Roman literature has many references to crucifixion as a ‘supreme punishment’ and a ‘slaves punishment’ (Hengel 1977). However, extended narrative accounts of crucifixion are rare, and specific details on the mechanics of crucifixion are invariably vague or completely missing. This has led to a lively debate on what exactly ancient writers had in mind by ‘crucifixion’ and ‘the cross’ (Samuelsson 2011; Cook 2014). In recent years, it has been suggested that present-day torture reports can offer insight into Roman crucifixion (Menéndez-Antuña 2022). For example, torture reports help to contextualise crucifixion as an instrument of state terror and an opportunity for sexual violence, for example in the stripping and forced nudity of the cross (Reaves et al. 2021, Tombs 2023). This paper explores further ways that torture reports, such as the Human Rights Watch, We Will Teach You a Lesson: Sexual Violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan Security Forces (2013) can illuminate accounts of crucifixion. How sexual violence is reported—and typically under-reported—in present-day torture reports can offer hermeneutical insights for reading ancient sources. Present-day dynamics are examined in terms of ‘reticence’ (reluctance to speak), ‘restraint’ (a tendency to understatement), and ‘indirect referencing’ (the employment of euphemisms and discrete allusions instead of direct statements) in torture reports. These three dynamics invite new ways to think about how crucifixion is presented with caution and abstraction in ancient sources. This shows why care and attention is required to what is explicitly said and to what might be implied—but not directly said—when reading accounts of crucifixion in the New Testament, Josephus, and other ancient writings.