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.