Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve
Browse All Past CMRL Messages
Welcome to the archive of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages (11,000+). The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - June 10, 2024 and is updated every two months.
Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message.
Message ID: 11378
Date: 2024-05-24
Author:Greene, Brandon
Subject:Re: Research on fallacy of "good touch"
Melissa, The characterization of touch as being "good" or "bad" may indeed be problematic. But to make matters worse good/bad touch training paradigms typically create conditions that are unrealistic for a child to respond to sexual exploitation however it is characterized or labeled. For example, training may involve the manipulation of dolls in a scenario where they come into contact in various ways, some exploitative and some not. The scenario is then paused for the trainer/therapist to ask, "good touch or bad touch?", which hardly captures the realism of an exploitative encounter. That is, I'm guessing an abuser wouldn't pause to ask such a question. We have a chapter (Awareness and Response Training (ART) for Young Children Vulnerable to Sexual Exploitation) on the development of an alternative training paradigm and the challenges of identifying a safe for a child to turn to when other adults in the home may be complicit or in denial. It's in Behavior Analysis Metrica & Applications for the Preservation & Reunification of Families (www.shenvalpress.com ).
Brandon F. Greene, Ph.D.
•Associate Professor & Coordinator-Retired
Shenandoah University
•Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University
EMail: bgreene@su.edu
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 9:52 AM Randi Crabtree > wrote:
Good afternoon,
I am intrigued and love the idea. I don't have any literature off hand to offer, but wanted to suggest looking into Trust Based Relational Intervention (TBRI) literature. I use it in my practice with sexual abuse survivors and it focuses in on "safe" touch versus "good" touch.
Rand Crabtree, PhD, LPC
Crabtree Counseling PLLC
On Wed, May 22, 2024, 1:37 PM Melissa Bright > wrote:
Hi All - I am working on a piece and need to provide evidence for why it is important to move away from phrases like “good” and “bad” touch (because abuse may feel physically good) for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Anyone have an empirical citation for this?
Melissa Bright, PhD
Founder and Executive Director
Center for Violence Prevention Research
scienceofviolence.org | stay connected | support our work
Melissa, The characterization of touch as being "good" or "bad" may indeed be problematic. But to make matters worse good/bad touch training paradigms typically create conditions that are unrealistic for a child to respond to sexual exploitation however it is characterized or labeled. For example, training may involve the manipulation of dolls in a scenario where they come into contact in various ways, some exploitative and some not. The scenario is then paused for the trainer/therapist to ask, "good touch or bad touch?", which hardly captures the realism of an exploitative encounter. That is, I'm guessing an abuser wouldn't pause to ask such a question. We have a chapter (Awareness and Response Training (ART) for Young Children Vulnerable to Sexual Exploitation) on the development of an alternative training paradigm and the challenges of identifying a safe for a child to turn to when other adults in the home may be complicit or in denial. It's in Behavior Analysis Metrica & Applications for the Preservation & Reunification of Families (www.shenvalpress.com ).
Brandon F. Greene, Ph.D.
•Associate Professor & Coordinator-Retired
Shenandoah University
•Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University
EMail: bgreenesu.edu
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 9:52 AM Randi Crabtree > wrote:
Good afternoon,
I am intrigued and love the idea. I don't have any literature off hand to offer, but wanted to suggest looking into Trust Based Relational Intervention (TBRI) literature. I use it in my practice with sexual abuse survivors and it focuses in on "safe" touch versus "good" touch.
Rand Crabtree, PhD, LPC
Crabtree Counseling PLLC
On Wed, May 22, 2024, 1:37 PM Melissa Bright > wrote:
Hi All - I am working on a piece and need to provide evidence for why it is important to move away from phrases like “good” and “bad” touch (because abuse may feel physically good) for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Anyone have an empirical citation for this?
Melissa Bright, PhD
Founder and Executive Director
Center for Violence Prevention Research
scienceofviolence.org | stay connected | support our work
Author:Greene, Brandon
Subject:Re: Research on fallacy of "good touch"
Melissa, The characterization of touch as being "good" or "bad" may indeed be problematic. But to make matters worse good/bad touch training paradigms typically create conditions that are unrealistic for a child to respond to sexual exploitation however it is characterized or labeled. For example, training may involve the manipulation of dolls in a scenario where they come into contact in various ways, some exploitative and some not. The scenario is then paused for the trainer/therapist to ask, "good touch or bad touch?", which hardly captures the realism of an exploitative encounter. That is, I'm guessing an abuser wouldn't pause to ask such a question. We have a chapter (Awareness and Response Training (ART) for Young Children Vulnerable to Sexual Exploitation) on the development of an alternative training paradigm and the challenges of identifying a safe for a child to turn to when other adults in the home may be complicit or in denial. It's in Behavior Analysis Metrica & Applications for the Preservation & Reunification of Families (www.shenvalpress.com
Melissa, The characterization of touch as being "good" or "bad" may indeed be problematic. But to make matters worse good/bad touch training paradigms typically create conditions that are unrealistic for a child to respond to sexual exploitation however it is characterized or labeled. For example, training may involve the manipulation of dolls in a scenario where they come into contact in various ways, some exploitative and some not. The scenario is then paused for the trainer/therapist to ask, "good touch or bad touch?", which hardly captures the realism of an exploitative encounter. That is, I'm guessing an abuser wouldn't pause to ask such a question. We have a chapter (Awareness and Response Training (ART) for Young Children Vulnerable to Sexual Exploitation) on the development of an alternative training paradigm and the challenges of identifying a safe for a child to turn to when other adults in the home may be complicit or in denial. It's in Behavior Analysis Metrica & Applications for the Preservation & Reunification of Families (www.shenvalpress.com
/
