Boundaries were set and agreed, a positive alternative was offered to the leg-shaving. These boundaries are about trust between two individuals. If Smile had felt them unreasonable, she could have disagreed, but she didn't.
Trust was betrayed and the betrayal was met by a measured response - whether or not we agree with the measure
Smile agrees that she deserved some comeback for betraying her SO's trust. Even the destruction of the wig was accompanied by the promise of a new one when Smile once again complies with the promises she had made.
I'm with Sandra here, no pussy-whipping, just an immediate response to a betrayal of trust. I'm sure Emma didn't sign up to living with a cross-dresser, but thought she was getting a cisgendered male.
When she either found out or was told by smile, she didn't throw her out, but asked her to agree to some measures to maintain trust. And smile did agree willingly.
I see no evidence at all for such an assertion
If smile has previously agreed that she will not buy that magazine on pain of losing her SO's support for Smile's reading, then and only then would this be a reasonable simile. Under any other circumstances, it is plainly and simply ridiculous.
Would you apply the same logic to an alcoholic? Never mind that they have promised their SO that they will no longer drink, if the urge comes over them, they should break their promise and return to alcoholism? That would be the logical outworking of your reasoning.
This is the only part of your post that makes sense to me. She knows that people slip up and she has provided a very strong aid to Smile avoiding that slip-up in future. Emma has not banned Smile from ever cross-dressing again. She has given Smile a chance to earn back the trust that was betrayed, and promised her a new wig to reinforce that behaviour.
I don't understand no-one who condemns the wig-cutting attaches any significance to the promise of a new wig in a few weeks time.