What this says is that something was really at stake. What's interesting is that this doesn't become apparent until the DM is narrating against the PC, either outright or after a roll. It's obvious to you that narrating humiliation without a roll is bad (I agree), but I'm not as clear why sudden humiliation is okay because you rolled dice? Is a bad rol enough justification to enact humiliation is a situation that was no stakes before the roll?
Also, it appears that stakes are being introduced after the die roll rather than as a preface to the roll. The player has no way to tell that the roll may end up with humiliation because the roll acts as a gate for the DM to narrate consequences however the DM wants, with no previous understanding of the stakes involved.
If you count a super atomic nova wedgie that has absolutely no long or short term ramifications other than a story to tell ... well then anything a PC does could be considered as having ramifications.
It's also true I didn't tell the player exactly what would happen. If their PC doesn't know, they don't know. I don't see why that would be an issue instead of simply being a different style.
You know what? Don't want to play this way? Don't. I've gotten a lot of praise for my DMing style and the games I've run over the years, I'm just relaying what works for me to people that might be interested.