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.

DuMondeB Quote by Martha Stout, from her book on sociopaths: (Not that I'm saying any given individual is a sociopath mind...)

"The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy...I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity...good people will let pathetic indivdiduals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity."

"I think it’s very easy if you haven’t been a Sam volunteer to suggest things like blowing whistles down phones at callers, sex segregating callers etc - that would be totally against the ethos of what Sams does. No judgement, 100% confidential, whomever you are, whatever you’ve done, whatever you’ve been through, if you’re in distress Sams are there for you." (my bolding)

That all sounds very laudable, but also very short-sighted. It is, frankly, an invitation to those who would abuse Samaritans, and to abuse with 100% confidentiality and no consequences. Do you see the problem? The problem is with your ethos. 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? Because I would suggest that those who made that decision - were wrong. And once the abusive calls started (probably on Day One) they should have re-assessed, not told the volunteers to just get on with it ("support" would not have been around at the start, would it?).

I would also suggest that the effect of this ethos is negative. All the pervert callers, do you not see that being able to make these calls with "No judgement, 100% confidential" [ity] - emboldens them? Strengthens their desire to push boundaries. And leads to escalation? I'm sure we've all read of how access to porn leads to desensitisation and escalating use of more and more extreme porn. Have those in charge of The Samaritans never considered that?

And ethos is not some sort of virtue, it just means 'the distinctive character, spirit and attitudes of a people, group or culture', according to my dictionary. It does not make you 'right'. When the problem [perverts] started, how to deal with it should have informed procedural changes.

I'm very disappointed in the Samaritans for allowing this to continue.

What a depressing read, but not surprising sadly. I owned and ran a beauty salon many years ago and we regularly received calls from male perverts. This thread should be sent to every member of parliament to make them aware of just how many men are hell bent on abusing women and coercing us into unwanted sexual contact, and hopefully they will stop and think about the whole TWAW and self-ID fiasco.

yet we're called bigots just for talking about it - for being aware of the blindingly obvious fact that pervy men will take advantage.

We're called bigots for even suggesting men like this exist at all. (Despite all the evidence.)

Never mind suggesting that men like this will take advantage of any opened door to access women and girls more easily and openly. Especially if those women and girls don't like it and are unwilling but powerless. (You're beautiful when you're angry darling. TWM wanking in women's changing rooms and leaving semen on the floor and on underwear placed back on the shop floor, and posting gleefully about women walking in and touching and wearing things with his semen on.)

Suggesting that some men (avoiding negative generalisations) who behave like this may even identify as, or genuinely come under the trans umbrella - is practically a deletable offence.

Women are not allowed to say no.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

Premature ejaculators only once the new charges kicked in.

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?!

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

Hiding in plain sight?

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.

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...

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.

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.

Get HIM off that should say