joeylittle
Sponsor
I'll get on this soapbox for a second.
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.
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.
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 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.
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)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.
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.According to the UN definition, the key elements are:
And it does not include pain or suffering inherent to or caused by lawful sanctions.
- 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"
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.
Me too.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.
I disagree - I think that it's pretty separable, especially when you incorporate the intent, the rationale, and the status of the perpetrator.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.
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.