Stories of Tie Up Games

Question: Why do captors bind victims back to back?
Is it an effective way to immobilise two people?
Is it to humiliate the victims somehow?

I'd imagine it would be a very effective way to immobilise 2 captives particularly if there are no static objects to tie them to separately. It would be pretty tough for 2 people to move as 1 if they're so tightly secured back to back.
If they're seated on the floor then it would be very tough trying to both stand up.

Also I reckon it makes communication a lot more difficult. Head nods and gestures wont be seen so you're both reduced to communicating through gagged noises.

It depends. Captives can be tied back to back with one's right hand tied to the other's left on each side, in which case, escape might be difficult. But if the captives are tied back to back, with their hands first crossed, then tied behind them before being tied back to back, then escape might be a little easier.

Drawscore

Also, when it comes to movies and stage play; getting both captives in the same position with their captor in a dominant position in the same frame is very nice. Makes the audiences spatial awareness easier and doesn't force the director to have only 1 character on screen most of the time.
Since it's a tense moment, we don't want any of the main characters leaving our sight

WillHBonney wrote: ↑1 year ago I'd imagine it would be a very effective way to immobilise 2 captives particularly if there are no static objects to tie them to separately. It would be pretty tough for 2 people to move as 1 if they're so tightly secured back to back.
If they're seated on the floor then it would be very tough trying to both stand up.

Also I reckon it makes communication a lot more difficult. Head nods and gestures wont be seen so you're both reduced to communicating through gagged noises.

This is why I love CID/back2back escape scenes. The two bound folks have to work together to get loose, but can only communicate with grunts through their gagged mouths.

I think the reason I say maybe its a way to humiliate victims (especially in a CID sense) is that you are rubbing it in to the hero. Not only have you failed to protect your partner but you are going to bound and gagged along with your partner and totally helpless along with them. For the victim, the helplessness is increased as the saviour is in the same predicament as her. Furthermore binding the victim and failed hero together reinforces the hero's failure to protect and further reinforces the victims sense of total and utter helplessness. The hero is totally humiliated as he is forced together with his failed protectee.

At least thats how I like to look at the situation!!