Thursday, 14 June 2018

Misrepresentation and The Failure To Understand One's Fantasies

A common mistake is in abstracting symbolism or themes of masochistic emasculation and holding them as representative of the fetishism as a whole.

In the case of the popular caption above, it isn’t that one is actually attracted to men and turned off by women, but that the symbols are present only in so far as they function as being something that causes distress for me to be associated with.

To understand any MEF fantasy, is to think, what is it that I am being associated to that is so distressing. What here causes me anxiety to think of myself in this way, let alone to imagine others thinking of me in this way?

One isn’t sexually aroused by the idea of “having a female body” nor “being female”, but rather the masochistic anxiety of oneself being associated to these symbols.

How To Recognise A Masochistic Fetish As Masochistic?

An issue that often comes up in regards to masochistic emasculation fetishists (aka “autogynephiliacs”), is that most unknowingly do not understand what they mean for something to be masochistic.

For example, the masochist will point to a specific fantasy theme and state, “Look I am not being laughed at in this theme, therefore it is not humiliating!”

So then, what makes a humiliating situation humiliating? Or rather, what makes “being laughed at” masochistic? Nothing necessarily. And to go even further, why should we even recognise it as being masochistic? Simply because it is a situation we would be used to associating as being socially distressing.

In the masochistic fetish, it is the object of anxiety/trauma which has itself become sexualized, where “being laughed at” will simply be a situation whereby the object of anxiety is presented as being of anxiety.

In other words, sexual arousal by being associated to symbols of emasculation is itself masochistic, regardless of the situation which is thematized in the fantasy. Whether one is “being laughed at”, is a matter of the individual’s preference for fantasy themes.

A serious question is implied in these dynamics, in whether there has ever been a “feminization fetish” per se beyond MEF (masochistic emasculation fetishism)?

1. In masochistic fetishism (the imprinted sexualization of anxiety/trauma), the “feeling” of anxiety in the situation of anxiety, is replaced with sexual arousal.

2. The object (one’s association to emasculating symbolism) is always already arousing by virtue of being of anxiety.

3. The object of anxiety does not need to be presented/thematized as being of anxiety in order to function.

4. The condition for perceiving something as being of anxiety, is determined by what one has come to associate as being of anxiety.

5. Everyone has a preference for themes, which may or may not be include the terms which you can recognize as being of anxiety..

6. The common mistake is in abstracting associations (themes) of masochistic emasculation and holding them as representative of the fetishism as a whole, such as “being a woman” or androphilia.

What Is "Crossdreaming"

Those of you familiar with Jack Molay’s “crossdreaming”, will know of the political motivation behind the term, it’s discourse and it’s propagation. That of a self-identified transgendered man’s desire to reduce the fetishism described by “autogynephilia” (denoting sexual arousal by the idea of being a woman) theory, to transgenderism.

Jack Molay’s avatar (above)

It is easy to understand why autogynephilia (or “AGP”) theory is so disliked by trans-identified individual’s. The proposition that a straight male’s desire to become women, is emotionally rooted in the misdirected sexual attraction to himself as a woman. That the autogynephiliac M2Fs are not real woman, but “Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies”.

Central in autogynephilia theory was seeing the connection between the sexual desire and subsequent emotional desire to become women, especially in AGPs who have a preference for anatomic fantasy themes (”Antatomic autogynephilia predicts gender dysphoria”)

What is “Crossdreaming”?

In Molay’s creation of “crossdreaming”, he states he wanted a term that was distant from the toxicity of autogynephilia, a “softer” term. That the term includes the word “dreaming”, already discloses the desire to obfuscate what AGP denoted, blurring sexual arousal (by the idea of being a woman) with the longing or even “dysphoria” of “dreaming”. Further stating a desire to broaden the meaning of crossdreaming, effectively to become interchangeable (thus superfluous) in relation to transgenderism. In the end, there will simply be transgenderism. He runs an essay blog, a forum and has recently acquired administrative control over a reddit discussion group. All tellingly where explicit content of the fetish is absent (even the term “fetish” is met with hostility) and crucially where he maintains control over the discourse, generally policing under the guise of “invalidating the identity of trans people”. One is free to reduce the fetishism (and fetishists) to transgenderism, but not the opposite (propose that sexuality can be a source of conditioning, productive of profound emotional attachments).

Where autogynephilia reduced transpeople to fetishism, Jack Molay dreams of reducing the fetish to transgenderism. Or rather, from liberating trans people from autogynephilia, to subjecting fetishists to transgenderism.

“I have found that there is a lot of repression going on. Many crossdreamers fear the idea of being transsexual so much that they are willing to construct the most outlandish theories to avoid that conclusion. This is why some crossdreamers seem to move from one end of the scale to the other throughout their lives. In short: Their defenses crumble.” - Jack Molay 05/03/2013

Suppression and control of community discourse.

Whilst when push comes to shove, Molay hypocritically denies the accusation that non gender-dysphoric fetishists invalidate the identities of transpeople, for simply arguing how they can be anything other than repressed transsexuals. He then alludes to a supposed shared common cause to the “crossdreaming” (fetishism) for both dysphoric & non-dysphoric individuals. This will be around the point where he shuts down discussion, by way of either exiting from the discussion or by banning. Things by this point for him, are getting too close for comfort.

“All they are going to learn (now) is that there are "fetish” crossdreamers OR “dysphoric” crossdreamers so that if one develops some measure of dysphoria, their fetish is no longer a fetish but is now magically the suppressed sexuality of the “inner woman” LOL! Hint to self hating fetishists: Gin up some dysphoria and you won’t have to be one of those awful fetishistic perverts anymore.” - Malusmalus on the hypocrisy in crossdream spaces.