RE: Hair-ed Limits... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

ownedgirlie -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:03:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darchChylde

Saying that not backing down on a hard limit means that a submissive is not completely submissive is like a teenaged boy telling his girlfriend "If you love me, you'll go all the way with me."  It is downright weak, manipulative and dispicable.  There are much better ways of attempting to get a submissive to do your will.



I respectfully disagree.  Maybe we place different value for the word "completely."  Completely, in my mind, means 100%, all, total, nothing outside of that box.  If I have a pint of ice cream and I eat it completely, there is nothing left in the container. 

Holding onto something that one will not put in one's dominant's authority means that something is owned by the one holding it, and that something is not given to the dominant.  That means everything, in the literal sense, is not submitted.

However, it may be that submitting completely means, to some, submitting completely to the boundaries both submissive and dominant have agreed to.  If that is the case, and the limit of hair cutting falls within those boundaries, then no big deal. Submission is still complete, as you are completely submitting XYZ, which was agreed to.

I did not see anyone say submission was not complete if one won't cut one's hair. Maybe I missed that.  But I will say one is not completely owned if one withholds the dominant of ownership of something.  Maybe that's not a popular view, but it's mine.  And it's not intended to diminish anyone's submission.  It's just how I define ownership.


Edited to correct spelling



bamabbwsub -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:06:18 PM)

As someone who has had both long hair and short hair, my opinion on the topic is this, stated from a woman's perspective -- although I suppose it could go either way:

For me, when a man (Dom or not) asks me to change my hair, or to change the way I dress, I may view that as the first step in a long line of requests to change ME. Subtle things, like "Cut your hair" or "Wear this kind of dress" can eventually lead up to other, more substantial changes that can end up making a woman feel as though she isn't good enough -- pretty enough, classy enough, etc. -- for her man. After all, when a woman first meets a man and he is attracted to her, isn't he attracted to her hair, face, body, clothing, etc.? The whole package? So when he asks her to start changing things about herself, I believe it tends to undermine her self-confidence and she starts to ponder why he's asking her to change at all. Is he attracted to a woman with shorter hair and wants her to emulate that? Or is he the jealous type and doesn't want her to be attractive to other men, so he tries to make her less attractive by changing her hairstyle or style of dress? Also, I believe that asking a woman to ADD things -- piercings, tattoos, etc. -- doesn't quite have the same effect as changing what already exists.

I once dated a man who declared that he didn't want me to wear make-up. Believe me -- I NEED the make-up!! But to please him, I complied and went au naturel on the face. When he saw me without the make-up (probably even forgetting that he'd even asked), he said, "Do you feel okay? You look sick." LOL That did wonders for my ego, and from then on, I continued to wear make-up.

So...maybe the issue of refusing the request to cut one's hair isn't about the hair at all. It's about maintaining self-confidence, or even perhaps a measure of control not to lose the identity that the person had at the beginning of a relationship. After all, if you liked me when we first met and I had long hair (or short hair), why do you now want to change me?



darchChylde -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:09:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
I respectfully disagree.  Maybe we place different value for the word "completely."  Completely, in my mind, mean 100%, all, total, nothing outside of that box.  If I have a pint of ice cream and I eat it completely, there is nothing left in the container. 

Holding onto something that one will not put in one's dominant's authority means that something is owned by the one holding it, and that something is not given to the dominant.  That means everything, in the literal sense, is not submitted.

However, it may be that submitting completely means, to some, submitting completely to the boundaries both submission and dominant have agreed to.  If that is the case, and the limit of hair cutting falls within those boundaries, then no big deal. Submission is still complete, as you are completely submitting XYZ, which was agreed to.

I did not see anyone say submission was not complete if one won't cut one's hair. Maybe I missed that.  But I will say one is not completely owned if one withholds the dominant of ownership of something.  Maybe that's not a popular view, but it's mine.  And it's not intended to diminish anyone's submission.  It's just how I define ownership.


i'll gladly concede your point.  The only excuse i can offer is that there are certain things that have a tendency to raise a hair-trigger in me (pun intended).



ownedgirlie -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:12:48 PM)

[:)] Cute pun, darkchylde, and thank you for making the effort to understand where I was going with it.  I was not in any way making commentary on your level of submission.  I appreciate your post.



sexyred1 -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:17:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nothing4ever

To say, "It's my hair, it's my head" brings me to this.. I have heard a countless number of times a submissive refer to her genitals as "His pussy" or "His ass", so if she belongs to him totally.. her body is his, then why is the hair any different?


"Rolls eyes but tries to be patient". Ok, not arguing since you are entitled to your opinion as I am and everyone else. But that statement is just silly. If someone grabs my ass or pussy and says MINE that is way cool (only if we are involved, yo, no strangers, right?). Now, as those terms are terms of affection, ownership, passion and yes, semantics they are also describing parts of me that I don't necessarily walk around town and show visibly.

My hair on my head however, I do show to the world every day. Therefore if someone said you need to cut your hair because it is MY Hair, as compared to My Ass or My Pussy, I would have to explain it the same painstakingly patient way I am explaining to you, dear hear.

Comprende?



darchChylde -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:18:33 PM)

fast reply

i'm going to have to step back and stay out of this thread, two apologies in the same thread? maybe i can come back later with a cooler head




petdave -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:21:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darchChylde

fast reply

i'm going to have to step back and stay out of this thread, two apologies in the same thread? maybe i can come back later with a cooler head


Nothing like a fresh crew-cut for keeping your head cool! [:D]



sexyred1 -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:23:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ForcefuIHands

owned, thank you so much! That's what I wanted to hear. Your other post was also well written. Yay for actual insight!


Spare us your passive/aggressive sarcasm buddy. "Actual insight?" Only if it agrees with your opinion, right? Of course anyone else who posted a differing view is either stupid, over sensitive or takes things too personally for their opinion to be of value, is that it?

I find your incessant comments about being "tickled" and "amused" by the posts here to be rude and snarky, when everyone has tried to give their honest opinion.



hisannabelle -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:26:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1

quote:

ORIGINAL: ForcefuIHands

owned, thank you so much! That's what I wanted to hear. Your other post was also well written. Yay for actual insight!


Spare us your passive/aggressive sarcasm buddy. "Actual insight?" Only if it agrees with your opinion, right? Of course anyone else who posted a differing view is either stupid, over sensitive or takes things too personally for their opinion to be of value, is that it?

I find your incessant comments about being "tickled" and "amused" by the posts here to be rude and snarky, when everyone has tried to give their honest opinion.



i have to agree with you on this one, red. apparently i lost my "insightful" hat for the day. and i was all proud of my post, too! i've found some of the feedback here to be incredibly condescending.

amused,
annabelle.



subantionette -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:27:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

There's a biblical scripture that says something to the effect of "hair is a woman's glory."  Now, I'm not a biblical follower, but there is some truth to this statement.  Whip me, beat me, hurt me, but don't you dare mess with my hair!!  Ha.


I grew up in a very christian family there are 2 verses that say things about a womens hair in this way and they are:

quote:

First Corinthians 11:14-15
14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

and
quote:

First Corinthians 11:6
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.


So what I guess I am saying is that hair is a women's cover, her joy, and to ask her to cut it off to satify some crazy whim. I love my hair its a curly mess, and take forever to grow, but im trying. I would never cut my hair off unless i wanted to. I would dye it sure, but cut it no way. I hope that hellps[:)]



sexyred1 -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:28:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nothing4ever

I am so glad this could make someone think!

I think that more people might have an underlying issue as to why they will not cut their hair.

My sister refused to cut hers for years because my mother always kept hers short & she didn't in anyway want to be related back to my mother.. even with something as small & insignificant as a hair cut.

It makes me wonder if other people have similar small issues they are not so aware of?

Or for some is it simply that way to hang onto some control in their life & not fully hand themselves over to another.

When I cut my submissive's hair he was upset with me, even went as far as to tell me he hated it.. but was able to let go enough that my satisfaction was worth him having it cut so short. Maybe this should be a lesson... & something I don't take so much for granted.


Hello, nothing? Is that  your name or what your opinions are based on?

I am starting to get really irritated with your junior league armchair psychoanalysis of everyone who disagrees with you.

Not only are you unqualified to discuss what issues anyone has but it is none of your business why someone would refuse to cut their hair.

Finally, the stance you take at your tender age smacks of "one-way twue-ism" and how there is only one way to be a really good submissive by doing everything a Dom tells you.

Get over yourself and stop trying to tell grown ups how to think.  Let THAT be a lesson to you.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:33:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

i have to agree with you on this one, red. apparently i lost my "insightful" hat for the day. and i was all proud of my post, too! i've found some of the feedback here to be incredibly condescending.

amused,
annabelle.



Question for you - is the idea of agreeing to cut one's hair condescending to those who won't?  There are personal views expressed on this post, on both sides of the equation.  Is telling someone who was willing to cut her hair that she must not have good hair condescending, or just that telling someone who prefers to keep her hair that she retains ownership of it condescending?



sexyred1 -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:41:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

i have to agree with you on this one, red. apparently i lost my "insightful" hat for the day. and i was all proud of my post, too! i've found some of the feedback here to be incredibly condescending.

amused,
annabelle.



Question for you - is the idea of agreeing to cut one's hair condescending to those who won't?  There are personal views expressed on this post, on both sides of the equation.  Is telling someone who was willing to cut her hair that she must not have good hair condescending, or just that telling someone who prefers to keep her hair that she retains ownership of it condescending?


LOL. It appears you are asking Annabelle to answer for something that I did. Perhaps you might ask ME the question instead? I won't bite you.

If you read back in the thread you will note that the condescending attitudes did not originate with me. They started before my entry here. I replied in snarky fashion when told that women do not "get it" who do not care to cut their hair.

I have never said that anyone who wants to cut their hair off, go bald, cut off a limb, gouge out an eye, paint herself blue, etc. is wrong. I specifically illustrated my point by vividly explaining how it would be for ME and only ME.

Then when reading the rest of the posts from the condescending and amused OP and his buddy, nothing, I then replied in kind.

Does that clear things up now? The only ones who are condescending are those who think it is not "submissive" enough to cut your hair off.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:47:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1

LOL. It appears you are asking Annabelle to answer for something that I did. Perhaps you might ask ME the question instead? I won't bite you.


No, I was asking Annabelle to explain what she thought was condescending.  You did not mention the word condescending, and being condescending was the the subject of my post.  I am asking her to answer for something she said, and I gave her examples of things said in this thread to comment on. 

quote:


If you read back in the thread you will note that the condescending attitudes did not originate with me. They started before my entry here. I replied in snarky fashion when told that women do not "get it" who do not care to cut their hair.

OK.  I did not say you were being condescending, snarky, or anything else, nor did I ask who started it.  I gave Annabelle a comparison of comments made on both sides, and wanted to understand her opinion, not why you said what you did.

quote:


I have never said that anyone who wants to cut their hair off, go bald, cut off a limb, gouge out an eye, paint herself blue, etc. is wrong. I specifically illustrated my point by vividly explaining how it would be for ME and only ME.

Nor did I say you did.  I asked Annabelle if she thought your Post #10 was condescending: 
"You must not have great hair, sorry.

Smiles."


quote:


Then when reading the rest of the posts from the condescending and amused OP and his buddy, nothing, I then replied in kind.

Does that clear things up now? The only ones who are condescending are those who think it is not "submissive" enough to cut your hair off.


It clears nothing up, unless you can answer what Annabelle felt was condescending. 



hisannabelle -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

i have to agree with you on this one, red. apparently i lost my "insightful" hat for the day. and i was all proud of my post, too! i've found some of the feedback here to be incredibly condescending.

amused,
annabelle.



Question for you - is the idea of agreeing to cut one's hair condescending to those who won't?  There are personal views expressed on this post, on both sides of the equation.  Is telling someone who was willing to cut her hair that she must not have good hair condescending, or just that telling someone who prefers to keep her hair that she retains ownership of it condescending?


greetings ownedgirlie,

if you read my post, you might have seen that i personally fit into the camp of "would and have done things to my hair for him." i don't find that condescending at all - i would rarely eat crow and call my own posts condescending on a public forum ;) i personally do not believe that having hard limits equals "total submission," or what have you, but that's a subject i rarely broach anymore because i've come to understand that i just don't understand, and some people do things differently than i do. i find it odd that considering that i fully agree with pretty much everything you have posted on this thread (and most other places on collarme), you are the one to be offended by what i've said.

i do, however, find the idea that only "real insight" comes from those who agree with the original poster to be quite condescending. that is the kind of view i was referring to.

respectfully,
annabelle.



sexyred1 -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1


Nor did I say you did.  I asked Annabelle if she thought your Post #10 was condescending: 
"You must not have great hair, sorry.

Smiles."


quote:


Then when reading the rest of the posts from the condescending and amused OP and his buddy, nothing, I then replied in kind.

Does that clear things up now? The only ones who are condescending are those who think it is not "submissive" enough to cut your hair off.


It clears nothing up, unless you can answer what Annabelle felt was condescending. 


A. Yes, I meant to be snarky about the hair comment to that chick

B. I would never deign to answer for Annabelle, but since you quoted something from my post, I answered.

Take care.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 2:55:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle
greetings ownedgirlie,

if you read my post, you might have seen that i personally fit into the camp of "would and have done things to my hair for him." i don't find that condescending at all - i would rarely eat crow and call my own posts condescending on a public forum ;) i personally do not believe that having hard limits equals "total submission," or what have you, but that's a subject i rarely broach anymore because i've come to understand that i just don't understand, and some people do things differently than i do. i find it odd that considering that i fully agree with pretty much everything you have posted on this thread (and most other places on collarme), you are the one to be offended by what i've said.

i do, however, find the idea that only "real insight" comes from those who agree with the original poster to be quite condescending. that is the kind of view i was referring to.

respectfully,
annabelle.


Hi Annabelle,

Thank you for replying to my post.  I was not in any way offended, and I hope my post did not offend you.  I was unsure as to what you felt was condescending, so I picked both sides of the argument to ask.  Perhaps I did not word my question well.  I did not 'get' that what you found offensive was the comment on having insight.  Thank you for clarifying, as now I understand.



kyraofMists -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 3:01:42 PM)

Thank you, darchChylde.  I assumed as much, but I prefer not to validate my assumptions.

It would be nice if when using the "Fast Reply" option that the bottom corner said fast reply instead of in reply to X.

I agree with you that the giving up limits should not be a test of submission. 

My best to you and your family.

Knight's Kyra



sexyred1 -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 3:10:34 PM)

It would be wonderful if some threads came with a warning label that simple questions would turn into the ever popular "one way, true subs, you are not submissive enough if you won't do X, you should have no limits, blah blah blah".

Then we could avoid them and let all the really true subs and the true Doms talk to each other without having any " insight" from all the untrue subs and  not real Doms who might, horrors! disagree with them. And really, because if you are not willing to do ANYTHING including cut your hair off for your partner, you cannot really be owned, isn't that the party line?



fullofgrace69 -> RE: Hair-ed Limits... (1/26/2008 3:20:04 PM)

FR
my goodness, i didnt realise that this thread was going to explode as it has when i posted my reply right back at the beginning and as i've been reading it some more i've been thinking more about my reasoning behind refusing to cut my hair for a Dom. i change my hair on a fairly regular basis, my hairdresser loves me because every time i go in i give her a challenge and i change. i have an entire file devoted to the hair colour changes i have had over the years, and yes some of the colours and just colours have been influenced by men i was involved with and by Doms requests when i got to a D/s relationship stage.
However, thinking back over some of my more interesting styles and cuts, i've realised that my hair changes when emotionally i am a mess. my hair is the ultimate representative of how i'm feeling, so when i wanted to distance myself from the goth love of my life i went totally emo and freaked him out. when i wanted to hurt the goth idiot who cheated on me with my best friend my hair went bright orange(it was supposed to be red and yes i looked like id been tangoed....and yes i need to leave the goths alone and find someone new to play with) when i was freaking out about work my hair went purple, when i dropped out of uni i had the one side long one side stupidly short it doesnt suit me style....you get the idea.
the cut has never changed -much- because it has always been shortish, but i knew i'd taken it to short when they had to use a razor on my head, for me i didnt feel femine anymore and i need that, i only wear skirts im a girlie girl and i need my hair to reflect that too.
so like someone else said im not going to give control of my hair over to someone else who might only be in my life a few weeks and who couldnt hope to understand the history behind some of my hair decisions. my hair takes ages to grow ive been trying to get it long for a year now and its not even reached my shoulders yet, but it will and i know when it does i'll be having a hyper happy excitable moment. my hair is me, it represents me it is my way of showing the world visually how i am feeling and as much as i long to serve someone and to make them happy and to do everything in my power to please them, if they can't understand my need to retain that most personal part of me than they wuldnt be the right person for me. and as someone else said if they like me enough as i look now (which wuld be hard seeing as im in bed with tonsilitis and look like something the cat dragged in) than why wuld there be a need to change my hair?
but that is my opinion it doesn't make me less of a submissive it just makes me someone who is incredibly aware of her hair.
x

edited cos of typos:)x



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125