Adult sex chat avenue 1
Have visited this website since the mid-2000s and wanted to leave a positive review. I have read alot of the complaints and its all from users who claim they were unjustly kicked out or banned. Supposedly the 'web's largest chat community', and holding the self-proclaimed '#1' before it, Chat-Avenue (Also known as C/A, C-A, or just CA) is a place for anything. Everyone else has it and it'll be the only way to directly talk with the members. If you're not a smart ass at times, nothing will be fun. If someone calls you a n00b, nub or newb, post a picture of Noob Saibot with an oversized question mark.After all, it worked for Darryl Plumridge of Queensland, Australia back in 2007.Just like Ritter, Plumridge engaged in online chat with an undercover police officer posing as a teenage girl, in this case a 13-year-old with the screen name of "Erin Princess Baby." His defense was simple, according to a forthcoming article in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: "He claimed that he knew the person with whom he was communicating was an older male and he was simply role playing." At trial, he testified that the covert police operative inadvertently supplied various content cues as to his true age and gender.The study, "No one Knows you're a Dog on the Internet: Implications for Proactive Police Investigation of Sexual Offenders," has been accepted for publication in "At his trial, he testified that he never for a moment believed he was talking to a minor; he assumed he was chatting with a bored housewife pretending to be 15." In hindsight, his perception was the TRUE REALITY. He was baited by a bored police officer pretending to be 15. Sinking deeper into depression, he fled into chat rooms, where he arranged rendezvous with adult women willing to watch him masturbate.
Picture reps are when you give someone a reputation point, good or bad, and in the comment box, post the url of a nasty, funny, or unrelated picture enclosed in IMG tags. Research shows that the Test forum is the only good one. Thus, the claims of Plumridge and Ritter, that they knew they were chatting with adults but ignored that reality for purposes of fantasy role-playing, appear to have some scientific basis.As law enforcement officers increasingly partake in trolling the internet for sexual predators in their spare time, it is probably only a matter of time before the Bond University study is introduced into court as evidence.Coyle, a Gold Coast practitioner and associate professor of law who testified in the case, decided to conduct a study to test the plausibility of Plumridge's defense. Lincoln and Coyle randomly assigned 46 students as either "deceivers" or "receivers." Each volunteer participant was met off-site and individually led to one of several private study locations, to preclude chance encounters with other participants.
Given the flat nature of internet communication, lacking in physical or tonal cues, can people actually deduce the true age and gender of someone who is pretending to be someone else? Deceivers were instructed to play the role of a 13-year-old girl.
Despite the deceivers' best efforts, the majority of receivers were able to correctly identify the age and gender of the person with whom they were chatting, within a five-year bandwidth.