Cruel and violent treatment.

I'd say sexuality conversion therapy for LGBTPQ+ youth definitely qualifies as cruelty, and, from a certain perspective, violence (particularly if forced).

I still think that the actions, and consequences for the target (whether immediate or eventual or long-term) are quite separate from the nature of the ones taking those actions (where I would put the intention).

I suppose that, from an ignorant's point of view, the act of cutting their arm to remove venom might appear to be cruel or violent at the time. But it's not abuse. However, I think the person's intention (to help) isn't what makes it not abuse; rather, it's situational context.

"You're hurt and I want to help" doesn't apply in the movie scenario. Although the ones hurting her might have, at the time, believed they were helping: we know now that they weren't actually helping at all. That perhaps removes some of the moral responsibility from the individual, but does not erase the cruelty and violence. That why I call it sociogenic.

It's difficult to hold individuals responsible for sociogenic abuse. Yet, most people are taught that they ought to be responsible for their actions.

Ultimately, though: cruelty is still cruelty and violence is still violence, no matter where or how far we trace the source. Positive intentions can complicate an issue, but they don't justify abuse - not in hindsight, at least.

~ RBL