Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Australian gay man pleads guilty to erotic asphyxia murder

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Fraser’s sexuality has no bearing on this case. What does is that he’s either someone who has a very cavalier attitude to other people’s lives, playing very risky sex games even after causing one death that way, or he just gets his jollies from killing people whilst having sex with them.

    He sounds like a truly rotten character.

    1. Will be pedantic and say that Frasers sexuality is difficult not to report given that the homicides occurred during sex between two men. It is a factor of relevance in the investigation and its understandable that the media will report this. It is incumbant on the media not to over-sensationalise the story. I am sure that not all media outlets reporting this case have managed to avoid sensational headlines.

  2. Will also add that breathing games in sex are dangerous and having got it badly wrong once it adds a level of culpability on the second occasion – Fraser should have been aware of the significant risks and either not engaged in them, tempered his actions or had plans in place to deal with them.

    1. friday jones 29 Mar 2011, 4:29am

      Yes breath play is dangerous, a fairly authoritative source on the topic is Jay Wiseman and he is pretty much not a fan of the practice.

  3. Just like sex workers keep and share the names of bad punters its about time that guys like this are named and shamed

    1. I have been involved in sexual circles (not of this type – nor as a sex worker I hasten to add) where there has been sharing of information of guys that it might be wise to avoid

  4. Murder?That would imply intent, and not manslaughter where a sex game had gone wrong…

    1. @Dromio

      First of all he has pleaded guilty to the offence

      Secondly, I dont know the whole details of the offence, but from the fact there is a similar offence prior to this – that may go some way to evidencing that there ought to have been prior knowledge that his actions from the past ought to have made him aware of the potential outcome of this sort of behaviour.

      I don’t know Australian law very well but I suspect murder does require an element of premeditation or intent or both. The fact he has pleaded guilty suggests to me that either he wanted to kill his victim or was so reckless as to the outcome that death was pretty much a certainty.

    2. Fraser had strangled another male sex partner previously in 2005,
      Stranglers In The Night… what were the chances?

      1. But it didnt turn out alright for strangers in the night …

        I remember going to a meeting involving LGBT sex workers when I was in the police and concern being expressed about those interested in breath control and that they could be imprisoned due to their fetish. I remember very well the advice both myself and a health worker gave when asked some very direct questions.

        The health worker recommended being aware of CPR, finding ways to maintain eroticism that did not push the danger exponentially, knowing how to recognise when to stop and exploring other fetishes that were shared …

        My advice was that what happens between consenting adults should be that – but there must also be a sense of perspective and that if actions carried out by an individual resulted in death there would be a coroners investigation and probably a criminal investigation. I explained that each situation would be unique and some may warrant prosecution and some situations may not.

  5. I love a bit of erotic asphyxiation, choke me anytime

      1. You calling yourself sad??????

        1. question marks didnt come up for the last statement – it was meant to be a question

    1. I would love to choke you – just not as part of a sex game.

      1. Such wit is wasted in these comments

  6. David Skinner 29 Mar 2011, 10:57am

    David Mixner, apparently the most powerful man in gay, American politics, and who was wined and dined at No 10 a few years back said,

    “Well first of all I don’t see anything wrong with passionate relationships or short term relationships if it is enriching, and nourishing and exciting for the individuals involved and healthy for both parties. I try not to put parameters around anyone else’s relationship if they are happy. But I think of the things that we have explored and maybe one of the gifts we bring society is that because we have not allowed to be officially sanctioned our relationships – in a number of ways – then we have had to explore alternatives. And I think that in many ways that we are seeing that many in the heterosexual community are copying some of those alternative ways that people can be together, love each other in a healthy wonderful positive sense and the same time meet the needs of a very complex society in which we live in.”

    Peter Tatchell in an article entitled “Beyond Equality says,

    “In many ways, our transcending of heterosexual mores is a positive and immensely liberating experience. Compared with most straights, queers tend to be more sexually adventurous with a wider repertoire of sexual behaviour, less bound by the strictures of traditional morality, and more experimental in terms of relationships. We don’t need a marriage certificate to validate our partnerships”

    And yet in another of the same title he says,

    “Although getting rid of homophobic discrimination is a laudable aim, it doesn’t go far enough. Ending anti-gay bias will not resolve all the problems faced by lesbian and gay people. Some of our difficulties arise not from homophobia, but from the more general eroto-phobic and sex-negative nature of contemporary culture (which also harms heterosexuals). These destructive puritanical attitudes are evident in the censorship of sexual imagery, the inadequacy of sex education lessons, and the criminalisation of sex workers and consensual sadomasochistic relationships.”

    Peter Tatchell does not throw morality completely out the window for as he says repeatedly gay morality can be reduced to three principles: sex between participants (presumably between an infinite number of partners and for any length of time) has to be 1) enjoyable; 2) consensual; and 3) not harmful. But as he says elsewhere who is to say what is harmful and what is not, especially when it comes to violent sado – masochism?

    Clearly the following case of a German homosexual eating his partner must be the top end of the range of gay sexual behaviour.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding

    1. Had your rant?

      Adds nothing to the debate on this issue

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all