Sexualized Torture and Sexually Torturous Violence

Whether rape and sexualized violence is inherently perceived as torture is the subject of debate. For feminists such as Copelon (2004) and MacKinnon (2006), rape is in and of itself torture, while for others, such as Green and Ward (2004) and Rodley (2015, cited in Davis, 2017; see also Rodley, 2002), defining rape as torture lies in state participation or culpability. For some of the practitioners interviewed across my research projects who counselled survivors of rape in any capacity, sexualized violence has been variously defined: some as torture because of the levels of pain and humiliation inflicted on survivors, as well as any resultant traumata; some adamant that state involvement is a crucial aspect. This is the case in relation to publicly political realms, such as prisons, but also domestic and interpersonal spheres, and outside of typical conflict or persecutory violence, especially violence by partners or other family members and traffickers (see also Herman, 1992; Peel, 2004; McGregor, 2014). To some degree, this chapter addresses the implications of endemic levels of sexualized violence in conflict which is seldom discussed as ‘torture’ but as tactical rape (Peel, 2004; Fitzpatrick, 2016). Relevant UN Security Council Resolutions are critically explored, and more recent steps taken to define and understand such violence as torture is evaluated (for example, the recent special editions of the Torture journal which focus on sexualized, gender-based and gendered torture [2018]). However, the primary objective of this chapter is to determine what separates these categories of violence, and if or how these are contingent with case study examples of violence when we focus on forms and impacts, rather than motivations and context.