Torture Vs Abuse

[RussH]

Perhaps the use of the words abuse and torture are just semantics.

 

[Ronin]

are just semantics.

So could be said about trying to define any phenomena.
Not helpful all that much, practically, IMHO.

 

[scout86]

@joeylittle IMO that counts as torture, beyond any shadow of any doubt. I hope he's dead and I hope he died hard.

This is probably semantics, and maybe a bit philosophy. Someone like that has power, true. Because they take it. It's not legitimate power. It's not earned, or deserved, or recognized by any legitimate entity. And, I guess, where I differ from the UN's definition (and @Ragdoll Circus makes a good point regarding this) is their definition seems to suggest that a "real" torturer has to have some claim to legitimate power/authority.. Actually, that's it right there. "Power" and "authority" aren't the same thing the way I see it.

 

[Kintsugi]

This is probably not comforting, empowering, or what you want to hear, but when I think of torture, I immediately think of your story, @joeylittle. The sheer sadism, the extent of captivity and control, the nauseatingly intentional and premeditated nature of it all... When I think of the definition of torture, I think of your diary. I am so sorry if it hurts that I say this, because I think you're an extraordinarily strong, beautiful person. But yeah. That's it for me right there. That goes so far past abuse in my eyes.

 

[Friday]

@joeylittle it's the kidnap portion which makes it torture legally as well as practically, if the legalities matter to you. My understanding is that; Once an individual or group enters into kidnapping & forcefully detaining their victims, they become the sole point of authority, an entity into themselves, outside of State law & jurisdiction.

Spoiler: More words

Think of it this way: Abusive parents can be sanctioned, brought up on charges, etc., as they're still operating under the law of their nation. Their children may be taken away, or returned, or no action taken whatsoever... But the parents themselves are still subject to the law of the land. They're in no way acting in an official capacity.

Kidnappers, cults, rebel groups, criminal enterprises, etc. have all rejected the laws of the land, and all operate according to their own rules, under their own laws and leadership. They are each their own highest authority, sovereign to themselves, and acting in official capacity for their organization. They have the "right" to detain you, because they've taken that right by force & are not operating under the law. So while the UN convention might be read as restricted to officially recognized groups only? I've never seen that used in practice. Any individual or group abducting and/or torturing people is treated as having that authority (taken, instead of granted) & acting in an official capacity. Official Bratva business. Official Cartel business. Official JesusLoveSunshineJoy business. Official Insurgent business. Official KiddieSnuffPorn business.

While most abusive parents might like to believe they're the highest authority, when push comes to shove? Most aren't. Nor do most abusive parents cross the threshold for practical application of torture. Horrific, ungodly abuse? Yes. Torture. No.

Individuals always vary, so I'm dead certain there are abusive parents out there who absolutely cross the threshold for torture in all practical / meaningful senses of the word, who haven't aligned themselves at cross purposes from the law of the land / are acting in no official capacity. I absolutely believe exceptions to the rule happen. But as far as following the letter of the rule? The moment you're kidnapped/abducted/held against your will, your captors are now acting in official capacity.

Again, just my understanding and observation.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I think that it's pretty separable, especially when you incorporate the intent, the rationale, and the status of the perpetrator.

I agree with that now. I easily get myself confused, apparently, and so I think I was defining it pretty ok at the beginning but then started to question where abuse becomes torture but @Cashew i think had the best answer the second time where I understood, a line drawn on many swords or many different ways and when abuse starts to become torture, obviously it can be seen both ways as torture is abuse, duh!

I do agree that intent is HUGE when it comes to torture and Abuse (big A). I honestly cant say that one is worse than the other at the moment or moreso, one damages more.

So....not for sadistic pleasure but for an external purpose?

Correct.

each act of torture, has very little to do with gratifying the person who is doing it, in a pleasure sense.

Ok, so for all of this Im super confused. I'll do the same thing and explain why Im confused in a spoiler for anyone intrested to not throw this off course. My confusion lies with the person doing the torturing not getting something, including sadistic pleasure:

Spoiler: My confusion with my own experience

Ok so my step dad was always calm, planned out the "day's events" of rituals, punishments etc. Everything seemed to be very detailed planned out. For those that dont know, my step dad and mom raised me in a cult.

Ok, so each time he got me to do a ritual "correctly", he'd smile so huge, say "that's my girl" and act very satisfied. He seemed to be getting a ton of pleasure even from my pain. The cuts were the same, a smile, dark eyes, "god said to do this..." and "I am god's voice", and he seemed to have a ton of pleasure.

Ok, maybe a psycopath, I dont know but it seems to me that he got a ton of pleasure from what was my very severe pain. The more pain I was in, the happier he seems and the more pleasurable it seemed for him. To me that seems like sadistic pleasure.

Oh, and torture is my therapist's words, not mine but after he said the term, thats how I started to describe it. If it was or not, im unsure.

ETA: I wasnt technically held against my will. Would I have wanted to leave? Every second but I was convinced id get worse. So is that being held captive?

 

[Friday]

So....not for sadistic pleasure but for an external purpose?

Entertainment can be a purpose. So can science, revenge, to instill fear in others / make an example of, instruction (skilled torturers have to learn somewhere), interrogation, sexual gratification, etc.

 

[joeylittle]

My understanding is that; Once an individual or group enters into kidnapping & forcefully detaining their victims, they become the sole point of authority, an entity into themselves, outside of State law & jurisdiction.

Legalities do matter to me, actually - they help my brain understand things. This explanation does a huge thing for me. Hugely, hugely helpful. Thank you. Yes - for a time I was living in the Republic of Basement.

their definition seems to suggest that a "real" torturer has to have some claim to legitimate power/authority.

Yes - it's always been easier to grasp when thinking of an overthrow, a nation in a state of war, or a corrupt leadership. Their power doesn't derive from anything except from taking it. But just that - the taking of power - is what makes despotism, cruel sanctions, all those things - possible. People are so dangerous that way.

 

[Ronin]

I don't think cyber bullying, emotional abuse is torture, since you can escape it.

Not necessarily though.
Stalking, ganging up on a person, identity theft & impersonation in stalking, etc are a thing. None of these is limited to 'just online' acts. A long time of just online acts can also have pretty devastating effects for the victim.

I don't find it particularly healthy to perpetuate the myth of online life as wholly separate from offline parts of it, and the myth of escapability is one that plays into it.

Another 2 cents:

With whole 'ability to escape' in that post and physical situations, it seems emotional & mental state of the victim's greatly ignored.
Just because they could physically escape doesn't mean they could escape, it might have been entirely off the table for the victim / others they are protecting / others they're involved for.

& There's the whole talk of viable options & if viable options are also options in that situation themselves & if they're recced course of action & consequences for those choices.

My biggest problem with this trace of thought is its implicit victim blaming.
If the victim is in X type of environment, or staying there of their own will, then that's making those acts something condonable / something other than they are. Yet it doesn't. The responsibility for leaving isn't on the victim. The responsibility to not be a perp lies on the perp.

((Not even off that soapboax, just out of English phrasing making sense in my head.))

 

[lostforgottensoul]

With whole 'ability to escape' in that post and physical situations, it seems emotional & mental state of the victim's greatly ignored.
Just because they could physically escape doesn't mean they could escape, it might have been entirely off the table for the victim / others they are protecting / others they're involved for.

Ok so my confusion is this, a child could or had many oppurtunities to escape or tell someone but didnt due to conditioned fear that they'd go somewhere worse if taken away. So that doesnt make it not torture just because the child wasnt chained in a basement or something, am I reading that correctly?

 

[Ronin]

Ok so my confusion is this, a child could or had many oppurtunities to escape or tell someone

Honestly I wasn't even thinking of childhood. For the obvious, having difficulty wrapping my head around it to histories.
Mostly how I've meant in the reply was take given example of adults & abuse & overlaps, as in DV and the like.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Mostly how I've meant in the reply was take given example of adults & abuse & overlaps, as in DV and the like.

Oh, ok. Sorry about that.