You seem to have a poor understanding of confidentiality anyway. Your argument for breaching it in bed is that your OH may find it engaging.

No they're not, not unless it's something that could effect you or your partner in some way. If it's something personal to that friend and about their life, it's not at all unreasonable to ask a close friend to keep it to themselves. I would never expect Gav to break a confidence like that with his own friends just to tell me something about their life that doesn't effect me at all, and vice versa. There's not a lot of instances where something like that actually even happens but I really don't see any issue with this at all. The girlfriend bond is sacred too imo

Let’s make sure BOTS doesn’t volunteer for Samaritans or have a catalogue of friends who put their trust in them:

Honestly the Samaritans stuff I tend to agree with them on actually, as long as you're not revealing names I don't think it's wrong to discuss tough cases with your OH, they don't know them anyway (and you probably don't either) but I'd imagine as a volunteer for an organisation like that, you yourself probably need to talk about very difficult cases so you don't end up feeling depressed yourself

The argument and policy is that you talk about it in-branch with other Samaritans and never take individual cases home but Soldier Boy’s argument is that he trusts his wife more than trainee volunteers and that you never really do know what people discuss in the privacy of their bedrooms. There’s no way to monitor that. And to be fair there isn’t.

i don't need smarmy put downs from you, i have a different opinion to you, learn to accept that as a reality and you will find life a lot easier to deal with

I agree with him :laugh: I don't see the harm unless you're giving out identifying information about the person involved

Well, you’re gonna get them anyway.

Team Leaders exist for that very reason. There’s so much in-branch support that you don’t really need to be going home to tell your OH details. That’s an intentional choice and a policy-breach, even without identifying details.

Good job I don't work for Samaritans then :laugh:

…I do understand what Redway is saying in that …(…unlike sharing anything said with a colleague/team leader would be in terms of advice/support etc to help etc…maybe for themselves and that would be what the Samaritans offered to them…for them to talk about things they were finding difficult or just needed to talk about…?…but they may still speak to their partner as well without giving specifics because they’re the person who they place the highest trust in themselves…

There are a few key issues here Redway.

1) You keep demonstrating that while you know a lot about the Samaritans, you don't really demonstrate much understanding of what a very close long term relationship looks like. My impression is that you have no idea what we're talking about, which is fine, and maybe I'm wrong, but you're taking a very authoritarian stance on something that's entirely alien to you if that's the case.

2) You have this bizarre notion that the Samaritans are angels beyond reproach which is flat out false, which is something I'm aware of both personally and professionally, I have had plenty of interaction with Samaritans. Many are absolutely great people but to suggest it's an organisation without flaw is simply untrue and I would reiterate - NOT a particularly safe insistence, as it invalidates anyone who has had a bad experience with Samaritans, and also sets unrealistic expectations of what people can expect when they contact these sorts of support lines.

3) Associated with the above, the idea that anyone and everyone has any desire whatsoever to train for Samaritans :think:. It's again fine that you, personally, love it but using "good thing you're not a Samaritan" as an insult is bizarre.


My final thought really is that this has the potential to be a genuinely interesting and thought provoking discussion, but you're not in it for an open-minded good faith discussion... you seem to have made the thread to confirm your outrage that spouses tend to share more with each other than they would with anyone else, and to get further annoyed and incredulous if anyone disagrees. It's all a bit odd, and not a conversation... I'm not sure anyone is here to get a telling off for chatting with their partner from a ticked-off Samaritan who dogmatically believes that they shouldn't.

…to be fair, I don’t think Redway is incorrect either in that some who volunteer to be Samaritans won’t ever share anything shared with them outside of the organisation and team leader etc…but I just don’t think that it’s one of those things which can be an ‘all’ situation to include all Samaritan volunteers, or in this case that no volunteer would speak to a person of trust in a vague sense…because like most things, it’s down to individuals and how they themselves approach their own stresses etc…

I take absolutely no issue with different people doing things differently or dealing with things differently, or even respectful differences in opinion on correct conduct: we all have our thoughts on things. I'm certainly not saying, for example, that people SHOULD feel compelled to share openly with a partner, or that a relationship is lesser if people aren't doing that. Every relationship is different and operates differently, individuals are different and have different ways of doing things.

I do draw a line at the clear condemnation and pointed judgement though, and I find the piousness about Samaritans to be misplaced - although I appreciate there may be a personal loyalty there.

You never answered my hypothetical situation question :idc:

Not everyone’s a basement-virgin because they disagree with telling their partners details about things to do with other people and them alone. Know that.

….I honestly don’t think anything is coming from any place of piousness either …I think his points and thoughts are just coming from what the Samaritans charity organisation project, I guess… and one of the things they say is…

‘We take your confidentiality very seriously and will only consider speaking to someone else if we are really worried about what you have told us and we feel that you are unable to make decisions.’….

…and a personal confidante not being part of that ‘envelope of trust’ or circle of trust as Robert De Niro would say…and voicing his concern from a genuine place…(…as I see it…)…

I have nothing additional to say in response to that than what's covered in the post quoted. I also said "I might be wrong" but you've given no indication that you're in or have been in a very long term relationship. No one mentioned "basement virgins", I drew a quite clear distinction between what you'd share with a romantic connection or even someone you've known a few years, and what you'd share with someone you've been with for decades. And I only did so because of the framing and dismissing (by yourself) of in-depth discussions with people you share your entire life with, as "gossip with boyfriends and girlfriends"... which if you did know what's actually being talked about here, you would know is way off the mark.

Open up your mind a little and quit with the judgement of people who have different life experiences to your own bubble, maybe? What would the Samaritans say.

Maybe you haven't read through the other much longer thread that this has spun off of, Ammi.

Either way and taking that into consideration, like I said, trying to transpose the written values of the Samaritans onto every aspect of everyone's lives as some sort of gold standard, and retorting with "well thank god you're not a Samaritan!" to anyone with an alternative perspective ... is pious.

A little piety here-and-there isn’t a crime. You could be in another ceaseless debate about immigration with LT.

It isn't but it also leads to a butting of heads rather than a meeting of minds. I think what's bugged me most was that this was an explicit premise of your original thread;

We don’t judge each-other as much on TiBB so it’s okay. Let’s just get into it and lay our discretionary (or lack thereof) cards on the table."

You asked what seemed to be sincerely for a judgement-aside "warts and all" discussion of the topic and I answered in full honesty, believing that it was what was actually on offer.

But, given how the thread went and the reaction to answers that didn't sit well, I don't think you actually meant it, and had it not been suggested in the first post that we open up and give a full honest answer, I might well have answered differently or at least more cautiously.

The result is that it feels like a trap, and you don't get a good conversation when you're lured someone into a corner.

Go have a chamomile tea. You sound like you need one after a long day or two of arguing with me.

Are we seriously going to have members arguing over this?:laugh:

We’ve been at loggerheads for a while.

Yeah, you’re not getting an answer to that.