Samaritans and sex calls

[ahumanfemale]

Not a TAAT but I saw elsewhere multiple mentions of the abundance of sex calls that The Samaritans receives.

I used to volunteer for a similar helpline. It was abroad and for English-speaking people. We too had regular sex callers. All - ALL - would only talk to female volunteers. I thought it was because we were a small-scale charity and it was cheaper to call us than any 0800 equivalent. It wasn't until just now that I realised our helpline wasn't unique in this. And the majority of ours were either wearing women's clothes - or fantasising about it. The underwear of underage teens was also a feature. Some clearly got off on trying to make us uncomfortable. They didn't realise we weren't uncomfortable, just bored.

And honestly, I'm fucking angry. This needs to be publicised. There are LITERALLY men out think their wank is more important than people in severe distress getting help. They LITERALLY put having a wank above someone not committing suicide. There are enough of them that The Samaritans includes their calls in its training, as our training did too.

And people - women - think these men won't go into mixed sex changing rooms and won't get thrills from making women uncomfortable and won't use their conversations to wank to either in situ or later?

The policy at my helpline changed and we were able to put the phone down on them after confirming they weren't in distress (as in they kept wanking and talking out their fantasy or whatever, rather than respond to us). This was done because someone pointed out it was abusive to expect female volunteers to be wank-fodder. I've no idea what their policy is now or what The Samaritans' policy is.

I'm disgusted that this is so common. And fwiw, we never had female sex callers.

Just to add my voice to this, I also had no idea and I'm shocked but also not surprised.

I have to say the anonymity aspect has now become obsolete with the development of telephone technology so it's quite misleading to pretend otherwise. Why not use the development for good and trace these perverts.

The way we are often encouraged to tolerate behaviour has to change.

Not all circumstances can be turned around, Truth

That genuinely surprises me to hear that is the 'position' of the Samaritans. I'd have thought that its Christian foundation would have always held on to the possibility of redemption and healing. It sounds incredibly cold and inhumane, otherwise?

It came across as very blunt indeed, and certainly like its more important to raise obstacles to helping than helping and at that comment.

It also isn't what I was saying, some really can be turned around. I get that a few can't.

I mean life's circumstances can all be changed, potentially.
Psychosis and severe mental disorder can be medically treated.

Samaritans seems to be the place for all the mopping up where other services fail. Its in no way a mental health resource, but is used as one.

The fact that its bombarded with calls from wankers, and noone actively seeks to bring justice to the wankers is a public outcry. This is a heavily publicly funded organisation and accountable to the people they take money from for their use of it, and their treatment of their female volunteers and acceptance of criminal activity against them.

Yes, Datun I hear you on the silent /grunt calls, appropriate warnings where needed. It sounds fairly common that callers will not speak or feel able to speak, and should be given the time, all the time they need to feel able to open up.

Industry have been hiding behind what technology gives them and lying about it. All take numbers even if you block your outgoing number.

I even received a text recently (using a confidential work phone) where I'd made a sales enquiry to a company and the line was engaged, but I received a text back. The system that handles all calls picks up, even blocked number and initiates text contact. Oddly, it takes all incoming calls, without any opportunity for agreement by the caller that their number will be taken and used!

Many instances of that type for years show that Samaritans are registering all calls and numbers, times dates etc. If a call handler were to report the time of a call, and it being abusive, that could easily be found; pp have confirmed that certain numbers get blocked.

So anonymity is now a lie.

I used to work at directory enquiries (192) and we used to get a lot of them them (talking about 20+ years ago)

I wish the public could see evidence that anything at all has ever been successful at reducing or putting an end to male abuse. In all the years even with new dv and coercive control laws, numbers of wankers remain, and levels of deaths of women and dc from DA.

This shocked me. So people calling a suicide helpline can be told that yes, sometimes suicide is the rational option?

I remember volunteering for the Samaritans years ago and the overnights were the worst. Really, explicit, graphic people calling in. I could usually tell which ones were heading that way but was caught off-guard once and felt so dirty afterwards :/

No. That isn't what I said. Callers are not told anything- the point of Sams is that we don't tell people what to do or give advice, we listen to them.

As a matter of my own personal opinion I do think suicide is sometimes (not often) a rational response to intolerable circumstances. I expressed that view on this thread. I would never, in any circumstances, give a caller my view: that would be entirely against Samaritans' ethos.

Sorry, I was replying to Champagne, titnomatani posted while I was typing.

Thanks for clearing that up SittHakim

Sams do not advise or give their opinions or own ideas, at all. The technique is called ‘active listening’ - asking questions, reacting/empathising, reflecting back what the caller has said, etc. Done well it makes a very natural conversation giving the caller the space to express all their thoughts and feelings, explore their options and come to their own conclusions about what to do next. Sams will signpost to more specific services for advice on various issues if the caller is interested.

Not all circumstances can be turned around, Truth
That genuinely surprises me to hear that is the 'position' of the Samaritans. I'd have thought that its Christian foundation would have always held on to the possibility of redemption and healing. It sounds incredibly cold and inhumane, otherwise?
I felt it was the exact opposite - that is was a warm, compassionate act to be there for someone so they weren’t alone at the end, keeping them company, respecting their wishes. Given that euthanasia is illegal in the UK, I agree with SittHakkim that suicide can be a perfectly rational option in some situations - I experienced several ‘suicide in progress’ calls that were incredibly peaceful, where the caller was making a calm decision in the face of extreme untreatable/terminal physical suffering etc.

It’s not a Christian/religious organisation at all btw.

OP here.

We're going off topic a bit here. How suicidal callers are dealt with isn't really what this thread is about. I'd also add that it's a hugely complex area that deserves discussion, but also acknowledgement that there are many theories about how and when and why to adopt certain positions. That's probably best discussed on a separate thread.

That men want to jerk off at the expense of people in serious pain is something and women volunteers have been dealing with this for years is abhorrent.

I agree that discussing this publicly sails close to the confidentiality wind, however, nobody is giving identifying information. Most is quite general and even then there are remarkably similar trends over different geographical areas and decades is chilling. It should be discussed.

It's actually quite chilling to hear Samaritans volunteers sit there quite calmly while people kill themselves. I'm very surprised to hear that because I'm sure i heard they were able to help the police trace calls if they genuinely felt someone was about to harm themselves or someone else?! Also, it's a criminal offence not to prevent someone committing suicide in the UK so the organisation would be putting its volunteers at risk of prison sentences. I'm a bit sceptical about some of these volunteer stories tbh and yes it's off topic but it's important.

The turead is about wankers committig crimes against women volunteers.

But do start a thread on suicide management it is a very important matter for discussion, separately.

I used to be a Sam and the amount of sex calls made me leave , it was too much in the end

Anyone drawing comparisons with MN. A place full of women, repeatedly drawn in by troll threads.

Happens everywhere, and perpetrators not accountable for their harm.

Yes and there are also a sizeable number of trolls who sit on existing threads, engage in pile ons and do nothing but make women feel shit for daring to have opinions.

Yes and there are also a sizeable number of trolls who sit on existing threads, engage in pile ons and do nothing but make women feel shit for daring to have opinions.

Yes, I've witnessed that today and it has not been pleasant.

It isn’t an offence to fail to prevent a suicide, it’s an offence to assist it.

Jojoanna
Very saddened to hear yet another victim of wankers, as a result of Samaritans failings.

That men want to jerk off at the expense of people in serious pain is something and women volunteers have been dealing with this for years is abhorrent.

Agree 100%.

The question is, how to deal with it? Samaritans are moving in the right direction on this, but have not gone far enough in my view.

Some months ago, a new approach was adopted whereby sex callers would be temporarily banned. However, they have to be flagged something like 25 times before the ban kicks in and then they're only blocked for one month, (also, if they're really determined, they can just call through on another number). I think this is the right approach, as it maintains the ethos of confidentiality which is the basis of Samaritans. However, the threshold for banning is too high and the ban is not nearly long enough.

Pp commented that frequent known numbers get blocked. Doesn't really seem to be having any impact though from other pp comments.

The new approach of blocking persistent sex callers has improved things quite considerably, but the numbers are still significant. The threshold for banning needs to be lower.

May I ask those who have worked for Sams what you think of my suggestion that the service be sex-segregated (as could be justified under the Equality Act given what this thread is revealing) so that women volunteers take calls only from women and men take all calls from men (but also from women if there is capacity). Curious to know if it would help and would be practicable

Personally, I'd love to take more calls from female callers. However, I don't think this suggestion would work, partly because most of the volunteers are women, so male callers might have to wait ages to talk to someone, and also because unscrupulous males would simply claim to be female (they do this a fair amount already!)

banning them, is that all? C'mon Samaritans, this is a crime against women.

Its not for you to take the law into your own hands, thats obstruction. As is the new univrrsiyrules around managing rape reports themselves. They are not qualified to do this, and cannot obstruct legal process, but they do!

Given the police have decided they don't have the time to follow up on men who are known to have accessed child abuse imagery, I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect that they would hunt down some mouth-breather who claims his abnormaly large dick is causing him to feel suicidally depressed (that's a common one).