Horror can be horror without the lazy torture porn crap, the most classic horror movies ever never used that cheap tactic to make the viewer feel unsettled, they were far more discreet, clever and affective that way, maybe you don't understand what I mean by torture porn?
"Torture Porn" is a pejorative term coined by some idiot journo to specifically to disparage the Saw movies and their imitators, since then its been expanded in misuse to cover any serious horror movie with scenes of violence and cruelty.
The whole premise is fundamentally wrong as the Saw movies weren't that extreme historically speaking, and bear more than a little resemblance to things like Vincent Price movies of the 70's (Dr Phibes, Theatre of Blood, Madhouse, etc.) where a maniac devised creative deaths for those that had wronged him.
Its just a bad term to use because as I've said this aspect has a long and storied history within the genre, and applying it retroactively would disparage many classics and ignores its roots in the Parisian Theatre Du Grand Guignol. Remember for a long time any graphic horror was kept in check by strangulating censorship, to the extent that stuff that feels pretty quaint today like Hammer's output in the 50's was considered disgusting at the time.
Sorry but if you want to talk what can be fairly described as "Torture Porn" you have to really scratch around on the fringes, I'm talking about unabashedly offensive stuff like Guinea Pig, Red Room, or (shudder) Niku Daruma. Saw movies? Not so much, because if you do that you may as well be throwing classics like Witchfinder General on the fire (pun intended).
