Some of that stuff I might call sadistic or at the very least, brain f*cky,
It definitely does sound like a form of sadism. There used to be a disorder in the DSM III that was taken out, that I have always thought would be a good stop-gap between ASPD and something like psychopathy, which was known as Sadistic Personality Disorder. It's no longer diagnostic - these people would instead be diagnosed with one of the current cluster B personality disorders - but I've always found it to be an accurate depiction of the psychopathology behind certain abusive individuals. In my experience, it is quite unusual for human beings to genuinely enjoy knowingly causing pain to other people, so it's notable when it occurs.
The diagnostic criteria:
- Has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him/her).
- Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others.
- Has treated or disciplined someone under his/her control unusually harshly.
- Is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals).
- Has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to achieve some other goal).
- Gets other people to do what he/she wants by frightening them (through intimidation or even terror).
- Restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has a close relationship, e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions.
- Is fascinated by violence, weapons, injury, or torture.
The other related, but non-included disorder is called Sexual Sadistic Disorder. I've known about a few people who qualify for this diagnosis, and at the time it was considered to be a form of neurodivergence similar to psychopathy. That is, those with SSD are just "wired differently," and this had impacts on whether or not they could be rehabilitated, with the consensus being it's unlikely.
- the person repeatedly and intentionally inflicted suffering on a nonconsenting person, to experience sexual excitement
- repeatedly or exclusively preferred simulated or mild suffering with a consenting sexual partner
- employs extensive, permanent, or potentially fatal suffering to achieve sexual excitement, regardless of the consent of the other person.
These are no longer considered in the DSM V, but I've often found them useful indicators to describe certain types of abusers. Many of my abusers were pedophiles who had specific paraphilias, but only a few of my clients (that I can recall)
actually enjoyed causing me harm. They did harm me, and they did enjoy it. But to them, what they were doing was not harmful, or it was harmful
but at least they weren't XYZ. "I may be a pedophile, but at least I don't rape people. I'd never do that, that's sick and those guys are monsters." Or, "I just watch child pornography. I'd never offend. Those guys are evil."
They justified it, they believed it was OK, they blamed me for seducing them, or they were non-pedophiles participating in an event in order to maintain a sense of mutually assured destruction (these would be filmed so that if the person ever went to the police, we had evidence that they were pedophiles). The same went for the people who trained me. There were only a few who genuinely gained pleasure from hurting me, and these are the events and people that cause me the most cognitive difficulty.
But I did have quite a number of instructors who were more or less Machiavellian, viewing the process of training me as a means to an end. Often they justified it by saying things like it was "for my own good, they were training me to be stronger, they were teaching me important skills" (which is not exactly incorrect) or punishing me due to misbehavior (thus, I deserved it/it was my fault) etc. Of course, none of this is true - but it also shows that in their own mind, the actions they were conducting were excusable (and ergo, "worth" the amount of harm they caused), a necessary evil, or my fault (meaning, they weren't responsible for their harmful behavior).
The people like K and M stick out because they were so incredibly violent and sadistic. They purposefully enjoyed physically hurting me, and causing me the maximum amount of distress and suffering. It also should be noted, however, that whenever I encountered
groups of people, those groups were
always more violent and more sadistic - there is a
study that helps to explain this behavior.
It is related to groupthink, group mentality, and in-group/out-group bias. These psychological vulnerabilities may help to explain why we so often hear about groups of people committing the worst acts of war. (I am actually witnessing this in real-time, in my own friend groups, as both parties rapidly dehumanize one another and justify the killing of innocent members of their opposite "group" - these are normal, ordinary, non-pathological people. It is simply human nature.) Drug use was also a precipitating factor - the more drugs that were involved, the more violent and sadistic the behavior tended to be.
I cannot answer whether your experiences rise to the level of torture, but I
can tell you that physical pain is not required for an event to be considered torture. Once I had someone go through the entire process of preparing to murder me (even restraining me on top of one of those plastic mattress covers) and then fired a cap gun at me. I still remember the sound of the gun going off, and that split-second I'll never forget.
The confusion as I waited for pain, for death, and then slowly realizing (it must have been about 5 seconds or so) it sounded absolutely nothing like a gun. It was just a "prank." I've had other experiences like that, sometimes with people using real guns. I once had to dig a pit that was going to be my "grave." This is a form of torture known as mock execution. Mock executions can also occur from pranks such as the one played on Paris Hilton, where she was made to believe that her plane was about to crash.
Anyone who plays a "prank" on someone to convince them they are about to die, is sadistic. No physical harm was conveyed to me, but those are all criterion A events for PTSD. They are incredibly damaging. You do not need to "leave marks" to torture and abuse others, not at all. That prank that was played on me caused me to have permanent triggers associated with those covers. I had enuresis for years and my mom used them. Without fail, every night, I'd wake up on the opposite side of the room.
The reason I mention all of this peripheral stuff is to try and explain how significant it is that your father deliberately caused you to suffer. It is unethical, illegal, and immoral, and is representative of a serious psychological deficit on his part. There is no need to concern yourself with being dramatic - having endured trauma, often causes our memories of said experiences to become fractured, inconsistent and disorganized. All that means, is that you are having an "ordinary response to atrocity," as Judith Herman put it.
I’m going around and around with this sh*t again. 
