Torture Vs Abuse

[Powder]

Because I was a preschool aged child when I experienced both, my personal definitions are probably quite simple:

I think there is intent involved most of the time. You don't usually torture someone by accident. Usually, this has been an obsession for the sadist for some time.

Another thing. All of my abusers and torturers enjoyed acting within a group. They are social animals, of their own breed. They attract each other.

This is part of what makes this area so dark and scary.

I think film and media make sadists out to be generally lone wolves. They seldom truly are. If they were, it would be in many ways better for the world. Together, they pool resources and protect each other. Bad for the rest of us.

 

[shimmerz]

Not sure I was saying either one was better or worse.... I have had both directed at me. I think, by the just, I was saying that there is a different element to a person who can torture.

All of my abusers and torturers enjoyed acting within a group. They are social animals, of their own breed. They attract each other.

I completely agree with this one. This has been my experience as well.

 

[Ronin]

that there is a different element to a person who can

No, I don't think that.
All this 'a different sort of person', that doesn't work.
In my experience they were just like me. Or, well, not entirely like me, since obvsly different positions and all... but there was no 'fundamental difference' in us.

If there was such a thing, I wouldn't be having a myriad of PTSD issues and a myriad of moral dilemmas I'm having.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

torture isn't worse than abuse. No such thing as Just Abuse.

Torture is abuse but if you are trying to define abuse thats not torture and then torture, you have to define the intenisty of the abuse, though it is still abuse.

Though im not stating one has worse effects than the other as one that was tortured could have less mental effects than someone abused that wasnt torture by defintion so you really cant say the effects of torture is worse but to define torture and abuse thats not torture, the definition states intense pain, intensity is the key with that in my opinion and defining abuse thats not torture and toture is what this thread is asking us to do, i believe.

Its all abuse, so I agree that you cant say "just abuse" as that doesnt exist; torture is still abuse, abuse is abuse...its all abuse.

 

[Sideways]

I guess we have to acknowledge that there are objective criteria and there is an objective spectrum of suffering.

I think there is an objective measure of the acts and intention of the perpetrator(s), but I personally don't see this as necessary implying an objective measure of the victim's suffering. The definition of torture offered by @joeylittle is about what the perpetrator was doing and why. Abuse is similar- I think you can construct a definition based on the level of suffering, but largely, definitions tend to be based on the perpetrator's act. "Severity" can be construed as subjective, but I don't think it needs to be.

I think that's perhaps why I balk a little at these types of analysis - subjectivity from the victim's perspective is often implied into the definition unnecessarily, which makes the discussion far more emotionally loaded than I think it needs to be, and more loaded than I think may be helpful in a lot of cases.

Just thoughts.

 

[Chimera]

Intending domination of another can also be said of pretty much anyone in serial killer territory.
Are al...

Cashew, there was more there, please tell me how the complete thought fits your response...

The intention of torture is of wholly dominating/mastering another using fear and suffering to control and subjugate. (Not textbook, simply my perspective)

This wasn't the defining statement, it was, to me part of a methodology..
Still, I've much to learn.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

but I personally don't see this as necessary implying an objective measure of the victim's suffering.

I dont either. Victims of abuse that isnt torture can suffer more or as much as abuse that is torture. So to imply suffering, I see that the same as trauma comparing and just cant really be done, in my opinion.

 

[shimmerz]

Torture - when an abuse turns into an anticipation in your head - an anticipation that death will occur but hasn't, an anticipation that you will be smashed against the wall again, for no apparent reason - an anticipation that every day you come home you never know what is waiting for you on the other side of the door - anticipation that what is on the other side of that closet door you have been locked in is way worse than staying in the closet forever.

And the abuser is in your head.

 

[Ronin]

please tell me how the complete thought fits your response...

I'm contradicting your point.
Domination isn't something exclusive, nor differentiating, torture from abuse.
Defining it by domination only misleads in many directions.

 

[Weemie]

I think that's perhaps why I balk a little at these types of analysis - subjectivity from the victim's perspective is often implied into the definition unnecessarily, which makes the discussion far more emotionally loaded than I think it needs to be, and more loaded than I think may be helpful in a lot of cases.

Agree. Part of why this discussion tends to get pedantic and ridiculous is because, while many people say they don't use an objective criteria for suffering, the practical application is a little different. Even in this thread, you have people talking about how some members went through way worse than others, and blah blah blah. Either you're invalidating yourself (most of us do it) or you're separating yourself (I know I'm guilty of this one, even though it's not pretty or pleasant to admit).

In the end, is there even a reason why we're trying to determine if what happened to us was torture? What is our reason for having this discussion?

Again. Either torture is defined as who tortures and why, or it's defined as what happened. If it's defined as what happened, then you have a whole other spectrum to play with. Little more hard-line if it's who/why though. There's where your objective criteria starts and ends. Maybe I'm more comfortable with that than I originally thought.

In the end, shit happens. It happens. Humans are shit and they pile their shit on other humans and we all f*cking slog through it.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

In the end, shit happens. It happens. Humans are shit and they pile their shit on other humans and we all f*cking slog through it.

Agreed with your whole post but loved this! So f*cking true!

 

[Weemie]

@Cashew touched on something I deeply struggle with as well.

We like to think that we're separate from Them, somehow. That they represent a spectrum of humanity that is divorced from our own. I met a lot of real people. Real people with real feelings and real thoughts and who were capable of love. Who were capable of affection, and joy. They were twisted up. Trying to find a way to express themselves. Trying to find a way through their damage.

I can be a violent person. I broke a glass sugar bowl over the counter the other day after I felt threatened and I could have hit. I could have gotten violent. Covered in blood and glass and sugar. The only reason I did not was because the situation calmed down but it easily could have happened that it escalated and I could have lashed out in anger and violence.

When situations like that happen I am reminded that there's--you know, there's a lot of reasons why people do what they do. It's easy to get caught up in a situation and not realize the damage you've done until it's too late. Look at f*cking Zimbardo, look at Milgram. I think that's the point, you know? We say things like they're monsters. But they're not. That's the scariest part of all. They're not monsters. They're humans. Just like us.