• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

Torture Vs Abuse

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll get on this soapbox for a second.
I think part of the problem is that people use torture as a metaphor, as a way to describe how abuse feels. The same way that people use being a prisoner as a metaphor. It was pure torture. I was a prisoner in my own home. Etc.
Amen. Many things can be torturous - as in, the dictionary definition of 'torture'. But by that account, it's torture when the kids at school call you a f*cking failure day in and day out. Or it's torture when my trainer makes me do 10 more reps. No. Not torture.
I know there's the old U.N. definition, but it is highly vague and could almost be applied to any situation where someone in a position of power is causing pain.
Actually, it's very specific. And I used to think going to it was a mistake, because it feels so big, compared to what I know I went through. Check it out, though: (I've added bolding for emphasis)

According to the UN definition, the key elements are:
  • Severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted (physical or mental)
  • Inflicted to either obtain information, punish, or intimidate and/or coerce
  • Inflicted or instigated by "a public official or other person acting in an official capacity"
And it does not include pain or suffering inherent to or caused by lawful sanctions.
Severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted - I'm going to argue that there are cases where abuse is perpetrated - and it is wrong, horrible, and in no ways lesser - but it is not inflicted for the express purpose of pain. A child might go unfed, for days - not specifically so that the child will suffer, but because the child has been forgotten about. That is abuse. A child might go unfed, for days, with the express intent to cause severe pain or suffering to the child - that is an element of torture.

If the child goes unfed because the parent wants them to experience severe pain as a punishment for sneaking food out of the pantry, that hits the second criteria of torture as well. If the child is unfed because the parent just wants them to suffer horribly, but there is no intention other than sadistic reward - I would argue that it's not an element of torture. In many ways, it's worse - this is where @FridayJones also has it right, in that abuse is not a lesser word for suffering. It's it's own word.

Person acting in official capacity has already been covered - in the example, above, it's a parent. If they are acting as the parent, they are inhabiting their official role. This last one is where I feel like it's most difficult to draw distinction - because, as you said, @Air - isn't a person acting in an official capacity anyone in a position of power? Yes, but there's a subtlety to status and assigned roles. If a spouse decides to write the word 'stupid' on their partner's forehead, because they believe it's their right to control their self-image - that is, I would say, an act of torture. If a teacher does it to a student, it's undeniably an act of torture, according to the UN - assuming that in both cases, the mental humiliation was severe. Now, if the person who endured this actually didn't experience mental anguish - if it was embarrassing, but not painful - no torture. Abuse, in either case.

Torture is a very specific kind of abuse. That it gets used as a catch-all phrase for any & all things that suck? Drives me a little up the wall.
Me too.

Yea it is but to define it as a specific line drawn between the two I think is hard as I see them overlapping where abuse becomes torture and like I said, could be defined either way depending on how you look at it.
I disagree - I think that it's pretty separable, especially when you incorporate the intent, the rationale, and the status of the perpetrator.

The problem as I see it, is that people don't think 'abuse' is a big enough word for some experiences. But - that's why it often needs a modifier: verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, pervasive abuse.

I also believe something can be abusive without it leaving the deeper emotional/physical marks that are left by capital-a-Abuse. My ex was really f*cking mean to me sometimes. I'd say his behavior was occasionally abusive. But I don't carry it around as abuse. Now, I could be off about that - my personal barometer is definitely skewed. But I also believe it's OK for something to just have been really f*cking wrong - and have it carry weight as being wrong - without it being abuse.

Abuse leaves marks - mental, physical marks. Which is also how things that might seem not-really-abusive can become abuse, if they are repeated over and over in time, til they leave a groove.

And, end of soapbox.
 
I have to agree that the UN definition seems pretty good. But I'm not so sure about the last part.

"a public official or other person acting in an official capacity"

To me, "official capacity" means that the perpetrator has some role that's prescribed and recognized in some official, acceptable way. That seems to suggest that some random, evil person can't torture someone else just for the "fun" of it. I don't imagine that happens often, but I imagine that it happens. And I think it should still "count" as torture.

Good speech @joeylittle !
 
@scout86 - the UN definition hiccups a bit when applies to csa. The UN definition is contextual - it's for UN purposes. Psychopathic sadists, I believe, probably fall within the torture category depending on the deliberacy and purpose of the act, but individual one on one cases are less the concern of the UN...perhaps?
 
I think there is a split line between torture and abuse. I'm not talking about dictionary definitions, I'm just talking about what I personally think.

I think it shouldn't be classified as torture if you are able to escape the situation. Like a woman repeatedly coming home to her husband who beats her. She could divorce him, get a restraining order, etc. unless he's threatening her in a life-threatening way, like blackmailing to kill her or her family or whatever. It would be classified as torture if a parent repeatedly beat/starved their child, since they child is defenseless, cannot emancipate themselves (presumably), depend on the parent for food, water, and other supplies, etc. and don't have the mental ability to report it for themselves. I think there also has to be severe physical pain or emotional pain. I'm not talking about emotional pain like name calling or degrading language, I'm talking about seriously blackmailing something important to them, or threatening to hurt someone they love.

I think sexual abuse in any form that happens many times is torture (when they can't escape it), starving a child, and repeatedly beating on a child are all torture. I don't think spousal violence, school bullying (since there is staff available close by), cyber bullying, emotional abuse is torture, since you can escape it.
 
Ideology is always personal, in some ways. Politics is often ideology.
Ideology would be in terms of religious or similar beliefs. Political I am thinking more of prisoner of wars or people deemed political enemies like spies or insurgents that are fighting against the government.
 
For anyone who is interested

http://www.irct.org
https://dignityinstitute.dk. & English portal https://dignityinstitute.org/who-we-are/
http://www.cvt.org
https://www.hrw.org/topic/torture
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CAT/Pages/CATIntro.aspx


3.3.2 http://www.essex.ac.uk/Torturehandbook/handbook(english).pdf
The basic definition of torture is that contained in the UN Convention Against Torture (1984). According to Article 1(1), the term means :

“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”


From this definition, it is possible to extract three essential elements which constitute torture:
  • The infliction of severe mental or physical pain or suffering

  • By or with the consent or acquiescence of the state authorities

  • For a specific purpose, such as gaining information, punishment or intimidation

    Torture is an emotive word, but one which should not be used lightly. As you can see from the above definition, torture is characterised and distinguished from other forms of ill-treatment by the severe degree of suffering involved. It is therefore important to reserve the term for the most objectively serious forms of ill-treatment.

    Cruel treatment, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are also legal terms which refer to ill-treatment causing varying degrees of suffering less severe than in the case of torture. Forms of ill- treatment other than torture do not have to be inflicted for a specific purpose, but there does have to be an intent to expose individuals to the conditions which amount to or result in the ill-treatment.

I disagree slightly with the Handbooks narrowing definition of 'state' authority, and prefer the UN 'official capacity'. It doesn't matter whether it's a rebel group, child sex traffickers, private or state military, K&R, etc.,...aka legal or criminal organization, as long as they posses the capacity to detain people against their will, by authority granted or taken.
 
Last edited:
not for sadistic pleasure but for an external purpose?
Correct. I believe, very much - and it echoes my own experience (but that's all I can speak from) is that when you break a torture situation down to its component parts - each act of torture, has very little to do with gratifying the person who is doing it, in a pleasure sense. They might overall enjoy the power, I wouldn't know.

Forgive me, for a spend a great deal of time thinking about this:

I was sadistically abused. There was nothing behind caning me except for one sick-minded fat motherf*cker who had a major hard-on about striking me over and over again enough to make me bleed. When he shoved my own shit in my mouth, he was getting off on it - enjoyed the violence, the humiliation, the pain, the suffering. But it was all about him, he enjoyed it, I was an object. (We can add that I was strung up with a spacer bar between my legs, on tiptoe, and the majority of my body weight was balanced on a thin rope running between my legs.) I would not call that torture.

I was tortured. I had to pick up one of a bunch of knocked over objects will my teeth, off the floor, while leashed, and offer it to my keeper so he could decide which of my holes he wanted to put it in. Now, this was after I'd been raped multiple times. I wasn't afraid of that, exactly. I was afraid of why he told me he was doing it. He wanted me to know it was up to him, how deep it would go. He had all the control. I had none. And it pointed towards the rules I was to follow. Now, did he enjoy doing it? Maybe. Honestly, though - when I look back on the mental experience of just, say, those two things - they are very different. The mental scars are different. It's not as hard for me to talk about the first episode. It didn't get inside my head the same way.
That seems to suggest that some random, evil person can't torture someone else just for the "fun" of it.
I know what you mean. I think my argument would be, the fun they get out of it is entirely dependent on their own perception of power/status. So, if a psychopath wants to kill a small animal for the fun of it - aren't they enjoying it specifically because they are occupying the role of 'god' or 'captor' or 'keeper'? Curiosity has always been the hallmark of emergent psychopathic behavior. They torture animals and burn down buildings because they 'want to see what happens' - that's a very common hallmark of a psychopath. A sadist, I think they specifically derive pleasure from pain, but I don't believe that pain necessarily is torture.

It's a little 'chicken and egg', argument-wise, I know.

And maybe what happened to me wasn't torture. I also am aware that I have a big bias in the argument. I know that I couldn't escape, and the constant question was first, whether or not he'd let me go, and then, whether or not he'd let me die, and then, whether or not he'd keep me.

By or with the consent or acquiescence of the state authorities
- just adding on, from @FridayJones's excellent post - I'm back to doubting I was truly tortured. But reading this clause connects, for me, to actually phoning home (under orders) and explaining that I'd be away at my friend's for the rest of break. I know in my mind this meant that no-one was looking for me, and that he really did have as much power as he said he did. But it's definitely no-where the same as state sanction, not at all.

OK. Cruel and inhumane, degrading treatment. I feel like the wheel on wheel of fortune - spinning and re-calibrating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top