying to understand how this hair thing is not subtly about race in some way.