Samaritans and sex calls

Samaritans has historically been a rather closed organisation, and it was founded quite a long time ago now, in the 1950s. The tides of modernity are only just reaching its shores. For example, it was only a year or so ago that Samaritans developed a procedure for safeguarding. It was done reluctantly and in the face of much internal opposition. I believe Private Eye reported on the furore.

Cultural phenomena such as '# Me Too" have had minimal impact as far as I can see. At the branch where I volunteer, a young woman was sexually harassed and subjected to unwanted touching by a long-standing, and hitherto highly respected Samaritan who was supposed to be mentoring her. When she reported it, and produced evidence of what had been going on in the form of incriminating texts and emails, he took a voluntary leave of absence, only to return a few months later as though nothing had happened.

A different young woman was scheduled to work alone with him overnight, and was warned of his past behaviour by another volunteer, who was then contacted by the Directorate and told that unless she stopped talking about what had happened, she would be asked to leave.

I worked for CL about 20 years ago. At that time it was particularly difficult to "trace a call". But we were very much supported and encouraged to end calls that we thought were being made by adults. So much easier when your client base is supposed to be children. If we were at all suspicious we would raise a hand and a supervisor would listen in for a few seconds and give you the nod to terminate the call.

Hang on, let me rephrase that so as to be clear... It's not true that Samaritans demand female volunteers abandon their boundaries, in fact we're encouraging to end sex calls as quickly as possible. But I think there certainly is a failure to recognise the potential and actual harm that these calls cause to volunteers. The problem is typically seen as twofold: 1. They block the lines so suicidal callers cannot get through, and 2. They cause female volunteers to leave, and so the surface becomes further under-resourced.

Hanging up the phone isn’t enough. The criminal violation has already taken place and the woman volunteer has already been harmed.

Yes, exactly. These calls are intrinsically abusive. I have said to colleagues within Samaritans that, if a man acted in such a way in any other setting, I would immediately call the police, so why should my boundaries disappear the moment I assume the role of Samaritan?!

Get HIM off that should say

Well I don’t believe we should have services to society that are non judgemental about certain crimes.

I’m absolutely going to judge a man who threatens to abuse the children in his house if a helpline caller doesn’t get off by listening to descriptions of abuse.

I’m judging and frankly want the call traced, the caller arrested and house raided for evidence. The old trope about ‘well they’d only do worse if we didn’t let them have this’ is tired and old. I’m fed up of excuses for men to abuse with impunity.

I think the women's clothes thing is interesting. I would guess that's about mitigating, minimising the rest of the content of the call, so they can convince themselves they're "a bit womany" and therefore less degrading, disgusting towards actual women and girls.

Shocking but not really surprising. Men will wank over pretty much anything given the chance.

I remember one guy I was chatting to online when online dating who turned out to be furiously wanking when I was telling him a very banal story about a dress malfunction I'd had. It seemed that a woman experiencing even very mild public embarrassment really really turned him on. That contributed to my feelings about men in women's spaces. He also was absolutely nuts about opaque tights. The really thick sensible type. Not frilly sexy things. I learned a lot about male sexuality from that conversation...

Hanging up the phone isn’t enough. The criminal violation has already taken place and the woman volunteer has already been harmed.

Of course the calls aren’t untraceable. Everything will leave an electronic trace. It seems that the samaritans have groomed women into accepting this whilst sending a message to perverted criminal men that their behaviour is condoned and protected.

This needs more light. I wonder if any female journalist would be prepared to cover it.

Fucking A. It just doesn't stop does it?!

Hiding in plain sight?

Chad Varah, a vaunted sex rights activist founded Samaritans. He was also connected to campaigns for the deregulation of pornography, legalisation of prostitution and - of course - had a big interest in children's sex education.

Fucking A. It just doesn't stop does it?!

I have no idea who could imagine getting their rocks off to 192

Premature ejaculators only once the new charges kicked in.

I've had calls from people who claimed they would abuse a child if I didn't stay on the line. I ended and reported those calls. Obviously it doesn't stop them being disgusting. My understanding, though, has been that the calls can't be traced.

Suppose they were telling the truth - and they did abuse a child when you hung up. Anyone threatening to abuse a child deserves to have the call traced.

@theflushedzebra - not sure anyone is arguing for the 'rights' of people who make sexually obscene phone calls. We're trained to end the calls, sometimes hanging up whilst a caller is still talking. If someone calls repeatedly and a pattern is noticed (e.g. someone always has the same story and only wants to tell you the sexual details of it), we would end the call on recognition - "I'm sorry, we can't help you" and hang up. Not a foolproof system, but we wouldn't just continue to listen non-judgementally.

I've had calls from people who claimed they would abuse a child if I didn't stay on the line. I ended and reported those calls. Obviously it doesn't stop them being disgusting. My understanding, though, has been that the calls can't be traced.

Samaritan volunteers were renowned for not talking about the calls they dealt with, which is probably why the public is presumably totally unaware of what's been going on and what they are obliged to put up with. Those in the know just shrugging their shoulders and saying their female volunteers have to suck it up. Sorry, but I don't think that extra training is a good enough excuse; if the first response to phone calls was always a male, they could sort this out very quickly.

I'm genuinely shocked by this thread. My father used the Samaritans when he was suicidal, and I am immensely grateful to the volunteers who helped him. But the idea that he might not have been able to get through because some pervert was tying up the line on an unwanted sex call makes me shudder.

Chad Varah, a vaunted sex rights activist founded Samaritans. He was also connected to campaigns for the deregulation of pornography, legalisation of prostitution and - of course - had a big interest in children's sex education.

And things start to fall into place..... I'm also beginning to see the Samaritans in a different light.

Re: the paedo calls - women have reported threats that they will go and abuse a real child if the woman doesn't stay on the phone. There is NO WAY this should be treated in a "100% confidential/non-judgemental" way. They are threatening a heinous crime against children.

But sounds like society is being taken over by the "sex rights activists" in various forms - and we're being shamed for objecting to this - we mustn't "kink shame" - we must be non-judgemental. Mmmm I don't think so! Agree, it's an absolute threat to women and children.

God, I feel sick.

God this reminds me of when I was growing up in the 80s, everyone knew about the pervy men who would phone you up and heavy-breathe down the phone. You were supposed to blow a whistle at them. Then someone said that was counterproductive because they'd call back and blow a whistle at you. I don't hear about that kind of stuff so much now, maybe because calls are easier to trace.

I’m a Sams volunteer & yes we get our share of sex calls, some overt, some more manipulative. For me they don’t outnumber or outweigh the genuine calls, but everyone has their own experience and some shifts can feel frustrating because of inappropriate calls. Our overall approach is non-judgemental and (mainly) confidential, which enables callers who wouldn’t normally talk about their problems to feel safe. That doesn’t mean we allow a sex caller to stay on the line - we’re trained to end those calls, and are allowed to hang up on the caller. You do get ‘had’ sometimes of course and that’s not a great experience, but we have a strong support framework within the organisation and that can help.

Chad Varah, a vaunted sex rights activist founded Samaritans. He was also connected to campaigns for the deregulation of pornography, legalisation of prostitution and - of course - had a big interest in children's sex education.

Interesting comment.

A review of Varah's autobiography says Instead the reader is entertained with graphic descriptions of a range of sexual issues: lesbianism, transsexualism, masturbation, homosexuality, pornography, child abuse and genital mutilation. There is no introspection but an animated engagement with the people whom Varah succeeds in befriending and supporting through these crises.

jameswoodward.sdnet.co.uk/pdf/Review%2025%20Before%20I%20die%20again.pdf

H'mmmmm…...I'm now looking at the Samaritans operation in a whole new light.

Dear female volunteers….have you been unwitting sex-line workers all these years?

And another thing...! Most of them would talk about wearing women's clothes

My estimate is that around one third of sex callers want to talk about issues to do with cross-dressing, sissification, transgenderism, etc. In light of the number of sex calls we receive overall, that's huge.

Having spoken to many, many autogynophilic men, I am 100% certain that AGP is real, that it's one of the big driving forces behind the trans agenda and it poses a real threat to women and girls.

Who created that ethos, who set it in writing, who decided that "No judgement, 100% confidential" was the best way to achieve the aim of helping others in times of need?

Chad Varah, a vaunted sex rights activist founded Samaritans. He was also connected to campaigns for the deregulation of pornography, legalisation of prostitution and - of course - had a big interest in children's sex education.

I can't tell you how glad I am to see this thread. I'm a Samaritan, and in fact have just returned to my duties after taking several months off following a particularly bad sex call. The issue of sex calls has been on my mind much recently. I had thought about posting something about it here, but was unsure due to confidentiality.

I'll be back tomorrow to read the thread properly and post a full reply.

No, I stand by my statement of sams being responsible for this and culpable in the distress to their employees/volunteers by not putting a stop to it after all these years.

They also falsely claim callers will have anonymity and clearly they won't, calls and numbers are logged, not by the responder by the central system and held.

Thats NOT anonymous or confidential.

Don't trust them anymore! Appalling that this appalling level of violation of women has been ignored and allowed all these years. With volunteers leaving and those remaining having to still face this. The sheer volumes of them are a national horror, and Samaritans are accountable

I would have lost my shit if I'd got paedo calls to Nightline. I got them to the sex line ( a lot of repeats because I sounded really young on the phone) and that is why I jacked it in despite decent money. I had some "depressed" men insist I meet them or they would hurt themselves on both lines. Disappointing.

I used to work for directory enquiries back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and even we used to get weird sex calls... I have no idea who could imagine getting their rocks off to 192