Graham Platner’s cavalier approach to confronting home intruders is frowned upon in academic circles
I have been a certified home security expert for more than two decades. My experience spans the full spectrum of the industry. I’ve instructed homeowners in the art of deterring and subduing so-called intruders. I’ve also advised the historically marginalized community of uninvited short-term residents on how to neutralize these strategies. For a variety of reasons—live-action security audits, adult recreation activities, insurance fraud, and others—I am often hired to break into people’s homes.
Let’s just say I know what the f— I’m talking about.
I rarely read the failing New York Times, but several clients sent me an article about Graham Platner, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Maine, and his nontraditional approach to confronting a home invader. According a former girlfriend, Mr. Platner often said, “If anybody ever broke in here, I would rape them … [but] not in a gay way.” He would rape them to show that he’s “dominant” and so forth. Yada yada.
Under the industry’s generally accepted framework for intruder mitigation, Mr. Platner’s theory presents several challenges. His views are clearly rooted in the tradition of the “warrior ethos,” a concept that is frequently invoked by neurodivergent scumbags who have no idea what it means. To give an example, an idiot who gets a Nazi symbol tattoo on his chest may fancy himself a “warrior,” though he is merely advertising his idiocy.
While rape is rarely taught as a tactic for successful home defense, professional home invaders are more than likely to have encountered literature on how to exploit the “rapist mindset” of the home defender. This is because idiots—ideal targets for burglary—are just as likely to be packing heat as the general population. To mitigate the idiot’s proximity to firearms or other weapons, educators such as myself may recommend what is known in the industry as the “Budva Bluff,” or, in academic parlance, the Montenegro Option.
This is precisely the method I would suggest if Platner were the mark. It requires at least two people and tends to involve an abnormally high-stakes game of Rock Paper Scissors (or similar) to dole out assignments. Individual A, a.k.a. the “Decoy,” “Bottom,” or “Cannon Fodder,” enters the residence first to commence the break-in. For the plan to work, the Decoy must initiate—and lose—a physical confrontation with the home defender.
One thing leads to another, and the Decoy has successfully distracted the target—setting the stage for Phase 2. (Forgive the academic jargon. I’m an expert, not a writer.) Individual B and other members of the team (if applicable) will break into the house a second time and happen upon a scene that some may find unsettling.
Herein lies the genius of the Budva Bluff. I often urge my clients to have a little fun by dressing up as police officers or federal agents and barging in with guns drawn. They always enjoy the look on the home defender’s face when they are arresting him for “rape in a gay way” before walking out the door with all his stuff. Even the Decoy tends to get a kick out of it, though he tends to have a lot less fun on account of his role.
Here’s the bottom line (no pun intended): If you ever find yourself following through on a long-nurtured plan to show “dominance” by raping the burglar who broke into your house, odds are your plan has already been foiled. Because if the fornication is (more or less) consensual, it isn’t rape. And if it isn’t rape, you aren’t dominating anyone.
You’re just gay.
Read the full article here
